Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Obama deserves a second term


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 810 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Evil Lincoln wrote:
I dunno if that's hugely racist or just casually racist.

I was going to go back and fix the fact that I used the word "hugely" a bunch of times, but fine, be a spoilsport.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew R wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Just continue (probably reduced) deductions to cover taxes and the gov just keeps it.

So you want to reduce taxes on them and eliminate refunds? So the government can save money by not having the employ people to process the refunds? I think I get it.

What about those who get too much withheld, like the person laid off in thejeff's post?

Your tax is based on weekly there, set up so each check is taxed by the bracket it falls into, a smaller check taxed less and no check not taxed. Our current system is based solely on yearly taxes (estimated per check) while i say it could be easily done per payment.

This becomes a huge burden on people who recieve disproportionate salaries throughout the year. Anyone who does seasonal labor, teachers, people who recieve raises or get laid off. Its naive to think this would work in any fair way. Perhaps if you removed all regressiveness in the tax code it could be feasible, but if you aregue for that I think you're even more naive. In order to pay for our budget you would need to destroy lower class


And the whole purpose of this complete restructuring of the tax system is to stop refunds? Not close loopholes, not be more fair, not increase revenue? It's just to stop refunds?

How do we handle people who don't get a regular paycheck? The self-employed. Rich people living off of investments. Freelance creative types.
A friend of mine is a full-time writer. I don't know exactly how much she makes, but I know she only gets a few significant payments a year. If she writes 2 books and gets 2 $15,000 checks for advances, plus a few smaller ones for short stories and other things, should she pay the same rate on both of those checks as someone getting $15K a week?

What's the benefit from this scheme?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, his point was, however stupidly put, that 47% of the population isn't going to vote for him, no matter what, so he isn't going to bother trying to convince them to. Further in the same talk (or whatever it was) he says he isn't going to waste time on the people who always vote Republican, they have no where else to go. He went on to say his campaign money will be used to target on the fence voters and people in swing states.

The little speech had nothing to do with what he'd do in office.

He's a douche, I'd never vote for him, but taking his quote out of the context of the whole statement is idiotic, and exactly what I expect from morons who think Obama is liberal or Progressive. Dude is center right, loves bombing the crap out of brown people in the Middle East and South Asia, and has done even more than that idiot Bush to erode civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

But, you guys keep supporting the Montsano exec appointing, U.S. citizen assassinating, Wall Street nut sack swinging "liberal". Don't demand that the "left" leaning party actually offer a liberal candidate, and keep thinking there will be a whit of difference between either of those douchebags.

Sovereign Court

The problem is that there only seems to be two parties worth voting for in the states. I agree with your criticism of Obama but if there's no real third option why on earth would you vote for Romney? What would be nice is if the traditional republican voters all decided to vote Libertarian or something. They wouldn't win the election but who knows? There might be a legitimate 3rd party for the next election and who knows from there? You could have three candidates for the next presidential election.

Edit:
For the record I'd prefer if there was a legitimate more left of center choice for Americans. I know there is the Green Party but I seriously doubt they're going to draw enough attention to get any support.


houstonderek wrote:

For the record, his point was, however stupidly put, that 47% of the population isn't going to vote for him, no matter what, so he isn't going to bother trying to convince them to. Further in the same talk (or whatever it was) he says he isn't going to waste time on the people who always vote Republican, they have no where else to go. He went on to say his campaign money will be used to target on the fence voters and people in swing states.

The little speech had nothing to do with what he'd do in office.

He's a douche, I'd never vote for him, but taking his quote out of the context of the whole statement is idiotic,

The quote isn't out of context, it's standard Republican mythology. "The only reason people vote Democratic is that Democrats have made them dependent on government handouts. Real hard-working Americans don't take government help and vote Republican."

Thing is, that's nonsense. The 47% he refers to includes a good chunk of the Republican base. Seniors are the most obvious example. And plenty of hard-working tax-paying Americans regularly vote Democratic. If he was actually basing his campaign strategy around that he's even more of an idiot than I think he is.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, he's an idiot, no argument there. But Obama isn't a liberal or a Progressive by any stretch. You vote for what Glen Ford calls the "more effective evil", I'll vote for Stein, at least I know she's not full of crap.

