" Hasn't research and environmental improvements increased life expectancy?" Taxcutter says: They had not done so by 1920. Obviously the benefits of living in the polluted cities of the time in question.outweighed the effects of pollution.
"you don't know what you're talking about" Taxcutter says; You say. What qualifies you to make that judgment?
What a most blanket, asinine assertion. That's like the right making the claim that all democrats are socialist that prefer a dictatorship or commune over a free market homogeneous society and that the rich are evil and should be destroyed.... wait......
"You seem unfamiliar with what the Tea Party has become." Taxcutter says: I go to Tea Party meetings. I see nothing but fiscal issues discussed. Yes, candidates seeking a larger coalition make their case, but the Tea party wants nothing to do with it. What I am unfamiliar with is the distorted view you have of the Tea Party. Your distorted view comes from over-reliance on Soros-financed outlests and the biased MSM.
You know, I've been on this forum for quite a long time now, and this whole time, I've asked this same question several times: is there any evidence that a plurality or majority of democrat voters vote democrat because they are after "free stuff"? I mean, it's not like welfare checks are exactly the kind of thing that get you a cushy lifestyle.
"...is there any evidence that a plurality or majority of democrat voters vote democrat because they are after "free stuff"?" Taxcutter says: Never claimed there was a majority, but there is a thick margin of Dem voters who vote Dem to get free stuff. that margin was enough to get obama elected by a thin margin.
Did you read my post? The important part wasn't "majority". It was "evidence". Let me say it again, loud and clear: "Evidence." Do you have any? Or are you going off of your own gut feeling? I didn't vote democrat because I want free stuff. My family didn't either. None of our friends in the states did for that matter. There were various reasons for voting democrat that came up, "We want free stuff" is not one of them.
Well, if you want to ignore history, you can claim anything including "the benefits of living in the polluted cities" ... "outweighed the effects of pollution".
In talking about the leadership of the GOP, Channe and I can give opinions on what we think. You can disagree but the comments are not blanket, asinine assertions.
"the benefits of living in the polluted cities" ... "outweighed the effects of pollution". Taxcutter says: Clearly they did. People lived 40% longer, despite living with greater pollution.
And, again, we have the old dodge and weave. "They 47% of last year may be this year's majority." So you only claim a thin margin (whatever that means) of Dem voters. Still with no evidence but a couple of clips from the right wing propaganda machine. Didn't Obama beat Romney by 4% points. A vote of 51% is higher than any discussion of the "47%". Also a sector of the "47%" (seniors) voted more for Romney. You can say women put Obama over the top. You can 18-39 put Obama over the top. You can say minorities put Obama over the top. Oh, and you can back these claims with data. Your claim has no data to back it up.
You mean to tell me there are poor and unemployed people out there that vote for the party that wants to continue providing welfare, food stamps, healthcare, and unemployment insurance for them! What a shocker!
"the fact that i was there and you weren't" Taxcutter says: You were where? "You mean to tell me there are poor and unemployed people out there that vote for the party that wants to continue providing welfare, food stamps, healthcare, and unemployment insurance for them! What a shocker!" Taxcutter says: Yup. And with the burden of regulations and taxation drying up more jobs every day that subset of the population is growing. We approach (if we are not already there) the point where more people are beneficiaries of government giveaways than there are taxpayers to support them.
You got any evidence that regulations and taxation is what is drying up more jobs? Kind of strange how companies have more money than ever but taxation and regulations are killing them. Wonder how they got all that money in the first place!
The problem with their theory is that History has proven their claim wrong, we were booming and taxes were higher. It is them simply repeating the mantra they have been taught by right-wing central, sheeple do not think forthemselves, in fact it is frowned upon.
Regulations tend to protect existing competitors from new competitors. Less competition leads to more pricing power and higher per-unit profit. Less competition means a company can concentrate on more profitable stuff and ignore lower porfit stuff, forcing the consumer to buy what may not be exactly what he wants. New competitors tend to be the ones hiring new workers. Old ones consolidate and rely on economy of scale.
It's just hilarious how we can show them that the wealthy have more money than ever and businesses are making more profit than ever yet they need more tax breaks in order to hire people. They are so brainwashed it is amusing.
We don't go by polls. We go by dong what is the right thing to do. I realize that most Democrats would probably just ignore all these scandals and have it all go away.....but that is not going to happen. These are ALL very serious issues. They WILL be addressed and we WILL get the bottom of the causes and who is responsible.
This is all subjective. In reality they are not very serious issues. But keep on trying!! Your guys efforts to hate this President is amusing to watch.
Oh. Well thanks for letting me know. I thought that Michelle Bachmann had the endorsement of the Tea Party in her state. That Stephen Fincher had the endorsement of the Tea Party in his state. I thought that it was at a Tea Party convention in Wisonsin that Romney was pressed on birth control at a meeting of the local..... Tea Party. But hell, those are just facts. I could see where you would find them "Liberal". How could they compare to the wisdom of someone who quotes themselves in the 3rd person!
God, please tell me another way that the Tea Party picks their candidates? Bachmann founded the Tea Party caucus. She speaks at Tea Party rallies.
Nice excuse. And the Tea Party accepting money from the very banks that got bailouts? Were they just the most acceptable banks in the uh, the um, well with money to give?
