No, you can't both respect human life and at the same time allow others to decide when abortion is acceptable. We don't allow that at any other stage of life. That's an inconsistent position.

 

Now, people here are arguing that an unborn baby is not actually a human life, which I believe is proven wrong but at least does not make supporting abortion rights an inconsistent position. Believing that the unborn baby is a human life and also believing that abortion should be legal is a slippery slope into all kinds of awful stuff.

 

How do you feel about the death penalty?

How do you feel about the death penalty?

Are you trying to REALLY derail this thread. What's next, religion?

Are you trying to REALLY derail this thread. What's next, religion?

lol no, but if you're going to use the "value human life" argument, you'd better be consistent! isn't consistency something Husker et al. were b****ing about??

Buzzfeed takes a look at what the electoral map would have looked like at different stages of enfranchisement in US history.

 

 

1870 (Traditional American vote)

 

1870-1920 (minority male vote, but no womens' vote)

 

1920 (only white men and women because of poll taxes, etc.)

 

 

 

 

Buzzfeed takes a look at what the electoral map would have looked like at different stages of enfranchisement in US history.

 

 

1870 (Traditional American vote)

 

1870-1920 (minority male vote, but no womens' vote)

 

1920 (only white men and women because of poll taxes, etc.)

 

whats your point? you hate Amerikkka and all other countries have a righteous history?

no, just thought it was interesting.

Nate Silver breaks down how all of the polls did over the last 21 days of the election:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sidential-race/

Nate Silver breaks down how all of the polls did over the last 21 days of the election:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sidential-race/

 

Thank god Rasmussen unskewed the polls

Rasmussen has a bad model but they weren't the worst this time around. What matters is if he sees these results and corrects his models going forward. That'll show if he's a serious pollster or just producing propaganda.

Electoral map with states resized based on population. Nothing we didn't know, but still neat to look at.

 

Electoral map with states resized based on population. Nothing we didn't know, but still neat to look at.

 

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

 

more cartograms along the same lines

Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me.

Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me.

This is just like the Dow falling 300 points on Wednesday (assuming you could tie it into the election result). Both of these things the opinion on those on Wall Street, and it wasn't exactly a secret they were for Romney. So why are things like this and the Dow falling 300 points treated like some new thing? Whether or not the Wall Streeters' fears are founded or not, the fact is that these only reflect that Obama isn't liked by investment bankers.

Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me.

Talked to my friend who is a world renowned doctor who works on the sickest and most needy people out there and he's "ecstatic" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said healthcare is going to become accessible to most of us now and we are so lucky. Just passing on what he told me.

Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me.

There are a lot of cry-baby ceo's and finance-types right now.

Talked to my friend who invests money of only the richest people and said he is "devastated" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said the economy is doomed and we are in deep trouble. Just passing on what he told me.

 

1. As others have said, that crowd generally preferred Romney, mostly because it meant less regulation. So now they are leaving and taking their ball home... temporarily. They will come crawling back later.

 

2. Part of the markets falling was really not about Obama policies vs Romney policies - it is the uncertainty and the looming fiscal cliff. Having a Dem Prez, GOP House, and a Senate that is Dem-led but still within the bounds of the procedural filibuster... pretty much is the most conflicted setup possible, thus making it more likely they don't avoid the cliff, and can't make the broad fiscal changes necessary.

 

3. Ultimately, the President isn't going to have any gigantic effect on the recovery, beyond the fiscal cliff issue. And that is more Congress than the President.

 

4. Regulatory uncertainty is a major issue at play in the minds of the financial community - there are all kinds of new rules coming, but no one seems to know what they will look like. That is a real problem.

 

5. Finally, the deal is... if the flscal cliff is avoided, and some significant tax structure changes can be made without drastic increases across the board... the economy is going to continue recovering and probably accelerate. And that would be regardless of who won the election.

 

Talked to my friend who is a world renowned doctor who works on the sickest and most needy people out there and he's "ecstatic" by Obama's re-election. He said he didn't want to go into it, but basically said healthcare is going to become accessible to most of us now and we are so lucky. Just passing on what he told me.

 

My dad runs a small business (trucking company) and has lots of employees that are earning in the range that puts them generally just out of reach of things like Medicaid. There is a company insurance plan and he offers them the chance to be on it -- they could take a small pay increase if they had their own health insurance, basically as a thank you for saving him some money. They would almost without fail take the pay increase, not buy insurance, and respond simply that they could go to the emergency room for healthcare. I think those days are over now.

My dad runs a small business (trucking company) and has lots of employees that are earning in the range that puts them generally just out of reach of things like Medicaid. There is a company insurance plan and he offers them the chance to be on it -- they could take a small pay increase if they had their own health insurance, basically as a thank you for saving him some money. They would almost without fail take the pay increase, not buy insurance, and respond simply that they could go to the emergency room for healthcare. I think those days are over now.

 

Except those people could go on the state insurance exchanges.

Paul Ryan: I Didn’t Lose Because Of The Issues, I Lost Because Of The ‘Urban’ Vote

 

 

Except those people could go on the state insurance exchanges.

 

I talked to my dad, apparently he is pretty sure those people are just going to pay the tax. lol

1. As others have said, that crowd generally preferred Romney, mostly because it meant less regulation. So now they are leaving and taking their ball home... temporarily. They will come crawling back later.

 

Sure the super wealthy will be back spending, creating jobs, etc... at some point, but it will be on their terms. In the interim they are going to remain super wealthy and cut expenses which will hurt the rest of us. When you have that kind of money you hold the cards and don't have to crawl back.

Edited November 14, 201213 yr by Marty34

Sure the super wealthy will be back spending, creating jobs, etc... at some point, but it will be on their terms. In the interim they are going to remain super wealthy and cut expenses which will hurt the rest of us. When you have that kind of money you hold the cards and don't have to crawl back.

 

No. no. no. Hit these motherf***ers right in the nads, and hit 'em hard. They deserve it.

Anger isnt very becoming.

 

Luke 12:48

 

and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

 

From a practical standpoint, if the US was to go completely bankrupt and money was worth nothing, who loses more, the guy on the street with nothing but debt, or the billionaire? Its actually in their best interest to help fix the US economy, they have more to lose.

Sure the super wealthy will be back spending, creating jobs, etc... at some point, but it will be on their terms. In the interim they are going to remain super wealthy and cut expenses which will hurt the rest of us. When you have that kind of money you hold the cards and don't have to crawl back.

I think you missed the point. They will invest their money - that won't change. Just will invest differently. I said nothing about creating jobs, nor did I even hint at it. We are talking about MARKET investing here.

 

Anger isnt very becoming.

 

Luke 12:48

 

and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

 

From a practical standpoint, if the US was to go completely bankrupt and money was worth nothing, who loses more, the guy on the street with nothing but debt, or the billionaire? Its actually in their best interest to help fix the US economy, they have more to lose.

 

No no no, using the Bible as backing to support policy or moral beliefs only counts when it serves the God-loving Republicans