Liberty's Edge

I don't care if my vote is wasted or not, I care that I can look in the mirror and feel good about casting it.

Sovereign Court

houstonderek wrote:
I don't care if my vote is wasted or not, I care that I can look in the mirror and feel good about casting it.

I did this online "who should I vote for poll", you know for ships* and giggles, because as a Canadian I can't vote in an American election, and it turns out Stein and I agree on 97% of the issues (the 3% was more on semantics rather then outright disagreement) but Obama and I were in agreement on over half the issues (something like 64% or so). So well Obama and I disagree on some major issues he'd still be a fairly good choice if I had to choose. Honestly I'd rather have Obama then Harper up here in Canada. Course we don't have military drones so it's not like he'd have the chance to exercise my biggest beef with the guy up here.

*Ships is not the word I'd normally use but there's a language filter. The word I'd normally use not only rhymes with Ships but is only one letter different ;)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, did it go by what he says or what he does? There's a HUGE gap between the two.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
Oh, he's an idiot, no argument there. But Obama isn't a liberal or a Progressive by any stretch. You vote for what Glen Ford calls the "more effective evil", I'll vote for Stein, at least I know she's not full of crap.

I agree with you, and Stein has my vote too, but if I was in a swing state it would be Obama. I read her platform and agreed with almost all of it. I wish the Green party wasn't hard against Nuclear power.

Obama has some liberal social policies, but there he is usually center left. His ecconomic policies are center-right, and he loves to increase executive power. I hope he gets elected, since I see Romney being worse socially, he has shown no regard for the populous, has not proposed anything resembling a sane ecconomic plan, and has made a complete ass out of himself in international politics.

Liberty's Edge

Um, Obama has made an ass of himself in the Middle East, his "social liberalism", at least on the gay marriage issue, is 100% identical to Romney's, and he apparently has no respect for the will of the people on the West Coast, as he has the DEA raiding state sanctioned dispensaries and growers at a larger rate than Bush did. I'm still trying to figure out how normally intelligent people see a whit of difference between the two on most issues.

Glen Ford called him the "more effective evil" for a reason. Because he has snowed people into thinking he's different from Bush in any practical way.

Liberty's Edge

Sorry, I don't see how liberals can vote for someone who loves bombing Arabs and South Asians with remote drones, has just as little respect for international law as his predecessor, and has, if anything, accelerated the erosion of civil liberties and basic freedom from government oppression that Bush started.

Seriously, if everyone that considers themselves liberal would actually vote for a liberal, maybe in 2016 the Dems will run a real Progressive instead of a DINO.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

This should clear it up.

I know, I know, math has a well known liberal bias...


houstonderek wrote:
Um, Obama has made an ass of himself in the Middle East, his "social liberalism", at least on the gay marriage issue, is 100% identical to Romney's,

100% identical? Obama's announced his support for same-sex marriage. He told the Justice Department not to defend DOMA.

Romney has supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one-man/one-woman. He's opposed civil unions.

Obama may not be far enough on these issues for you, or for me, but 100% identical is flat out wrong.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

houstonderek wrote:

Sorry, I don't see how liberals can vote for someone who loves bombing Arabs and South Asians with remote drones, has just as little respect for international law as his predecessor, and has, if anything, accelerated the erosion of civil liberties and basic freedom from government oppression that Bush started.

Seriously, if everyone that considers themselves liberal would actually vote for a liberal, maybe in 2016 the Dems will run a real Progressive instead of a DINO.

Life is about choices.

There are two people on the ballot who could win, and as we learned in 2000 a few votes can make a big difference.

You are in Texas so it doesn't matter. If you were in a swing state, it could.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

And that keeps Pakistani kids from becoming "collateral damage" how? It gets a former Montsano exec off the Cabinet how? It repeals the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA and repeals HR 347 how? It keeps GM from going bankrupt because of stupid government insistence on an overpriced crap Volt no one but government fleet buyers buys how? It puts the criminal Eric Holder in prison how? It puts all those Wall Street execs that make the Enron guys look like amateurs in prison how? Or Corzine for that matter? It keeps the U.S. government from giving Ukraine citizens money to build car dealerships that sell German luxury cars in Odessa how?

