Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 20, 2012, 04:32 PM   #201
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
The "power and influence" they get after leaving office requires them to cozy up to big business in office.
So when Al Gore accumulates $100M after leaving office, that means he cozied up to big business while in office?

Both parties do it. I'd like to limit the power of each.
Dmunjal is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 05:42 PM   #202
Thomas Veil
macrumors 68020
 
Thomas Veil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Reality
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post
But you choose to fund those "over-inflated" salaries of YOUR OWN FREE WILL! When you pay a tax, you have no choice but to pay. That's the difference.
There's a difference, but I'm not sure it's as vast as people think. I can't think of too many Fortune 100 (or 500, for that matter) CEOs that don't make an ungodly salary. So if you want to choose not to contribute to that, you may have to go without a cell phone...and computer...and car...and food....

OTOH, taxes may not be as voluntary, but they are the price you pay to live in this country.

And in either case, great amounts of money are wasted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kd5jos View Post
Um, recent history has proven that Messrs. Reagan and Ferrara are full of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kd5jos View Post
Because we're NOT those countries seems like a logical starting point. Because it isn't all sunshine and Unicorns in those countries seems like a second point...
Which is basically criticizing a better, happier lifestyle because it isn't perfect.

We could be like them. We choose not to. Politically speaking, America is like your stubborn dad who crabs about why anybody would pay good money for an Apple computer with Mountain Lion when his old Royal typewriter works just as well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kd5jos View Post
Wait a minute. Your example of bad is China, a Socialist regime? And this is supposed to motivate me to be interested in Socialism?
Are you trying to equate the kind of socialism they have in China with the kind they have in, say, Denmark?
Thomas Veil is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 06:34 PM   #203
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post


Wait a minute. Your example of bad is China, a Socialist regime? And this is supposed to motivate me to be interested in Socialism?
I was prepared to give you a real response, but this portion indicates you're just here to be argumentative rather than to discuss anything. The way you're looking at it, any government service can be portrayed as socialism. It's the same nonsense as claiming we live in a democracy as opposed to a society that contains democratic elements (technically referred to as a republic). As to my previous comment, I was referring to the 2004 tax holiday. As soon as they enable one, it fails to accomplish the stated goals and everyone forgets about the promised reform.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 07:25 PM   #204
scoobydoo99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: so cal
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndpitch View Post
...
Romney would have run the country more like a business instead of a humanitarian society, which is what needs to happen. This made him the better option. He wasn't the optimal candidate, but I think he understood that the government is too big, and doesn't do a good job at running things.
...
You're not serious, right? Romney "understood that the government is too big..."??
It is shocking that so many people buy into the rhetoric that spews forth from politicians (from either party). The speeches they make, the words they say, the policies they claim to support are all a smokescreen to keep you distracted from their real mission, which is to support the elite class and maintain their power and wealth. The rich (and I mean super rich, not the 1%) rule this country through a complex power structure that includes politicians and financial markets. As long as they keep your mind occupied with thoughts of big government, entitlements, raising taxes (or reducing taxes, as the case may be), and any other mundane "issues", they can keep you distracted from the fact that they are amassing obscene fortunes built upon the labor of the working class.

And all the while, the working class defends them.
__________________
scoob
scoobydoo99 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 07:32 PM   #205
ndpitch
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobydoo99 View Post
You're not serious, right? Romney "understood that the government is too big..."??
It is shocking that so many people buy into the rhetoric that spews forth from politicians (from either party). The speeches they make, the words they say, the policies they claim to support are all a smokescreen to keep you distracted from their real mission, which is to support the elite class and maintain their power and wealth. The rich (and I mean super rich, not the 1%) rule this country through a complex power structure that includes politicians and financial markets. As long as they keep your mind occupied with thoughts of big government, entitlements, raising taxes (or reducing taxes, as the case may be), and any other mundane "issues", they can keep you distracted from the fact that they are amassing obscene fortunes built upon the labor of the working class.

