Post: #51

Now that the gloves are finally off, they might as well just have a good old fashioned rap battle and bring out into the open whatever is actually on their minds.

Oh wait...

Post: #52

(10-25-2012 08:06 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 05:46 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 05:28 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  People keep voting for chavez because he has them hooked on socialism now. Without there pittance of an allowance they would starve to death because no business owner wants to work there. That is why they keep voting for him, he has them hooked on welfare.

Just like those 50 million americans on food stamps.

Actually, poor people in America don't vote all that much:

Quote:"Poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...ally-dont/

Your right-wing talking points are no good here.

Correct me if I am wrong but your opinion poll from CNN seems to back up my claim. The dirt poor and the slightly poor overwhelmingly voted for Obama. That was 18% of eligible voters. Hmmm and how many is 50 million out of 300 Million ?

So take your liberal bleeding heart to Hugo, I am sure you he will welcome you with open arms and some food stamps.

What about the Dirt poor White whom still vote Republican?

Both sides vote for the Party that cuts their own throats.

Black people pump up the Democrats as they have for 40 years stood behind "Pro choice" which has lead to Blacks being aborted at rates close to 52%, to the point that not Blacks can't even re-populate them selves. The Democrats are literally killing us Black folks while on the flip side the Republicans slash social support support services that help Poor Rural whites just as much as anybody else.

Both sides are foolish. Its all a Illusion of choice.

Post: #53

Speaking of bullshit, whatever happened to “Yes we can”? And why is the quality of government now judged by how many goodies it gives out? If a government provides you with reasonable security and a fair judicial system it has done everything you should except from it. Politicians buy votes and get power by promising crap, confiscating wealth in taxes, and destroying the monetary system. I am becoming disillusioned with democracy. Long live the King of Thailand.

Post: #54

Real Democracy is slow and not much gets done. Look at India where it takes 10 years to pave a road. This is not inefficacy nor incompetence its really that their system is literally bogged down in votes and formalities that accompany full fledged democracies. Everything is contested there and things get drawn out, in and out of voting cycles, dropped, re-opened, etc, etc,. This is why the majority of nations have ditched Big D 'Democracy' and either have a shadow shell of it (process and formal rituals) or a small d-democracy where the systems are still there and used but power is warped and and distorted into certain elements whiten Government like the Executive Branches and such.

We are from a Democracy in the West.

America is pretty much a Plutocracy as if you peel back the layers its really not much else. You have a small group of Plutocrats whom essentially steer and run things. Money is King in America, and Money is power. If you have no money you have no power. So all the people with the money have the power. Its as simple as that.

Post: #55

Quote:Black people pump up the Democrats as they have for 40 years stood behind "Pro choice" which has lead to Blacks being aborted at rates close to 52%, to the point that not Blacks can't even re-populate them selves. The Democrats are literally killing us Black folks.

Democrat's being pro choice means they are killing off blacks?

Seems to me it is those aborting their babies that are to blame, not the government.

On the flip side, what percentage of those aborted babies are likely to be productive members of society, versus part of the litter pumped out by some gutter scank with 6 baby daddies while living on welfare?

The political talk around here just makes me shake my head and laugh.

Post: #56

(10-26-2012 10:46 AM)kosko Wrote:  America is pretty much a Plutocracy as if you peel back the layers its really not much else. You have a small group of Plutocrats whom essentially steer and run things. Money is King in America, and Money is power. If you have no money you have no power. So all the people with the money have the power. Its as simple as that.

Plutocracy depends on government to survive. Once the rich get rich they use government to invent rules to eliminate competition and create artificial monopolies. That is the only way you can create lasting empires of mega wealth. The guys at the top always want to shut everyone else out. The reality is that there is no natural monopoly and under fair conditions without government interference competitors will succeed and wealth will end up being distributed. The plutocrats have mastered the art of controlling and distracting the masses to divert them from what is really going on. Democracy works to their advantage. A wise powerful King who provides nothing more than security and a fair judicial system is the way to go. Plato had it right all along.

Post: #57

In the modern world, I find it damn near impossible to imagine a monopoly without government making it possible. There is so much competition in a globalized world, with free markets and capital, you'd never be able to muster enough strength to keep outside competitors from trying to grab a share of your profits and bringing prices down.

However... plutocrats and oligarchs have always tried to bend government will to their benefit. That's why the role of government should be constricted to defense, the protection of property rights, freedom of assembly and speech. In a truly free market with a strong civil society (enter Christianity) most social needs would be met, and economic efficiency maximized.