Ciretose, trust me, I'm probably more "liberal" than you, I refuse to vote for a war mongering, lying piece of crap. I leave that to you "lesser of two evil" "pragmatists" who give f#+* all about anything but thinking "D" means anything but "Damn, you bought this crap"?


Well, if Romney'd had his way GM would already have gone bankrupt, but hey, just keep up the false equivalency bit if it makes you feel better.


houstonderek wrote:

Sorry, I don't see how liberals can vote for someone who loves bombing Arabs and South Asians with remote drones, has just as little respect for international law as his predecessor, and has, if anything, accelerated the erosion of civil liberties and basic freedom from government oppression that Bush started.

Seriously, if everyone that considers themselves liberal would actually vote for a liberal, maybe in 2016 the Dems will run a real Progressive instead of a DINO.

Isn't that what we said in 2000? Instead we got Bush and the Democrats spent the next two cycles blaming Nader.

Sovereign Court

I think you're being a bit hard on the guy. It doesn't matter who gets into office most of the wall street guys are safe because proving a case costs tons of money for forensic audits and there isn't a government in the world that could afford to investigate all of them. Someone gets accused of something and they just point the finger at someone else. Also I wasn't aware Eric Holder had been put on trial. I'm not familiar enough with American politics but it seems to me he's pretty much done what every Attorney General has done for the last few years. Is lying to congress really a crime?

Being president means that you need to delegate, you can't be in charge of everything after all, and most presidents are only as good as the people around him. Unfortunately Obama has probably too many familiar faces around him to truly be the chance that he trumpeted four years ago but he's done some of the things he promised. He hasn't done all the things he hoped but he hasn't exactly had a lot of help from either party really.

Liberty's Edge

No, not really, he's just a typical Chicago thug machine politician, just a little more polished than the norm (think Rostenkowsky). He also has a lot of "liberal" apologists (think thejeff) who only care about beating the other side, not actually having a Progressive in office.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
Ciretose, trust me, I'm probably more "liberal" than you, I refuse to vote for a war mongering, lying piece of crap. I leave that to you "lesser of two evil" "pragmatists" who give f#*@ all about anything but thinking "D" means anything but "Damn, you bought this crap"?

I'm confused, Derek. You don't actually think who you vote for will change any of that, do you? Be it one of the two viable cantidates or one of the many fringe options that will never be elected.

Sovereign Court

I'm sorry I must have missed something here. How is he a "typical Chicago thug machine politician"? I mean I know he was elected a senator, but before that wasn't he a community organizer or something? I remember it being a topic the republicans loved to attack in the last presidential election. I thought it was the governors of the state and mayors of Chicago that were corrupt?


houstonderek wrote:
No, not really, he's just a typical Chicago thug machine politician, just a little more polished than the norm (think Rostenkowsky). He also has a lot of "liberal" apologists (think thejeff) who only care about beating the other side, not actually having a Progressive in office.

No comment on the 100% identical on gay marriage?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think anything will change until idiotic Americans stop their binary R & D thinking, and throw all the scumbags out. Until they demand that fiscal malfeasance be punished severely. Until we stop projecting our crap onto the world.

All this "right wing/left wing" crap means dick all. There's only one wing, and that's the autocrat wing. All of them only care about their own fat cats, none of them give a flip about the normal person.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Houstonderek - I pretty much agree with most of what you said (I disagree that our middle east relationships are worse now, or that Romney and Obama are close on Gay Marriage at all). But do you think a Republican in office would be better for any of it? Would Romney give back any of the executive power? The only reason I could see it being better is because people trust him less.

I don't appologize for Obamba. I just see the alternative as even worse.


Hee hee!

Citizen Derek is like Comrade Anklebiter, but less polite.

So what's happening, hot stuff? You back for good, or are you going somewhere soon?

EDIT--Nevermind, I see the answer in another thread. Well, please, have some politroll fun before you go!