And all the while, the working class defends them.
I understand what you mean. I'm with you on most of that. I hate most politicians. There are only a few who I truly respect who have been consistent in their mission and message to the public. However, you truncated my post a little to make it seem like I was pro Romney all the way, which I'm not. I was framing Romney in the context of a "Romney or Obama, who would you rather have?" scenario.

I'm with you on the nasty politicians who forever see themselves as more entitled than the general public that they're supposed to represent. Go libertarian. Go Ron Paul. Too bad he's retiring, sigh.
ndpitch is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 07:52 PM   #206
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndpitch View Post
I understand what you mean. I'm with you on most of that. I hate most politicians. There are only a few who I truly respect who have been consistent in their mission and message to the public. However, you truncated my post a little to make it seem like I was pro Romney all the way, which I'm not. I was framing Romney in the context of a "Romney or Obama, who would you rather have?" scenario.

I'm with you on the nasty politicians who forever see themselves as more entitled than the general public that they're supposed to represent. Go libertarian. Go Ron Paul. Too bad he's retiring, sigh.
If the Republican party can weed out the social conservative wing nuts, neocon nation builders, and focus on fiscal sanity and personal liberties, than they have a chance in the next election. Rand Paul 2016?
Dmunjal is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 08:30 PM   #207
token787
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
IDK if we will ever get out of this mess!
token787 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 08:54 PM   #208
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
If the Republican party can weed out the social conservative wing nuts, neocon nation builders, and focus on fiscal sanity and personal liberties, than they have a chance in the next election. Rand Paul 2016?
Fiscal sanity from Republicans? Is there real historical evidence of that you can cite?
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 09:43 PM   #209
calvin2006
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
This

Quote:
Originally Posted by ndpitch View Post
The earlier article I posted supports my viewpoints. The more government gets its hands on policies that are "for the benefit of the country", the more you have people lining up with their hands out (food stamps, Obamacare, etc).

What happened to hard work? My late grandfather came to this country and dug holes for new train tracks that were under construction. He was worried he wouldn't get a green card, and he had to wait in line and get a sponsor in order to get into the country. He worked his tail off, eventually became a carpenter, earned a decent enough living, bought a house, raised a family, and that's why I can even sit here right now and type this message. I was given an opportunity, and I will work as hard as I can to make sure my ancestors' efforts weren't for nothing.

Today, there's a sense of entitlement in the population that's out of control. We have illegals that hop the fence, and stick their palms out asking "where's mine?". You have people leaching off of entitlement programs that were put there as a last resort for emergency situations and times of great need. We have programs like social security, that are on the verge of bankruptcy, but reform will never happen. Since its inception, the age at which you can claim social security benefits has decreased, yet the life expentancy of the population has increased. It's terrible fiscal policy.

The country has stage 4 cancer, and in my mind, the majority of the population is too naive to wake up and support the treatment we need to get healthy again. Again, government is not the answer, it is the cause. I dislike Obama because he supports the policies that I think are killing the country.
This needs to be posted 10,000 times and read 10,000 times each post. How do more people not see this? Thank you for this fantastic comment.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Fiscal sanity from Republicans? Is there real historical evidence of that you can cite?
Balanced budgets from the 1994, 1996, 1998 Republican Congresses. Seriously, you don't remember those years? How about the Dems even propose ANY budget!
calvin2006 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 09:53 PM   #210
RedCroissant
macrumors 68000
 
RedCroissant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncaissie View Post
I’m Canadian but it makes me mad when companies look for loopholes to avoid taxes.
I don’t like to pay taxes either but I do because it’s the right thing to do. America would be so much better off if there wasn’t so many rich people trying to avoid taxes.
I agree but think it would be more appropriate to say "if there weren't so many people trying to avoid taxes." It's not limited to rich people and there could certainly be some reform to property tax exemption laws that allow for educational institutions, religious organizations, charity organizations, manufacturing tycoons that just "happen" to have their facilities surrounded by farmland to seriously decrease their property tax liability; or in the case o religious, educational, charity organizations; to make them completely exempt....(oh the billions that would suddenly reappear)

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin2006 View Post
This needs to be posted 10,000 times and read 10,000 times each post. How do more people not see this? Thank you for this fantastic comment.
Yeah, and say that to the republicans in Texas that pass legislation to allow illegal immigrants in-state- tuition status while United States citizens and military veterans still have to wait one year to establish residency... I guess the hand outs come from both sides of the aisle.
__________________
Welcome to the Grid, Program.