Post: #58

(10-26-2012 11:06 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Quote:Black people pump up the Democrats as they have for 40 years stood behind "Pro choice" which has lead to Blacks being aborted at rates close to 52%, to the point that not Blacks can't even re-populate them selves. The Democrats are literally killing us Black folks.

Democrat's being pro choice means they are killing off blacks?

Seems to me it is those aborting their babies that are to blame, not the government.

On the flip side, what percentage of those aborted babies are likely to be productive members of society, versus part of the litter pumped out by some gutter scank with 6 baby daddies while living on welfare?

The political talk around here just makes me shake my head and laugh.

I had a hard time believing that statistic, alas it's true. That's so depressing.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html

Post: #59

edit

Post: #60

Everyone is basically priced out of running for president.

Interesting chart:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...aigns.html

Post: #61

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/calif-...ign-donor/

Very suspect, IMO.

Post: #62

(10-26-2012 11:46 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/calif-...ign-donor/

Very suspect, IMO.

You're welcome to post more information from a better source. I am always interesting in learning.

Post: #63

(10-26-2012 11:06 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Quote:Black people pump up the Democrats as they have for 40 years stood behind "Pro choice" which has lead to Blacks being aborted at rates close to 52%, to the point that not Blacks can't even re-populate them selves. The Democrats are literally killing us Black folks.

Democrat's being pro choice means they are killing off blacks?

Seems to me it is those aborting their babies that are to blame, not the government.

On the flip side, what percentage of those aborted babies are likely to be productive members of society, versus part of the litter pumped out by some gutter skank with 6 baby daddies while living on welfare?

The political talk around here just makes me shake my head and laugh.

Abortions are not cheap. You usually need some 'means' to get them done. Prior to the expansion of Govt programs - the largest increase in the scope of Government during the Great Society years - came the need to make the Moriarty of the Black population dependent on the Govt. Prior to this White people were leading in Abortion and illegitimate Children over Blacks by wide margins. In those days Black people had more stable and full families as it was a cultural thing engrained in historic Black Communities by the Church.

These are not Welfare queens or Hood rats aborting these Children. Lets not get it twisted those folks so far down the hole, regardless of colour/race don't have the means to get those services, or they simply understand that the Gov't will support their children once birthed. They know the game.

I've never met a broke ass broad whom got a kid aborted. Cash is King.

These are women most likely on the fringes of the middle class (or upper and highly refined and educated) whom view a Child as a burden to hold them back from reaching the next step of that ladder (In Canada they are free up to a certain time-frame but I believe in America this is not the case). It is pure hypocrisy IMO because you have leaders such as Jesse Jackson whom was scheduled to BE ABORTED.... in support of it and campaigning for it, or Obama him self whom by all accounts (single mother, near the middle class) was a text book case for Babies whom are aborted in modern America. Contrast this to Tim Tebow whom was in the same situation (his mother changed her mind last minute) and now is a staunch Pro-Lifer.

So if you take away the one with no to little means understand that 52% of Children of Black colour have been aborted since around 1972. You can make the educated guess that since these weren't children from the bottoms of Society they very much would of made positive contributions to Society, hell why not? The White kids did for the most part so why be ignorant and think the Black children for the lower-middle class would not of done the same?

This is just one instance of how the Left/Democrats continually sell Black people out. Classic Republicans like Lincoln ended Slavery, or Eisenhower whom did more for race relations then any other President since Lincoln. PERIOD.

It was Eisenhower whom: integrated the Military, He passed the Civil Rights laws which gave VOTING RIGHTS to all African-Americans, integrated the Bus systems, he placed Earl Warren as Chief Justice whom forced the hand of Brown vs Brown, etc, etc.

LBJ? WTF did he do? was a seething racist whom was known to shout out the N-word from time to time ("uppity Negroes").

He signed in the game changing laws but never removed the inequalities of the federal purse which effected African-Americans and all lower class Americans. Democrats claim to fame is that they signed every piece of Civil Rights legislation when it was Republicans whom signed in the most important ones. All LBJ did was flick his wrist.

Quote:"I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One

And he was right. Black blindly vote for a party that has historically fucked them over time and time again.

Now when I say 'Republican' don't get it twisted with the seething cavemen off Today, and a lot gets twisted from the experience in the South USA when it was still in the Stone Age - both parties are corrupted shells. The Classic Republicans will always be the true parties of neutrality and morality for American that many Classic African-Americans in those days and today would identify with.