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

houstonderek wrote:

And that keeps Pakistani kids from becoming "collateral damage" how? It gets a former Montsano exec off the Cabinet how? It repeals the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA and repeals HR 347 how? It keeps GM from going bankrupt because of stupid government insistence on an overpriced crap Volt no one but government fleet buyers buys how? It puts the criminal Eric Holder in prison how? It puts all those Wall Street execs that make the Enron guys look like amateurs in prison how? Or Corzine for that matter? It keeps the U.S. government from giving Ukraine citizens money to build car dealerships that sell German luxury cars in Odessa how?

Ciretose, trust me, I'm probably more "liberal" than you, I refuse to vote for a war mongering, lying piece of crap. I leave that to you "lesser of two evil" "pragmatists" who give f*!$ all about anything but thinking "D" means anything but "Damn, you bought this crap"?

There are a few thousand people in Florida who votes for Nader who gave us George Bush rather than Al Gore.

If you don't see a difference between those two world views, I don't know what to say.

To quote Biden, who stole it from someone else, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

I don't think anything will change until idiotic Americans stop their binary R & D thinking, and throw all the scumbags out. Until they demand that fiscal malfeasance be punished severely. Until we stop projecting our crap onto the world.

All this "right wing/left wing" crap means dick all. There's only one wing, and that's the autocrat wing. All of them only care about their own fat cats, none of them give a flip about the normal person.

We have binary R & D thinking because our government is designed that way. A winner take all, first past the post system will produce a two-party system. That's how it works. That's what it does.

Occasionally one party will implode badly enough that it can be replaced, but that doesn't change the system.

You can't do that with electoral politics. Especially presidential, general election politics. You can try to shift whichever party you think is more likely to move in your direction on the state or local level, especially in primaries. There's more leverage there. You can even try to get a third party established on that level, where you can actually get some people elected.
Quixotic, symbolic third party runs at the presidency aren't effective.

If you want to be more effective, work on building a liberal movement outside of electoral politics. That's probably the most important thing we need, but it doesn't have to conflict with even lesser of two evils voting.

Edit: Still no response on the 100% identical claim?


ciretose wrote:


There are a few thousand people in Florida who votes for Nader who gave us George Bush rather than Al Gore.

Just for the record: There were also a few thousand Jews voting for Buchanan(?!?)

And more than a few thousand legitimate voters purged from the rolls because their names were similar to felons.
And many other things, anyone of which would have been sufficient in that close of an election.

Strangely the story has always been "It's Nader's fault."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:

Houstonderek - I pretty much agree with most of what you said (I disagree that our middle east relationships are worse now, or that Romney and Obama are close on Gay Marriage at all). But do you think a Republican in office would be better for any of it? Would Romney give back any of the executive power? The only reason I could see it being better is because people trust him less.

I don't appologize for Obamba. I just see the alternative as even worse.

Vote Green then. Or Socialist. Let the Dems know you want a REAL Progressive, and not a DINO. The only reason there's "no choice" is everyone is stuck in their binary thinking. Take four years if b+~!*#%* for a longer gain in the long run. Obama is going to lose, all the oversampling and poll cooking isn't going to stop that. Like James C. said, "it's the economy, stupid". Republicans aren't going to change, Goldwater is long gone and the biggest fear he had has come true. And, when you strip away the b~*%$~!~ "gay marriage is a state issue" is the same freaking stance, no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. The only difference is Romney actually believes that bs and Obama is too much of a coward to actually have a real stance on it. Don't want to lose those union member joe sixpack votes. Hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure most union people couldn't give a flip about gay marriage.

The alternative isn't any different. The only reason anyone thinks so is because they actually think the "D" means something any more. All it means is people seem to feel better about being screwed by big money interests if the rhetoric is flowery enough.

And, you know what? Too big to fail should mean too big to exist in its current form. Anything "too big to fail" needs to be broken up so it doesn't have that much leverage in our economy. Failure is a very real possibility in a business venture. If a company is so mismanaged that it cannot effectively continue to do business, it should fail. It shouldn't be protected. Period. A handful of corporations control almost everything, and that should have never happened. Hostile takeovers and mergers shouldn't be allowed to happen. Nothing should get "too big to fail", that just allows billionaires to hold the US taxpayer hostage. Screw that. A little pain (or even a lot of pain) in the short term is preferable to handing criminals tons of our money. Our money. Not theirs. Money we give our government to provide US with services.