27" iMac, 3.2GHz i5, 16GB RAM, 3TB HDD; 32GB iPad 1 WiFi+3G; 30GB iPod Video 5G
RedCroissant is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 10:38 PM   #211
RedCroissant
macrumors 68000
 
RedCroissant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by winston1236 View Post
There's a huge difference in struggling to get by and refusing to accept responsibility for your own life. You dont need a phone to remain alive if you cant afford one too bad for you make better decisions. The sooner we cut off these leeches the better. At a minimum we need to assemble the welfare recipients every week to go do things like pick up trash around town to show thanks to those of us who get up early every day and go to work.
The phone idea was not to get a smartphone into everyone's hands or anything like that. One of the important things that is necessary when on welfare and applying for a job is to have some sort of contact information. Traditional welfare does not pay for phone service.

So assembling the welfare recipients to pick up trash as a means to "spiritually" repay us as taxpayers? Sounds a little crazy. Maybe instead we can "round 'em up" and find a way to get them ACTUAL jobs that would pay a living wage. People don't seem to understand that the best time to get a new job is when you're still in your current one. Most companies do not hire those who have been out of the workforce for more than a year(even if they're in school).

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
As a libertarian, I actually agree with this. But why not let the middle class get this benefit instead of screwing the the rich? Why not tax earned and unearned income the same at 15%, or even 20%?

Do you realize how much a stimulus to the economy a 15/20% tax on the middle class would be? It would inject billions.

What is the liberal position on this?

Also, the fact is that a rich person like Mitt Romney actually paid $2M in income taxes in 2011. So he actually supported the federal government more than anyone here on this board. Why is everyone so concerned about what's "fair" and what's "right" or "even"?
Why shouldn't people be concerned with what's "fair" and "right"? Just because he paid more than most likely everyone on this board did does not mean that he paid the same percentage. Simply paying more doesn't mean anything. What if he had found some way to even further decrease his taxable income and instead of paying $2M, he only paid say...$100k. Given that the 100k wold still be considerably more than most likely anyone on this board again, would that change your opinion? <---BTW there is not tone here, just questions and examples.

And instead of reform on income taxes, why not reform property tax laws? How many homes does Mitt Romney have? Or oh McCain? How much have they exempted from their property taxes and how could that be better used not just for the state level but the federal level as well?
__________________
Welcome to the Grid, Program.

27" iMac, 3.2GHz i5, 16GB RAM, 3TB HDD; 32GB iPad 1 WiFi+3G; 30GB iPod Video 5G
RedCroissant is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 10:45 PM   #212
lannisters4life
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndpitch View Post
I never said I supported Mitt. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm a libertarian.

That said, Romney would have run the country more like a business instead of a humanitarian society, which is what needs to happen. This made him the better option. He wasn't the optimal candidate, but I think he understood that the government is too big, and doesn't do a good job at running things.

We're on the highway to Greece people. The government isn't the answer. They're the cause.
Haha

Do you have a blog I can laugh at daily?
lannisters4life is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 10:45 PM   #213
fox10078
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
My god, the amount of idiots that this thread has brought to PSRI is staggering.
__________________
Vortex 8: Super Hackintosh Vortex 4: Render pal for Vortex 8, Also Hackintosh. Galaxy Nexus. iPad 2, My always trusty Macbook(Late 2006). Mac Pro 3,1(RIP) iPhone 4S(RIP)
fox10078 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 10:54 PM   #214
angelneo
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: afk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
All this sounds wonderful and brilliant, and obviously people aren't just motivated by money.

But then you look at the politicians and you see that they are basically all useless and/or beholden to other people.

You get what you pay for in todays world. If you pay a lame salary expect lame politicians.



