StrangeSox

I am a "have." Millions of others who voted for Democratic candidates across the country are "haves." Some of the biggest receivers of government aid are the elderly and poor rural white people, both major conservative constituencies. The unemployment rate among Occupy supporters was only a couple of percent higher than the national average. I sincerely hope that the GOP continues to believe that people didn't reject their platform but that they just didn't run a good enough marketing campaign for it.

After Obama reelection coal company CEO reads prayer to staff, announces layoff Job Creators!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:48 AM) If there a large increase in taxes, individuals should be the best financial decisions for them and their family, which would be to sell their holdings and lock in their gains in the 2012 calendar year. Plus they will probably be able to buy back their holdings later at a cheaper rate. They should absolutely do it. Their families will be completely unaffected in any material way by the tax increases. They should absolutely not cause millions to suffer so that they can continue to hoard more wealth.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:41 AM) It is the economic right to do what they want with their money. I know in your world that doesn't exist, but in mine it does. is/ought You said they should act like a bunch of giant babies and harm millions so that they can afford another yatch. That is disgusting.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) There is a utilitarian approach to the issue, sure. We have justifiable homicides for the same reason. But we start with a baseline that murder is wrong, and work justifications from there. We don't start with "well, i mean is that REALLY murder? I mean, was that REALLY a person that was killed?" Was Terry Schaivo a human being like you or I that was "killed" when they finally unplugged the machines?

I appreciate the kind words, but I can't fully agree with that view of fetal development. As I've pointed out before, if human life begins at conception, then 50% of humans are naturally aborted without anyone being aware at all. I see no moral reason to call naturally aborted zygotes humans in any sense of the word. There is some point between sperm-gets-into-egg and baby-is-born that it becomes something I'd call an actual human life just as worthy as you or I. I don't have a good, solid answer for what that point is. I am absolutely in agreement that science can't tell us when human life begins, it can only give us objective knowledge on some stages of development. Scientific knowledge informs us that fetal brains are essentially "brain dead" prior to 23 weeks, and so from that I can make a moral judgement that "brain activity" is what makes something a living human. Some politicians lately have said some pretty scientifically ignorant things regarding rape and pregnancy, but I've never claimed that people who view a 10-week-old fetus as a human being as rejecting science. It's completely a moral question.

This viewpoint is why people across the country rejected the GOP. I hope they fully embrace the Randianism.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) They should crash it. They shouldn't be held hostage to someone who wants to take their money. They should crash the economy and cause tens of millions to suffer so that they don't have to pay slightly higher tax rates that won't actually impact their living standard at all? That's some set of morals you've got there.

The dividends rate won't go to 40+% if the tax cuts expire. It'll go to the 30% it was before the Bush tax cuts. It sucks that our entire economic system is apparently held hostage to investors who are willing to crash it all if they have to pay higher taxes.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) I think it would help refocus the issue on to the life of the child and not the rights of women. Why shouldn't the rights of women be in the focus?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence... 1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here. 2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder. 3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective. 4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose). I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it. I am 100% with this post.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) I think if Romney was the first white candidate to win the Presidency, ever, they probably would have. John Kerry got 89% of the black vote in 2004. Probably because he's black and not one of the whitest dudes ever. That must be why African Americans don't vote for Republicans.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:18 AM) So this statement has the fetus in mind? GMAB. I don't consider a fetus prior to say 23 weeks to be a human life with the same rights as the woman it's inside of.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:19 AM) Kinda like how 93% of one minority voted for the same minority. Imagine if 93% of white people voted for Romney. Everyone's a racist! Hey guys you're doing an awesome job of proving my contention that conservatives are completely blind to why minorities don't vote for them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) Your (and liberals, generally) apathy towards this issue is disheartening. The fact that you don't even question the mothers right signals to me that you view a mother's freedom to correct a mistake as more important than an unborn, yet living, life. I agree with you in the those exception cases like incest, rape or the mother's health. Not in general cases of "I don't want this thing" which even if rare, should not happen IMO. There is no apathy on the part of liberals when it comes to abortion and women's rights. The fact that we've explained, repeatedly, that we simply disagree with what a fetus is and whether it's a human life worthy of moral consideration the same as you or I and that you are ignoring it tells me you're not arguing in good faith.

Nothing makes abortion itself and full, legal access to it racist or, even more laughably, a "genocide." There are numerous socioeconomic factors that tie into abortion statistics, and race always looms large in those discussions. That these factors affect certain minorities more and drive more of them to get abortions says nothing about abortions themselves and certainly does not make any case whatsoever for illegalizing abortion.

That seems to be conflating income tax rates and dividend tax rates to get to 43.4%. Bloomberg is blocked at work (filter thinks it's a financial trading website) so I can't see the details. I know he wants the top income rate to go to 39.6%, but you specifically said he wants a dividends tax rate of 40%.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:00 AM) Call it what you want. With the way that the race card gets played here and in general, if the GOP were supporting a policy that saw 350% more black fetuses killed off per capita, versus white fetuses, it would be called genocide by the left wing. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...ce-card/256072/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) And similarly, the complete lack of morals/ethics about life that cause said right wingers to be literally fearful of the direction of this country. Yes, liberals have no morals, no ethics and hate life. Right-wingers fears' for the direction of this country are legitimate and rational, especially over the past three days.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) The census agency estimates that 50 out of 1000 black women ends up having abortions, or about three and a half times the rate of white kids. If the parties stances were reversed in this case, it would be presented very differently.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) The top dividend rate would go to almost 44%. Capital gains on the top end would be near 24%. Both of those numbers come from the Presidents proposed numbers, plus the new taxes coming into effect from the healthcare plan. link/source?

Erksine Bowles, of the Simpson-Bowles Cat Food Commission: Mr. Boehner will ask President Obama to give Republicans everything they want right now and in turn they promise they'll negotiate in good faith on how exactly to dismantle the social safety net.

Everything else aside, I really do hope some good, liberal-leaning agreement is reached before Dec. 31st. The 'cliff' really is just a massive austerity package and we all know how terrible that policy has been.

Do you think the entirety of the Bush cuts should be made permanent?

I'm gonna guess the trope about the founder of Planned Parenthood in the 20's being pro-eugenics. It's nonsense because allowing women to choose what to do isn't a genocide. It's this kind of obliviousness on minority and women's issues that is hurting the GOP so badly right now.