[midsize]

The good news is that the 2012 campaign will last even longer. It'll start next Wednesday.

[BarnacleBill]

true about the 2012 campaign, but it won't be as big a deal as  this one because we'll already know one of the candidates

@ notty, i'm really not trying to be complete brown-nosing ass-kissing suck-up to you.  I just think its obvious that you are smarter, more attractive, more witty and more honest than 99.9999% of the human population.  And I'm Captain Obvious for even bringing it up.  

[mofoapoo]

Hey Notty, you live in MI if I remember correctly, right?

Obama is winning by more than 10 points, so it's not as much of a factor.  What really is a factor is vote yes on prop 2.

Seriously.  Do it.  It's great.  They give you candy if you vote yes.  Also, you are a communist if you don't vote yes.  Also a terrorist.  A terrorist communist.

[3deroticer]

LOL!!

Giving her own best medicine are you MoFo?

[gOOber]

Quote:
midsize said:
The good news is that the 2012 campaign will last even longer. It'll start next Wednesday.

POTUS 2012

 

[pedonbio]

Quote:
midsize said:

People get too hung up on trying to make the exactly right decision about presidential candidates, when there isn't one. In the end, McCain's tax plan vs Obama's tax plan isn't really going to affect you that much, nor probably any other detail of their proposals. Neither one will 'save' America, nor will either one 'destroy' it.

 

On the other hand, the person who would be most affected by having his taxes raised by the Obama proposal, Warren Buffet, is for it, and his reasons are worth considering. When a politician talks about cutting overall taxes, he's talking about making our country more like Somalia.

[pedonbio]

Quote:
gOOber said:

Quote:
midsize said:
The good news is that the 2012 campaign will last even longer. It'll start next Wednesday.

POTUS 2012

   

Geeze, gOOber, some people will do anything to get elected! Willie with a haircut? Shee-it!!

[espy]

Quote:
AZWolf said:
I already voted for Obama.  Sick of the wealth migrating upward.  

Spoken like a true underachiever  

Actually, wealth redistribution just means the wealthy have to work harder to get it back from the less-than-wealthy.  For the most part, people's net worth is not accidental.  If you threw all the money into one big pot and divided it up equally, it would just be a matter of time before the rich got rich again and the poor got poor again.

[notty]

Quote:
mofoapoo said:
Hey Notty, you live in MI if I remember correctly, right?

Obama is winning by more than 10 points, so it's not as much of a factor.  What really is a factor is vote yes on prop 2.

Seriously.  Do it.  It's great.  They give you candy if you vote yes.  Also, you are a communist if you don't vote yes.  Also a terrorist.  A terrorist communist.

Is that the proposition regarding stem cells, or the one about medical mary jane?  Knowing you, probably the latter.

[gOOber]

 

Quote:
 Geeze, gOOber, some people will do anything to get elected! Willie with a haircut? Shee-it!!  

The legal weed will be worth it.

[midsize]

Quote:
espy said:
Spoken like a true underachiever  

Actually, wealth redistribution just means the wealthy have to work harder to get it back from the less-than-wealthy.  For the most part, people's net worth is not accidental.  If you threw all the money into one big pot and divided it up equally, it would just be a matter of time before the rich got rich again and the poor got poor again.

That argument, as stated, has two major logical flaws.

1) It implies that the current rich will regain their wealth if it is taken from them. Saying that there will always be rich and poor is different from saying that the same people will always be rich and the same ones poor. If you put all the money together in a pot, some people might well get more of it, but it wouldn't necessarily be the same ones who have more of it now. Your argument holds only for the self-made rich who did not benefit from any chance or coincidence of social trends. For example, had Bill Gates been 10 years older or younger than he is, he might never have made a fortune, as he would have been out of synch with the emerging microcomputer industry. Certainly there is no expectation that inherited wealth would be reclaimed. Your argument assumes the existence of a hyper-deterministic meritocracy for which the evidence is spotty.

2) The logical construction of your argument is as follows: people differ in their desire and ability to acquire wealth; wealth will accrue to those with superior desire and ability to acquire it; therefore disparities between rich and poor are inevitable. However, as you've phrased it, you omit the 2nd step of the logic. Your statement is true only if wealth is distributed according to rapacity.

[mofoapoo]

Quote:
Is that the proposition regarding stem cells, or the one about medical mary jane?  Knowing you, probably the latter.

Prop 1 is about the medical marijuana, and polls show that is winning by like, 10 points.  So I'm not worried about that one.

But yeah, prop 2 is about legalizing the research of embryonic stem cells that would've been destroyed after artificial pregnancies.  That's the close one, and the crazy medical schools like U of M and MSU and Wayne would get a lot of good research done.

[PregNut]

Isn't Willie a Democrat?

[Real]

Quote:
espy said:
Spoken like a true underachiever  

Actually, wealth redistribution just means the wealthy have to work harder to get it back from the less-than-wealthy.  For the most part, people's net worth is not accidental.  If you threw all the money into one big pot and divided it up equally, it would just be a matter of time before the rich got rich again and the poor got poor again.

lol, you dont know very many trust fund k!ds do you?

plus there are plenty of other extenuating circumstances.  like depending on where you live being a non skilled worker could mean 25k janitor or 125k on the oil rigs.  and the fact that denying the systemic detriment being born into poverty puts on a person is completely ignorant...

[notty]

Quote:
mofoapoo said:
Prop 1 is about the medical marijuana, and polls show that is winning by like, 10 points.  So I'm not worried about that one.

But yeah, prop 2 is about legalizing the research of embryonic stem cells that would've been destroyed after artificial pregnancies.  That's the close one, and the crazy medical schools like U of M and MSU and Wayne would get a lot of good research done.

Noted.