And Obama's stupid health care law? The one written by the Pharm and Insurance lobby? Well, that screwed us out of single payer for quite some time, will NOT lower health care costs, and will not improve medical care one whit. It's just a massive money transfer to criminal billionaires who don't deserve to use OUR money to screw us.

Am I cynical? Oh, hell yeah. But that doesn't change the fact that our government isn't for us any more. Both sides only care about their pet billionaires, neither give a crap about us.

Liberty's Edge

Seriously, four years of a Republican messing stuff up, if it results in real Progressives being elected, is preferable to four more years of fake liberalism, if it results in one party getting their heads out of their asses and actually looking out for us.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't think anything will change until idiotic Americans stop their binary R & D thinking, and throw all the scumbags out. Until they demand that fiscal malfeasance be punished severely. Until we stop projecting our crap onto the world.

All this "right wing/left wing" crap means dick all. There's only one wing, and that's the autocrat wing. All of them only care about their own fat cats, none of them give a flip about the normal person.

We have binary R & D thinking because our government is designed that way. A winner take all, first past the post system will produce a two-party system. That's how it works. That's what it does.

Occasionally one party will implode badly enough that it can be replaced, but that doesn't change the system.

You can't do that with electoral politics. Especially presidential, general election politics. You can try to shift whichever party you think is more likely to move in your direction on the state or local level, especially in primaries. There's more leverage there. You can even try to get a third party established on that level, where you can actually get some people elected.
Quixotic, symbolic third party runs at the presidency aren't effective.

If you want to be more effective, work on building a liberal movement outside of electoral politics. That's probably the most important thing we need, but it doesn't have to conflict with even lesser of two evils voting.

Edit: Still no response on the 100% identical claim?

What's the difference between "it's a state's rights issue" (Romney's position), and "it's a state's rights issue" (Obama's position)?

Flowery rhetoric and posturing aside, that is.

Liberty's Edge

Guy Humual wrote:
I'm sorry I must have missed something here. How is he a "typical Chicago thug machine politician"? I mean I know he was elected a senator, but before that wasn't he a community organizer or something? I remember it being a topic the republicans loved to attack in the last presidential election. I thought it was the governors of the state and mayors of Chicago that were corrupt?

You'd have to understand Chicago politics, and the people Obama initially had around him, to really get it. His house was sold to him by a Chicago king maker and all around criminal piece of crap. Nothing happens in Chicago without the Democrat machine saying so.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:


What's the difference between "it's a state's rights issue" (Romney's position), and "it's a state's rights issue" (Obama's position)?

Flowery rhetoric and posturing aside, that is.

Romney has come out in support of DOMA, a marriage ammendment to the constitution, and Don't Ask Don't Tell. He isn't State's Rights.


Oh, I want to stay and argue, but I've got to go sell socialist newspapers... :(

Victory to the Chicago Teachers Strike!

Down with Rahmney!

Vive le Galt!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Victory to the Chicago Teachers Strike!

Down with Rahmney!

I guess I should check the news before I start posting...


houstonderek wrote:
Seriously, four years of a Republican messing stuff up, if it results in real Progressives being elected, is preferable to four more years of fake liberalism, if it results in one party getting their heads out of their asses and actually looking out for us.

Just like 8 years of Bush got us a "real Progressive", right?

Make it worse, so it'll get better.

This plan doesn't work. It's been tried before and it doesn't work. The Democrats don't see that the liberals abandoned them, they see that the Republicans got more votes. Then they shift right to try to pick up some of those votes.

Why do you think it'll work this time?

Liberty's Edge

I don't care if it will work. If people prefer flowery rhetoric followed by absolutely no practical difference in actions, so be it. You get the government you deserve. And right now, ours is sliding towards a very bad place, as Obama is just continuing the erosion of our rights Bush started.

Not my fault no one listened to me when I said Obama was an empty suit four years ago. Y'all nominated, then elected, the douchebag. You could have nominated a liberal, you chose a Chicago machine pol with zero legislative record to pin him down on anything. Your bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

I don't care if it will work. If people prefer flowery rhetoric followed by absolutely no practical difference in actions, so be it. You get the government you deserve. And right now, ours is sliding towards a very bad place, as Obama is just continuing the erosion of our rights Bush started.