Any brother that can't rank Ike and/or Lincoln in their top 3 for Presidents of all time is still on that blue-pill.

Both sides can go fuck them selves of course but I can at least see that one does not give a fuck about me in today's time (Republicans) and will let me be, while one actively back stabs me and does harm to me (Democrats).
[/quote]

--------------
(I don't stand on any side of the Pro-Life debate. I am neutral to it I am just pointing out the Hypocrisy of it all)

Post: #64

Quote:If you are thinking of me, let's get one thing straight. I am not "confident" about a Romney win, though I think his odds are better than 33-66.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, living down in TX, the general consensus is that Romney has already won the election. But I have to ask you, what exactly do you base your 'odds' on? Just a gut feeling? I've provided links to the ACTUAL books and they are roughly 65/35 in favor of Obama.

Quote:Oh, by the way...ex-professional gambler, will you give odds? Say 3-1? That might be interesting.

I have given you odds. I offered you an even money bet on anything up to 1k. Those odds are 1 to 1.

But if you'll put up 500, I'll offer you 2 to 1. I think that's a good bet. But I want the bet today. None of this, "Well, let me wait until the weekend before..." BS.

Quote:Nate Silver -- the darling analyzer of the east coast elite -- love it.

Who gives a shit if he schmoozes with the east coast elite? Silver's statistical model either works or it doesn't, irrespective of his own political leanings or preferences. And looking at his performance in the past two elections, and considering the fact that MLB and the NFL both use his methodology to collect stats now - the guy is clearly on to something.

Post: #65

(10-26-2012 10:01 AM)kosko Wrote:  What about the Dirt poor White whom still vote Republican?

Both sides vote for the Party that cuts their own throats.

Black people pump up the Democrats as they have for 40 years stood behind "Pro choice" which has lead to Blacks being aborted at rates close to 52%, to the point that not Blacks can't even re-populate them selves. The Democrats are literally killing us Black folks while on the flip side the Republicans slash social support support services that help Poor Rural whites just as much as anybody else.

Both sides are foolish. Its all a Illusion of choice.

Yeah, the poor white Republican base in the south has kinda suprised me, people voting against their economic interests in light of other interests. I'm a white male who will be voting for Obama. It's true, that I, like most people, if only subconsciously, might be more comfortable with someone who looks more like me in the white house. I also dislike a lot of things about Obama, such as his apparent views on affirmative action and certain policies regarding illegal immigration. But where you hit me in the wallet/medical coverage/social services obviously trumps all (not to mention the fact that I loathe Israel butt-kissing and world interventionism - which Romney further endorses)

Post: #66

Tuth, you really think Chavez was 're-elected' ?

Post: #67

Quote:But if you'll put up 500, I'll offer you 2 to 1.

Post: #68

(10-27-2012 02:21 AM)FretDancer Wrote:  Tuth, you really think Chavez was 're-elected' ?

They have more legitimate elections down there than in America.

There have paper ballot that are counted one by one, have international observes, and do old school things like dip your finger in ink after you voted so you can't come back again and vote twice.

Why not question the legitimacy of USA elections. None of those safe guards exist in America anymore.

Post: #69

(10-26-2012 09:24 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Now that the gloves are finally off, they might as well just have a good old fashioned rap battle and bring out into the open whatever is actually on their minds.

Oh wait...

Abe won.

Best line though was "What are you doing? You got hitched to the female version of Patrick Ewing."

Post: #70

It's perhaps good gamesmanship that Republicans can accuse Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim Atheist Terrorist Fascist without batting an eye, and then act *shocked* *shocked* when their candidate is called a "bullshitter" when he plainly is.

But it just shows their childish attitudes.

Maybe that is the right way to play the game though.

Post: #71

(11-03-2012 10:20 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  It's perhaps good gamesmanship that Republicans can accuse Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim Atheist Terrorist Fascist without batting an eye, and then act *shocked* *shocked* when their candidate is called a "bullshitter" when he plainly is.

But it just shows their childish attitudes.

Maybe that is the right way to play the game though.

For the life of me, I don't understand why Obama doesn't just call Romney a male Cheerleader, which he is.

I have yet to see a Republican offer up a defense to that one.

Post: #72

(10-26-2012 04:26 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:If you are thinking of me, let's get one thing straight. I am not "confident" about a Romney win, though I think his odds are better than 33-66.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, living down in TX, the general consensus is that Romney has already won the election. But I have to ask you, what exactly do you base your 'odds' on? Just a gut feeling? I've provided links to the ACTUAL books and they are roughly 65/35 in favor of Obama.

