September 24th, 2012

Gay

Imagine if you will that you were born back in the times when the Old Testament was being written.

There was no David Bowie, no Elton John, and no Ellen DeGeneres. And there was no scientific evidence that people were born gay. Exactly how then could you consider the people of your time who were writing the bible to be hateful of gays? Homosexual sex was simply an act people chose to indulge in.

Now imagine you're living in the dark age of 1970. There are no openly gay celebrities or politicians. Just a few years earlier the New York Times wrote an editorial demanding that President Johnson fire a man in his administration simply because he was gay ("sexual deviant"). There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, and in fact the American Psychological Association considers being gay to be a mental disorder. Do you consider the people of your time (1970) who are against homosexual acts to be hateful? (Note: you can't use the fact that some people are born gay because that is not a known scientific fact to you, a person living in the year 1970).

Now imagine you're not living but instead went back in time to September 1996. The phrase "lifestyle choice" was still being used. President Bill Clinton has just signed the Defense of Marriage act, 3 years after signing Don't Ask Don't Tell. Do you, having gone back to the year 1996, consider Bill Clinton to be a hate-filled bigoted leader?


They are creatures of their surroundings, as am I, as are you.


Not everyone goes to college. Some don't want to, some aren't smart enough, and a lot of people can't afford it. And a lot of people don't have liberal friends or post in political forums full of liberals. This is to say a lot of people don't have the same experiences as you. They haven't had the same discussions as you, haven't been exposed to the same ideas as you, as often as you have. Do you consider this when you pronounce them hate filled bigots?

Obama vs Romney

1% of income to charity vs 13,45% to charity.
Guess who paid less?
BTW what media reported about this fact?

Last time I showed that 78% of USA tax returns are paying less than $15k.
They are paying much less than their fair share in Welfare, pensions, Medicare, Medicaid.
They still angry at Romney for his notion that 47% are irresponsible enough and not paying income taxes.

Now we are getting two candidates: Obama claims he is "more responsible" and helpful to community, and his contributions to charity is .... ~1%
Another paid 13% in average to charity through over decades?
Why "wealthy fat cat", during last decades was 13 times MORE socially responsible than our president-socialist?

Romneys paid an average annual effective tax rate of 20.2% during the entire 20-year period. The lowest they paid was 13.66%.
Are you seriously talking about Obama being more socially responsible after that?

Taking into account that all dividends (that's how you usually getting low effective tax rate) are in fact subject to double taxation:
at least you must pay your income taxes to buy shares after that your dividends will be additionally taxed [after paying corporate income tax and other business taxes].

F.e. you got 10 000 in savings, if you buy shares of GE, and after GE will pay corporate income and other taxes, your tiny dividends (about 3% annually = $300) will be in addition taxed at 15% to 39% rate. [Thanks for Obama's tax increase].

I wonder why socially irresponsible people like Obama are talking to much about social responsibility? What was HIS share during 20 years? Do you know was his contribution (both in %% and in $$), compared to Romney?

Why Romney deeds for 20 years is less important than Obama's falsehood?

BTW
I wonder how easy is to obtain your tax returns history for 20 years?
Is it usual to keep those for 20 years?
Internet argument

Here comes Money Boo Boo:

Sure, open windows in an airplane at 30,000 feet in the sky, and see what happens.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-jet-windows-20120924,0,3749461.story

If this guy's the best the GOP has to offer, that says a lot about why the Republican Party is utterly failing to provide any kind of political basis suited for the 21st Century, as opposed to a theme park version of the 11th. I mean really, there are a number of reasons you don't open airplane windows when the planes are in flight.

As this is the kind of comment too ridiculous to be taken seriously, here's a clip from Snakes on a Plane:



I mean wow. This is.......pathetic. Really, really pathetic. There's a right way and a wrong way to connect to the American people and this after the 47% comment is not helping.