Not my fault no one listened to me when I said Obama was an empty suit four years ago. Y'all nominated, then elected, the douchebag. You could have nominated a liberal, you chose a Chicago machine pol with zero legislative record to pin him down on anything. Your bad.

"I don't care if it will work." That pretty much sums it up. Purity above all. If he, and the rest of the country, don't meet your standards then to hell with all of us.

I do care if it will work. If all we can get is incremental improvements or even a slower rush to destruction, then I'll take that.

Who did you have in mind for a liberal in 2008? Anyone actually running? Anyone with an actual chance?

Liberty's Edge

Edwards would have been better, except for the whole Gingrich like b+#!*@~% with his wife. At least I'm fairly certain he was a real liberal. Anyone would have beaten McCain/Palin, Bush fatigue pretty much doomed any Republican in '08.


houstonderek wrote:
Edwards would have been better, except for the whole Gingrich like b#&*$~** with his wife. At least I'm fairly certain he was a real liberal. Anyone would have beaten McCain/Palin, Bush fatigue pretty much doomed any Republican in '08.

I don't know. I backed Edwards in the primary, but looking back at his career and background, especially in the light of how easily he was able to play up the loving couple thing while having an affair, I really wonder how much of it was just primary campaign persona. I liked what he said, but I'll bet he would have pivoted to the center for the general. Even so, it would have been good to have someone win on that platform.

That said, if the affair had come out at the right moment, it still would have sunk him. Even against McCain, even with Bush hanging over him.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Interestingly enough, the bulk of the 47 percenters are actually in states that are considered Republican strongholds. Texaa, Arizona, Missippi have large chunks of them.

Sovereign Court

Edwards would have been in damage control for most of those four year. Cheating on your wife who's dying of breast cancer is a pretty big poison pill to a campaign never mind a presidency. While I'm sure some people have fought with Obama because of good old fashioned racism but standing up and declaring you hate and refuse to work with someone because they're an adulterer is always going to be in vogue. Edwards might even have had to resign. I think you dodged a bullet there.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Interestingly enough, the bulk of the 47 percenters are actually in states that are considered Republican strongholds. Texaa, Arizona, Missippi have large chunks of them.

Yes, but even in those states, 2/3rds of them still vote Democrat according to at least 1 source (I can no longer find :( )


LazarX wrote:
Interestingly enough, the bulk of the 47 percenters are actually in states that are considered Republican strongholds. Texaa, Arizona, Missippi have large chunks of them.

You read that article in the Boston Globe too about the Romney and the 47%. I suppose it might be on other sites too now.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
I dunno if that's hugely racist or just casually racist.

It's the "I'm not a racist, but..." sorta racist.


Caineach wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Interestingly enough, the bulk of the 47 percenters are actually in states that are considered Republican strongholds. Texaa, Arizona, Missippi have large chunks of them.
Yes, but even in those states, 2/3rds of them still vote Democrat according to at least 1 source (I can no longer find :( )

2/3rds of who? I'd like to see that source and how it breaks them down.

A large chunk of the "47% who pay not federal income tax" are seniors, who break strongly Republican. Students break more Democratic as do the urban poor. White rural poor break Republican. Relatively low income with large families probably split on other lines, more based on race or religion than on income.
Military personnel in combat zones probably break slightly Republican. Not a lot of them, but I like to point them out as an example of what Romney considers "moochers".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it completely hilarious that the people who allowed and encouraged Romney to formulate his entire campaign around Obama's "You didn't build that" line are now the same people crying foul for Romney being "taken out of context" with this 47% business.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
The Mad Badger wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Interestingly enough, the bulk of the 47 percenters are actually in states that are considered Republican strongholds. Texaa, Arizona, Missippi have large chunks of them.
You read that article in the Boston Globe too about the Romney and the 47%. I suppose it might be on other sites too now.

My sources were from New York Magazine and the New York Times. They both quoted a chart from the Tax Policy Center.

401 to 450 of 810 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama deserves a second term All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.