125
Serious Political Discussion About The Elections : Swingers Discussion 20881310411
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsSerious Political Discussion About The Elections
TOPIC: Serious Political Discussion About The Elections
GoTo Page: Less ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Start   411 to 420 of 433   End
User Details are only visible to members.
"who do they vote for?"

Sed, Romney identified a 47% segment of the population as non-taxpaying, victim/entitled moochers, who all will vote for Obama "no matter what." 

Any person of moderate intelligence can see how absurd that is. Romney will get lots of votes from that segment (e.g. some retirees and military personnel) just as Obama will get many votes from people who pay taxes and don't receive welfare (e.g. Warren Buffet, pro-choice soccer moms). 

But the government doesn't track political affiliations of taxpayers or of benefit recipients. So measuring the extent of Romney's absurdity with any precision is impossible. 

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
There is a big difference between bi-partisan and bi-polar.

Perhaps I am the only person on these forums who is highly confident that America's future is bright no matter who gets elected.

On the domestic front, it's all about austerity versus stimulus. There is much to debate on the substance of that question, really no need for the personal attacks on the candidates.

Amherst Canada
Username hidden
(2373 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
" Am I wrong?"

I THINK you are. Nobody wants to take any cuts. 50% of households have at least one person receiving some sort of tax payer funded gov't assistance.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17354 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
But enough of all that. Time for serious political discussion.

We all understand the gist of Romney's inartful comments yesterday - that he can never win over the lowlifes that adhere to a victim mentality, that are trying to milk the system, who choose sloth over industry.

That is NOT controversial. One need not be a neo-Con to share this view and being a libtard does not mean a person would refute it.

But Romney was wrong to suggest that 47% of American voters fit into the above category. Does anyone honestly disagree?

I would venture to guess that the number of habitual shirkers in this country - able-bodied people who are too lazy or too drugged-up to work - constitutes less than 5% of the voting public, almost surely less than 10%. Am I wrong?

Amherst Canada
Username hidden
(2373 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"theblaze"

Please,

You want a serious discussion and you cite the blaze? Becks lunatic fringe website?

Seriously?

Seems like just one more disingenuous attempt by you to control the conversation and rant on your 'conservative' meme.

It sure SOUNDED good though.

BTW

As long as you continue to block anyone that disagrees with you, your claim to want a 'serious conversation' are not only suspect, but spurious.

East Fishkill NY
Username hidden
(3613 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
FJ,

I'm aware of which states draw the most entitlements. But that's not what I'm asking.

The 47% was broken down as follows:

23% do not pay federal taxes because of low income. 10% elderly 7% for the working poor with children, no federal taxes (below 50K four ppl in 1 household) 6% Some other benefits that no one knows about, but they don't get to pay federal taxes.

who do they vote for?

Rumson NJ
Username hidden
(17056 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
bipolar, lacks balls or brains, yada yada, yada.

Amherst Canada
Username hidden
(2373 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Our posts crossed, Perf, thanks for the small compliment, I will take whatever I can get.

Amherst Canada
Username hidden
(2373 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perf, I have tried to engage in political discussion without allegiance to any political party or candidate as long as I started participating on this site. I created a silly limerick forum in order to promote the idea of balanced criticism. I have challenged others to try debating a point from the opposite side. All to little avail.

Sed has blocked me because I teased her very gently about over-generalizing and spending an inordinate amount of energy following, criticizing and even insulting Robert. Seems to me that she can dish it out much better than she can take it.

I would be happy to have serious political discussion and obviously can not do so with people who block me. I pointed this out without criticism. FJ then implies, overtly, that I am blocked because I have been a dickhead. All I did was turn that insult back on him, albeit more directly. Then you chime in and suggest that I would derail this exercise of serious political discussion. But you are mistaken. I can discuss politics civilly with anyone, anytime. It is FJ that has a hard time disagreeing with people without calling them libtard, liar, gay, etc.

Amherst Canada
Username hidden
(2373 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I'm not going to discuss why I blocked him.

I'm begging you guys, can we talk election 2012?

Rumson NJ
Username hidden
(17056 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Start   411 to 420 of 433   End
TOPIC: Serious Political Discussion About The Elections