Romney - still focusing on blaming those moochers and minorities

[Arctic Daishi]

We won't get them because we don't need them. They are either inefficient and detrimental to the system beyond whatever benefit they would provide.

We have too many uninformed and/or stupid people voting, hence why Obama was elected. Also, only people who work should be able to vote.

[Grizzly Willy]

We have too many uninformed and/or stupid people voting, hence why Obama was elected. Also, only people who work should be able to vote.

No taxation without representation.

[KrazyK923]

No taxation without representation.

Well...considering you're using this quote 100% incorrectly...

I wonder if we should take away your ability to vote because of this:

We have too many uninformed and/or stupid people voting, hence why Obama was elected. Also, only people who work should be able to vote.

ITS A GOOD THING WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO VOTE, AMIRITE GUYS? THEN ALL THOSE WHO AREN'T VOTING FOR MY GUY CAN'T VOTE---I MEAN, THEN ALL THE UNWORTHY CAN'T VOTE!

Only Conservatives seem to want to restrict voting. I think it says a lot about both sides which seem to be OH JUST SO SIMILAR according to the heinous mainstream media.

We won't get them because we don't need them. They are either inefficient and detrimental to the system beyond whatever benefit they would provide.

You honestly hurt my brain with your posts. You should just stop.

[smrund]

We have too many uninformed and/or stupid people voting, hence why Obama was elected. Also, only people who work should be able to vote.

That would probably cancel out a lot of Republican votes too. The number of dips I see on Welfare voting Republican is astounding.

[merrier]

Someone with a job can have food stamps in the US? Is it a full time job?

Absolutely yes to both questions and that is the problem.

Romney's whole 47% crap is a huge lie if you have any foundation in reality. There are a lot of people in this country who work their asses off and still get government assistance. It has nothing to do with them wanting 'free stuff'. It has a lot to do with corporations in this country doing their best to maximize profits while considering workers totally disposable and valueless. It's not the company's problem if their employees barely make a living wage, yet they seem to think that the government trying to take up the slack for that lack of wage is evil. That seems odd since they won't pay for it and the government shouldn't either. I guess if a corporation doesn't value you, you should just GTFO.

[KrazyK923]

That would probably cancel out a lot of Republican votes too. The number of dips I see on Welfare voting Republican is astounding.

Nevermind that the Southern states by and a large margin take in more tax money than they give to the federal government.

So, let them seceded. We'll see how long it is until they're back groveling for Medicare funds for the power scooters.

[Morogoth]

Absolutely yes to both questions and that is the problem.

Romney's whole 47% crap is a huge lie if you have any foundation in reality. There are a lot of people in this country who work their asses off and still get government assistance. It has nothing to do with them wanting 'free stuff'. It has a lot to do with corporations in this country doing their best to maximize profits while considering workers totally disposable and valueless. It's not the company's problem if their employees barely make a living wage, yet they seem to think that the government trying to take up the slack for that lack of wage is evil. That seems odd since they won't pay for it and the government shouldn't either. I guess if a corporation doesn't value you, you should just GTFO.

Dastard people abuse the government, it's in their genes. We have the same problem here in Canada. An entire generation of heartless people think that abusing the government make them clever.

But the real problem in the US is not because welfare people abuse the government. It's because of the big corporations who avoid taxes by any means possible. You can handle a couple millions of welfare checks, but you can't handle loopholes from the super rich. They are already super rich, even if you taxed 90% of their revenu, they will still be super rich. I have no pity. (and even if I had 500 millions in my bank account, I would be glad to pay the same percentage as the middle class)

[Spectral]

We have too many uninformed and/or stupid people voting, hence why Obama was elected. Also, only people who work should be able to vote.

The most educated people voted heavily for Obama. If we're going to set the burden at a certain level, why set it at the level you like? For my tastes, I'd rather only folks with doctorates get to vote in this hypothetical system. Good luck getting a Republican in any office ever again with that system...

[Grizzly Willy]

The most educated people voted heavily for Obama. If we're going to set the burden at a certain level, why set it at the level you like? For my tastes, I'd rather only folks with doctorates get to vote in this hypothetical system. Good luck getting a Republican in any office ever again with that system...

So, a technocracy?

[Spectral]

So, a technocracy?

Really, I was being facetious.

Just noting the absurdity of the "YOU MUST CLEAR THIS BAR" route. Funny how people tend to set the bar at exactly the height they clear, isn't it?

Reminds me of WoW. Anyone with more success is a no life nerd, anyone with less success is obviously a fucking baddie.

[Grizzly Willy]

Wasn't sure. Though, every intelligence-based voting requirement would technically be a technocracy, depending on what your definition of "most intelligent" is.