What about the other 99.99% of the population who aren't as rich as Mitt Romney? Should they not be able to be president.
I have a very good example for you, look at my country, Singapore. Our Prime Minister is used to being paid S$3m (USD$2.4m), and now (USD$1.7m plus a whole range of perks) but look at the quality of our politicians, it's doesn't make any differences, we only get half-decent monkeys running the country.

EDIT: I believe my country have the highest paid politician (officially) in the world if I'm not wrong
__________________
This is good, isn't it?
angelneo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 11:21 PM   #215
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by winston1236 View Post
There's a huge difference in struggling to get by and refusing to accept responsibility for your own life. You dont need a phone to remain alive if you cant afford one too bad for you make better decisions. The sooner we cut off these leeches the better. At a minimum we need to assemble the welfare recipients every week to go do things like pick up trash around town to show thanks to those of us who get up early every day and go to work.
First, you might want to read up a little on the Lifeline phone idea that you have been paying for since 1985 (that was the Reagan administration FWIW):

http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

This wasn't created under Obama. In 2005, the program was changed to allow the phones to be cell phones (that was the GWB administration FWIW). Good idea, even if it did happen under GWB.

Second, I want job seekers to have a phone. Today, cell phones if not heavily used can be as cheap or cheaper than a land line. Back in the phone dark ages, when phones were expensive, people did without. The problem is that when you are looking for a job, you need to be able to call employers and they need to be able to call you. This gets old really fast for the people you are imposing on. Nowadays, I have tons of unused minutes on my cell phone, which I get with my plan, because I need unlimited data and texts. Funny how easily we adapt to some changes. I think you need to get with the times and accept that cell phones are cheap compared to a) housing, and b) commuting to a distant job.

As for "cutting off" the "leeches": there is always a balancing act between helping people and subsidizing lazy people. Would you really be prepared to let a child die because the parents are lazy? How about non-lazy people who happen to be poor? Is there a particular moral principle that says "let people die who can't or won't help themselves?" The world is not so simple as you seem to think.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 11:32 PM   #216
RedCroissant
macrumors 68000
 
RedCroissant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
First, you might want to read up a little on the Lifeline phone idea that you have been paying for since 1985 (that was the Reagan administration FWIW):

http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

This wasn't created under Obama. In 2005, the program was changed to allow the phones to be cell phones (that was the GWB administration FWIW). Good idea, even if it did happen under GWB.

Second, I want job seekers to have a phone. Today, cell phones if not heavily used can be as cheap or cheaper than a land line. Back in the phone dark ages, when phones were expensive, people did without. The problem is that when you are looking for a job, you need to be able to call employers and they need to be able to call you. This gets old really fast for the people you are imposing on. Nowadays, I have tons of unused minutes on my cell phone, which I get with my plan, because I need unlimited data and texts. Funny how easily we adapt to some changes. I think you need to get with the times and accept that cell phones are cheap compared to a) housing, and b) commuting to a distant job.

As for "cutting off" the "leeches": there is always a balancing act between helping people and subsidizing lazy people. Would you really be prepared to let a child die because the parents are lazy? How about non-lazy people who happen to be poor? Is there a particular moral principle that says "let people die who can't or won't help themselves?" The world is not so simple as you seem to think.
Awesome post.
__________________
Welcome to the Grid, Program.

27" iMac, 3.2GHz i5, 16GB RAM, 3TB HDD; 32GB iPad 1 WiFi+3G; 30GB iPod Video 5G
RedCroissant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2012, 11:37 PM   #217
ndpitch
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannisters4life View Post
Haha

Do you have a blog I can laugh at daily?
Dare I ask what is so funny? If you're going to write a "republicans are dumb" response, then please read the rest of my posts on this thread first. Thanks.
ndpitch is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 12:27 AM   #218
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Fiscal sanity from Republicans? Is there real historical evidence of that you can cite?
Not for a while it seems. But a guy can dream. The Dems aren't doing it for me as much as I prefer their social policies.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCroissant View Post
The phone idea was not to get a smartphone into everyone's hands or anything like that. One of the important things that is necessary when on welfare and applying for a job is to have some sort of contact information. Traditional welfare does not pay for phone service.