Quote:Oh, by the way...ex-professional gambler, will you give odds? Say 3-1? That might be interesting.

I have given you odds. I offered you an even money bet on anything up to 1k. Those odds are 1 to 1.

But if you'll put up 500, I'll offer you 2 to 1. I think that's a good bet. But I want the bet today. None of this, "Well, let me wait until the weekend before..." BS.

Quote:Nate Silver -- the darling analyzer of the east coast elite -- love it.

Who gives a shit if he schmoozes with the east coast elite? Silver's statistical model either works or it doesn't, irrespective of his own political leanings or preferences. And looking at his performance in the past two elections, and considering the fact that MLB and the NFL both use his methodology to collect stats now - the guy is clearly on to something.

Well you should have PM'd me. Didn't see this until now.

If you're so confident, give me 4-1 odds for $100 and I MIGHT consider it.

Post: #73

(10-26-2012 04:26 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:If you are thinking of me, let's get one thing straight. I am not "confident" about a Romney win, though I think his odds are better than 33-66.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, living down in TX, the general consensus is that Romney has already won the election. But I have to ask you, what exactly do you base your 'odds' on? Just a gut feeling? I've provided links to the ACTUAL books and they are roughly 65/35 in favor of Obama.

Quote:Oh, by the way...ex-professional gambler, will you give odds? Say 3-1? That might be interesting.

I have given you odds. I offered you an even money bet on anything up to 1k. Those odds are 1 to 1.

But if you'll put up 500, I'll offer you 2 to 1. I think that's a good bet. But I want the bet today. None of this, "Well, let me wait until the weekend before..." BS.

Quote:Nate Silver -- the darling analyzer of the east coast elite -- love it.

Who gives a shit if he schmoozes with the east coast elite? Silver's statistical model either works or it doesn't, irrespective of his own political leanings or preferences. And looking at his performance in the past two elections, and considering the fact that MLB and the NFL both use his methodology to collect stats now - the guy is clearly on to something.

Well you should have PM'd me. Didn't see this until now.

If you're so confident, give me 4-1 odds for $100 and I MIGHT consider it.

As far as Silver is concerned, his "statistical" modeling is rather useless. It's win win for him no matter what. If Romney wins, he'll say, "Oh, well, I gave him a 1-4 chance in winning, and guess what, it was one of those 25% chances that came through."

I've actually taken statistics courses, and anybody who uses an N as low as he does to make statistical inferences is blowing it out his sphincter.

Post: #74

(11-03-2012 12:30 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 04:26 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:If you are thinking of me, let's get one thing straight. I am not "confident" about a Romney win, though I think his odds are better than 33-66.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, living down in TX, the general consensus is that Romney has already won the election. But I have to ask you, what exactly do you base your 'odds' on? Just a gut feeling? I've provided links to the ACTUAL books and they are roughly 65/35 in favor of Obama.

Quote:Oh, by the way...ex-professional gambler, will you give odds? Say 3-1? That might be interesting.

I have given you odds. I offered you an even money bet on anything up to 1k. Those odds are 1 to 1.

But if you'll put up 500, I'll offer you 2 to 1. I think that's a good bet. But I want the bet today. None of this, "Well, let me wait until the weekend before..." BS.

Quote:Nate Silver -- the darling analyzer of the east coast elite -- love it.

Who gives a shit if he schmoozes with the east coast elite? Silver's statistical model either works or it doesn't, irrespective of his own political leanings or preferences. And looking at his performance in the past two elections, and considering the fact that MLB and the NFL both use his methodology to collect stats now - the guy is clearly on to something.

Well you should have PM'd me. Didn't see this until now.

If you're so confident, give me 4-1 odds for $100 and I MIGHT consider it.

As far as Silver is concerned, his "statistical" modeling is rather useless. It's win win for him no matter what. If Romney wins, he'll say, "Oh, well, I gave him a 1-4 chance in winning, and guess what, it was one of those 25% chances that came through."

I've actually taken statistics courses, and anybody who uses an N as low as he does to make statistical inferences is blowing it out his sphincter.

If you think Silver's model is inaccurate then why are you demanding 4-1 odds? The implied probability of that bet (80%) is pretty close to the current 538 projection (83% today).

Post: #75

Silvers numbers are a joke. He's got VA as a 66% Obama favorite. That alone is a joke. Romney will win VA. Silver has spent too much time in his liberal mecca of Manhattan to have any idea whats going on in the rest of the country.