I had a suspicion that was what you were doing, just wasn't sure if I was remembering your credentials correctly.

[Spectral]

Yeah, that makes sense. There's a part of me that wishes true idiots couldn't vote, but then I think about it and realize that I don't want anyone making that decision that would actually be making it. I like playing the "set the credentials at a level that suits me but not others" level to see if they really mean it. If someone without a given credential says, "yes, I'm good with that", I'll disagree with them, but respect their position as internally consistent.

I think we all understand the frustration with wholesale ignorant people's votes counting equally though.

[Davendwarf]

Romney lost because the national GOP is in terrible shape. I like a lot of what Bobby Jindal has said recently in that Republicans really need to fix their problems they have with assorted groups of voters. They should find a nice bunker to sit in for a few months and work on their internal organization. This was a piss easy election to win and the Republicans were slaughtered in every conceivable way in the PR/media department.

I honestly saw this at school, where the school's College Democrats benefactor is a poli-sci professor sending out an email a week to the whole school about some Democrat flunkie coming to visit or what have you. Meanwhile, the first College Republicans email I saw didn't appear until the Saturday before the election. They just now sent out an invitation to the club. It's ridiculous.

[Spectral]

I like a lot of what Bobby Jindal has said recently in that Republicans really need to fix their problems they have with assorted groups of voters.

I find that it's a weird thing that I agree with Jindal's comments and simultaneously think that if the GOP followed his advice, his creationist self would be one of the first out on his ass. If the problem is a general rejection of evidence and data (and I think it is), Jindal is the problem. It's weird, the guy has a completely lucid moment and manages to be a spectacular Dunning-Kruger example in the same moment.

[Grizzly Willy]

Have a bit of a similar situation here as well. The campus Republican's club isn't as well presented as the campus Democrat's club. Though, the political science department was hosting all of the events in conjunction with the two clubs, so I don't think there was that great of a disparity.

[Davendwarf]

Have a bit of a similar situation here as well. The campus Republican's club isn't as well presented as the campus Democrat's club. Though, the political science department was hosting all of the events in conjunction with the two clubs, so I don't think there was that great of a disparity.

I think it's the fact that lazy turds operate the College Republicans at my school.

I find that it's a weird thing that I agree with Jindal's comments and simultaneously think that if the GOP followed his advice, his creationist self would be one of the first out on his ass. If the problem is a general rejection of evidence and data (and I think it is), Jindal is the problem. It's weird, the guy has a completely lucid moment and manages to be a spectacular Dunning-Kruger example in the same moment.

Looking at his info (Biology major at Brown), I don't think he's a creationist nutcase. He (wrongly in my, and most peoples', opinion) wants creationism/ID taught alongside evolution in science class.

[belfpala]

It was like that when I was in college too. Strong Dem student group, lots of groups about "left" issues, etc. I would imagine it's that way at most schools, except perhaps the ones that have an openly right-leaning ideology, where I'd imagine more right-leaning students would tend to go.

---------- Post added 2012-11-17 at 12:08 AM ----------

He (wrongly in my, and most peoples', opinion) wants creationism/ID taught alongside evolution in science class.

Yeah, it shouldn't be taught in a science class. If there's a theology class or similar, go for it, I guess.

[Spectral]

Looking at his info (Biology major at Brown), I don't think he's a creationist nutcase. He (wrongly in my, and most peoples', opinion) wants creationism/ID taught alongside evolution in science class.

Advocating teaching of religion in science classes is objectively indistinguishable from being a creationist nut from a policy standpoint. I've never seen a single statement where he rejects creationism and supports actual science; I think his unwillingness to do so, and willingness to support creationist policy supports the idea that he's a creationist.

Perhaps he's really not though, behind closed doors. He remains a depressing example of Republicans pandering to anti-science, anti-reality positions. If they're going to shift gears and embrace a reality-based approach to the world, people like Jindal need to go.

[Davendwarf]

I think he probably subscribes to a joint of both theories, like myself. I think his approach is misguided, but as long as evolution isn't being excluded, I wouldn't call it anti-science. Pro-religion: yes.

But at this point, I'm derailing and talking about religion. Double no-nos.

[Spectral]

I think he probably subscribes to a joint of both theories, like myself. I think his approach is misguided, but as long as evolution isn't being excluded, I wouldn't call it anti-science. Pro-religion: yes.

But at this point, I'm derailing and talking about religion. Double no-nos.

But really, putting religion in a science class is anti-science. I suspect you fully well know that, as most scientifically literate religious folks do.

I apologize for making a comment you're disinclined to reply to because of forum rules. Really, not being sardonic. If you'd like to grab the final word on the matter, feel free, I promise not to drag it out.