So assembling the welfare recipients to pick up trash as a means to "spiritually" repay us as taxpayers? Sounds a little crazy. Maybe instead we can "round 'em up" and find a way to get them ACTUAL jobs that would pay a living wage. People don't seem to understand that the best time to get a new job is when you're still in your current one. Most companies do not hire those who have been out of the workforce for more than a year(even if they're in school).

----------



Why shouldn't people be concerned with what's "fair" and "right"? Just because he paid more than most likely everyone on this board did does not mean that he paid the same percentage. Simply paying more doesn't mean anything. What if he had found some way to even further decrease his taxable income and instead of paying $2M, he only paid say...$100k. Given that the 100k wold still be considerably more than most likely anyone on this board again, would that change your opinion? <---BTW there is not tone here, just questions and examples.

And instead of reform on income taxes, why not reform property tax laws? How many homes does Mitt Romney have? Or oh McCain? How much have they exempted from their property taxes and how could that be better used not just for the state level but the federal level as well?
I agree. So let's tax everyone a fixed 20% and exempt the first $100k? No deductions. No taxshelters. No foreign bank accounts. Romney would pay more and most of us would pay less. Any liberals on this board for this?
Dmunjal is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 12:34 AM   #219
RedCroissant
macrumors 68000
 
RedCroissant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
Not for a while it seems. But a guy can dream. The Dems aren't doing it for me as much as I prefer their social policies.

----------



I agree. So let's tax everyone a fixed 20% and exempt the first $100k? No deductions. No taxshelters. No foreign bank accounts. Romney would pay more and most of us would pay less. Any liberals on this board for this?
As long as the taxing extends to the religious organizations that have taken advantage of the opportunity to identify themselves as corporations are also subject to this...
__________________
Welcome to the Grid, Program.

27" iMac, 3.2GHz i5, 16GB RAM, 3TB HDD; 32GB iPad 1 WiFi+3G; 30GB iPod Video 5G
RedCroissant is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 12:43 AM   #220
AlaskaMoose
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Alaska
It's quite funny seeing both the republics and Democrats arguing with each other about which politicians are better or worst. Don't you realize that both engage in the same politics, corruption, wars, and none will stop spending and taxing us to death? There is nothing President Obama and Congress will do to curb spending. All the money the rich has can be taken away, and it won't make a difference except for making everybody poorer.

Job outsourcing? Yes, it's done by both sides, and Miramar is next.

To make matters worst, new generations or Americans don't know the difference between the private and public sector:

Private sector pays the taxes
Public sector = government = Santa to a lot of Americans (even in this forum)
__________________
iMac, and MacBook Pro.
Canon.

Last edited by AlaskaMoose; Nov 21, 2012 at 12:54 AM.
AlaskaMoose is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 01:31 AM   #221
MSM Hobbes
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NE Hoosierana
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndpitch View Post
I never said I supported Mitt. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm a libertarian.

That said, Romney would have run the country more like a business instead of a humanitarian society, which is what needs to happen. This made him the better option. He wasn't the optimal candidate, but I think he understood that the government is too big, and doesn't do a good job at running things.

We're on the highway to Greece people. The government isn't the answer. They're the cause.
Agreed. Romney was not my 1st (or even 3rd choice) but I'd rather he be leading us instead of someone who believes in more "free" social / welfare programs is the solution.
__________________
24" C2D iMac; 15" MBP i7
64GB iPod Touch; 64GB iPad2; White iPhone 4S 64GB
Canon 50D, Tokina 116 AT-X, Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L & 17-55 & 28-135 & 55-250
MSM Hobbes is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 02:53 AM   #222
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelneo View Post
I have a very good example for you, look at my country, Singapore. Our Prime Minister is used to being paid S$3m (USD$2.4m), and now (USD$1.7m plus a whole range of perks) but look at the quality of our politicians,
Yeah, look at the quality of your politicians. They are far better than any other country in the world.

