View Single Post
      11-25-2012, 11:21 AM   #78

Drives: o_0
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Suburbia

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
1. If you look at the electoral map you'll clearly see Romney won most of the southern states and lost everywhere else. That's not a coincidence.

2. Everyone wants the same things in life.

3. Dividing people into makers and takers is the true definition of divisive class warfare.

4. Telling people what you think they want to hear to get their vote, then disparaging them behind closed doors is the way to lose elections.

5. And speaking of "stuff" what about all the "stuff" Mitt Romney and the Repubs promised all those billionaire donors who contributed so generously to his Republican super packs? They didn't cough up all that dough just cause they liked ol' Mitt. There were all kinds of strings attached to those dollars and if Romney won the election you can damn well bet they would all be calling in their chits. The Republican party is just as generous to big business and millionaires as you claim the left to be to poor minorities.
I'll start off by saying that I don't claim allegiance to either of party. I consider myself free to agree/disagree with both depending on the issue. Hardliners, IMHO, don't do the country and our process any justice. Obligatory caveats aside, a few things from your post, though (note that these aren't attacks, but pointing out a couple of things in fairness):

1. Romney did win most of the South, but did not otherwise lose everywhere else. Most of Romney's large losses were in the Michigan, New Mexico, the Northeast, West coast, and Hawaii. While still losses, Ohio and Florida were very close races. He took about half of the Midwest and most of the Plain and Rocky Mountain states.

2. That's a subjective statement as it depends on what scale you are referring to. On a macro scale, most, if not all, people want to be happy (well, not sure about those goth and emo kids... ). However, diving down more, peoples' goals differ. On a more micro scale, just look around your work place and take note of the people, young and old, that coast in their careers vs those that strive for more.

3. Admittedly, I have not gone through the whole thread so I do not have the whole context in which you make this statement (re: makers/takers & class warfare). Both sides have done it, but the 'Robin Hood-esque' notion of more heavily taxing those with AGI's of 250k+ doesn't detract from it either. That is for all practical purposes taking from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor'. It also ignores comments put forth by Democrats regarding those people [making 250k+] being able to afford tax attorneys to lighten their effective tax rate, thus dodging paying their fair share. To some degree, more tax revenue will be raised but I think it will be far from what was expected. Those same people will find more loopholes and outlets with which to shift their money. Stating that 'rich' people can afford to pay more only furthers the entitlement mentality currently plaguing our country. I don't disagree that a number of them can afford to pay more, but at the same time you are deviating from the notion of fairness to penalize their success(es). The problem is the loopholes and dated tax code. Fix the real problem.

4. With all due respect, you don't think both sides do this?

5. Big business is to Republicans what Unions are to Democrats. Neither side is innocent.