It's gone from being a backwater in the 1960's to being one of the world's richest country. It has excellent transport, good entertainment, good food, low crime, good education, good and cheap healthcare etc. etc.

And it doesn't have any natural resources other than its port. And rather than having ~100% of GDP in debt like most other rich countries it has a sovereign wealth fund. Also given its position it has to spend a lot on defence.

Sure its use of the death penalty and its freedoms leave something to be desired, but still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Veil View Post
There's a difference, but I'm not sure it's as vast as people think. I can't think of too many Fortune 100 (or 500, for that matter) CEOs that don't make an ungodly salary.
That's true.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant

Last edited by Eraserhead; Nov 21, 2012 at 03:23 AM.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 09:18 AM   #223
alfonsog
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cape Coral, FL
After reading through all this in the end it doesn't matter which one if President for most of us fiscally. Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on income over $250,000 so only $3k a year more per $100k than they are paying now. Not a big difference...

People say they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal"... well I say I'm socially liberal first and the hell with the fiscal crap because there isn't much difference except for possibly Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (not sure why you all love Paul over Johnson) but then again they aren't socially liberal enough and that's more important to me. Gay rights, women's rights, racism, healthcare, drug policy, and religious tolerance all had a clear choice in this election and are more important to me.

I would have voted for Obama if I did vote (my father was dying that day...) especially when he got some balls and supported gay marriage -- I still can't believe he did that I mean regardless of whether you are homophobic or not he took a real position and didn't waver after that point... I got a lot of respect for him that day. (A question: If you accept the fact that gay people exist wouldn't gay marriage be a conservative idea??)
__________________
iMac G4 got me to switch to in 2001 and it was the cutest computer ever
alfonsog is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 10:54 AM   #224
Coleman2010
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfonsog View Post
After reading through all this in the end it doesn't matter which one if President for most of us fiscally. Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on income over $250,000 so only $3k a year more per $100k than they are paying now. Not a big difference...

People say they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal"... well I say I'm socially liberal first and the hell with the fiscal crap because there isn't much difference except for possibly Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (not sure why you all love Paul over Johnson) but then again they aren't socially liberal enough and that's more important to me. Gay rights, women's rights, racism, healthcare, drug policy, and religious tolerance all had a clear choice in this election and are more important to me.

I would have voted for Obama if I did vote (my father was dying that day...) especially when he got some balls and supported gay marriage -- I still can't believe he did that I mean regardless of whether you are homophobic or not he took a real position and didn't waver after that point... I got a lot of respect for him that day. (A question: If you accept the fact that gay people exist wouldn't gay marriage be a conservative idea??)
Gay marriage IS a conservative idea. This is an interesting read:

The Conservative Case For Marriage Equality
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._making_a.html
Coleman2010 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 12:13 PM   #225
blahblah100
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndpitch View Post
Obama is such a joke. I still can't believe how ignorant our nation is as a whole to have elected him to a second term.
I believe the majority has spoken. Given this is a democracy, the country will (for the most part) be governed by what the majority deem desirable/acceptable.

If governing based on a majority opinion is unacceptable to you, perhaps you could move to another country that more closely governs to your liking? Perhaps it would reduce your stress and increase your quality of life...
blahblah100 is online now   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tim Cook and Other Tech Executives to Meet With President Obama to Discuss NSA Surveillance and Health Care Website MacRumors Politics, Religion, Social Issues 108 Dec 23, 2013 09:48 AM
Tim Cook and Other Tech Executives Meet with President Obama to Discuss Government Surveillance MacRumors Politics, Religion, Social Issues 177 Aug 19, 2013 11:04 AM
Tim Cook Visits China to Discuss Market Growth, Low-Cost iPhone with Carriers? MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 58 Aug 14, 2013 10:14 AM
Tim Cook Meets with China Mobile to Discuss 'Cooperation', Shares Thoughts on Chinese Markets MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 50 Jan 15, 2013 05:15 AM
Tim Cook and Samsung CEO to Discuss Patent Dispute One Last Time Today Ahead of Jury Deliberations MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 171 Sep 20, 2012 07:40 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC