i need a new hobby instead of posting on internet forums.
EKE, i suspect your "BTW, Nam, I'm curious: when you say you want to get rid of "self-absorbed greedy people", how shall we do that? Confiscate all their wealth, or simply send them to the guillotine? Or both?" comment was supposed to be directed at me.
i think growing divide between rich and poor in our country is a big a problem. i think estate tax is a place to look to diminish that divide. a better solution would be for the ultra wealthy to employ those who want to earn an honest living and pay them a reasonable wage, but that's clearly not going to happen. our country bet a lot on trickle down economics over the past 20 or 30 years. it didn't work. now we have a real problem. honestly, i think it would be difficult to implement in such a way that you aren't punishing people who really do want to work hard compared to nutters living off other people's work, and i don't really have any answers there.
turns out for romney, he's actually first generation wealth instead of legacy wealth, so that wouldn't fix him anyway. I would still think he had a lot of help through his father's money and influence, but i can't be too upset with george. also, i didn't know that about the inheritance bit and i like to form opinions based of fact rather than making stuff up, so thank you stone and i apologize both for my previously misguided statement as well as my continuing misguided statements.
surely there is a point where if working 40 hours a week doesn't pay you enough to feed yourself, a lot of people will be disincentivized to work. the wealthy and the right wing nuts are just going to tell them they're lazy and pretend that it isn't a problem. i don't think that's wise.
when the poor get too poor and the rich get too rich i think there is a concern that there will be an increase in crime and other problems that i think are common when masses of people get desperate. so what if the choice really is to confiscate wealth before the poor start building guillotines?
the problem is growing wealth disparity. along with that is limited social mobility. it keeps getting harder for someone in poverty to move up to the middle class in america. there is a dialogue going on in our country about what role government should take in our economy. on one hand, there is a group of people who want to keep that gap growing by prioritizing investment income over working wages and keeping regulation minimized so business can easily profit without encumbrances like environmental restrictions. on the other hand is a group scrambling to hold on to what few jobs they can in a an environment that's growing more hostile towards those of us who want to work hard and improve our lives.
EKE - the top marginal tax rate under Clinton was 39.6% -- job creation was significant during that period, and most economists agree that the higher rate did not discourage business owners from expanding their businesses and adding new employees.
In my lifetime the top tax rate has varied from 92% (in the early 1950s) to a low of 28% in 1988-1989. In between, the top rate was all over the place. In the most recent history, the rate has tended to be in the 30-39% range. However, it was over 70% during the entire Nixon administration. It really didn't start to fall substantially until Reagan came into office and that idiot Gingrich took over speakership of the House.
I'm both a business owner and an investor - and have been for more than 30 years. I can tell you categorically that I've never, ever, made a business or investmetn decision based on my marginal income tax rate. I make business and investment decisions based on what opportunities are open to me and how I can capitalize on those opportunities. I've done very well following that approach.
I would not object to a higher income tax rate on me, or others who do well in this country. Individuals no less well regarded than Warren Buffet agree with me. I feel an moral obligation to support the country that helped to make me successful. I am grateful that I was born in the USA and I don't object to supporting my country.
@curtkram: "the problem is growing wealth disparity"
This is, in my opinion, the real problem that we face.
I don't object to people doing well, but I do object to them doing well at the expense of others. Great cultures are based on a broad distribution of opportunity and success . While individuals - such as Mark Zuckerberg - still can do exceptionally well in our society, the vast majority of the middle class struggle to even get by, much less prepare properly for retirement and to educate their children and to pay for decent health care.
Those on the right don't seem to realize that a healthy and prosperous middle class create markets and growth opportunities for business.
There will just be a further increase in unfairness - the golden rule well prevail - "those with the gold will make the rules" those will will just have to accept further negative consequences. - Is this what we want? "gonna but ya be back in chains"
The ww3 thing is a real possibility. Iran may be the catalyst for the next world war. I can't believe how reckless these politicians are with there rhetoric.
Why not? Romney wins in Nov. Israel decides to go for it and there weare - Iran sinks one of our Nimitz class boats with a sea skimming missile and ...
Israel will be making the pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear faciltieis, if one occurs. In that event, even Obama has made it clear he would staunchly support Israel if further conflict arose. Please don't act like Romney is the only one who would support Israel in another middle-eastern war.
i believe the US is currently trying very hard to prevent israel from attacking iran, even thought they really want to. if we elected leaders that relaxed the efforts to prevent the attack, i think it's reasonable to think that it will be much more likely to happen.
on the other hand, there is a pretty good chance it doesn't matter and israel could lose patience before november. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/16/obama-s-last-chance-before-israel-bombs-iran.html i haven't been paying attention too much to the israel situation, but really this should be getting more press attention. if obama slipped in the polls in, let's say the last week of september, he could probably pick up a few percentage points by sending a bunch more troops back to the mid-east. presidents are much more likely to be re-elected during times of war, aren't they?
it's august now, so november is 3 months away and the end of the world is 4.5 months away.
I agree. There has been far too little media attention on the iran issue. That is kind of scary in and of itself. It feels like they are trying to slip it under our noses.
It's miserable. I find it possible, unlikely, but possible, that somehow if reelected Obama could find the political mechanism to prevent Israel from striking unilaterally. He already has Shimon Peres attempting to shut Netanyahu down, but it seems pretty obvious that is having little effect. If that could be sustained until the Iranian election next june, there is the possibility, still unlikely, that a second green wave could plunge Iran into what would likely become a syria-esque civil war. And that to me is the best case scenario. Terrifyingly, much more likely, Netanyahu will wait until he can guess the winner of the next election. If Romney has even the plausibility of winning, Netanyahu will wait, knowing a Romney presidency will deliver to him a coordinated joint attack this spring and all he's ever dreamed for in the next 4 years. If Obama seems more than likely to win however, He will most likely strike before, knowing the election forces Obama's hand absolutely into a follow up air campaign after the totally inevitable Iranian retaliation against Israel, and likely also us and Saudi Arabia.
Of course the government of Iran needs only to wait. The Revolutionary Guard is begging for a Romney win, knowing an attack ensures there will be no contest during the upcoming election and that their control over the country will be permanent and absolute.
Either way, in all likelihood we will be in a state of all out war within a year. As the radiation spreads, and bodies pile up, and global energy prices balloon to near catastrophic levels and the global economy comes to another screeching halt, Netanyahu will have sealed the fate of Israel and the US as global pariahs for decades to come. With Obama we have some slim chance to avoid that, with Romney we have none.
whenever i wonder why architects don't get paid much, i look at these boards and realize that you're all really really dumb. and then my confusion disappears.
I am absolutely amazed at the amount of effort put into this discussion, and then it is literally put to shame my your (i r giv up) efforts at dischord. You chastise other people for engaging in discourse, while you yourself behave childishly and cast insults at others for no other reason that your own amusement.
anyways, I mostly agree with oe's assessment. Netanyahu's chuminess with neocons and defense lobbyists irritated Obama initially. This was evident when Obama gave aid to the Palestinian authority back in April-ish.
Within Iran however, it's difficult to visualize how secularization (even among the younger folks) will immediately redefine their current regime.
sometimes I think this will simply draw out, cold war style.
Xenakis Do you think Romney or Bush has ever had to go on a job interview or work or be self reliant? They are silver spooners. We are lazy because we have microwaves and remotes for the TV not to mention fast food. Being born int o poverty is different. You start with nothing and and you have hope and pray someone gives you a chance.
If they buy or steal the election and/or people without the new IDs can not vote then you will see dis pare and chaos. The folks in gated communities think they are sheltered and generally are not in contact with the general public. But that will eventually change. Tax breaks but no jobs but they have billions to spend on commercials! They have sandbagged Obamas first four years. No No No then blame him... Its sad...
Thats the whole idea - we need to be self reliant - to as you say build our own city or city layer to be independent of the 1% power structure - I am beginning to see that sort of thing in Oakland now - little independent co-op things poking through. - it just needs to be expanded on to generate momentum - and therin lies the danger - a tipping point to where the "big boys" BofA Citi et all muscle in
Let the market do its work. Don't blame the rich for your problems! Blame yourselves for being unemployed. Let nature take its course.
That's Social Darwinism. Doesn't it sound familiar?
Aug 20, 12 12:18 pm ·
·
This thread is a non-issue because Hurricane Issac (currently brewing in the mid-Atlantic) will hit Tampa during their convention and wipe out all of the republican party.
Well, probably not all of the party because doubtless Romney will jet his ass out of there but there will be enough voting members left behind to perish that it will sink the party.
the problem with social darwinism, as opposed to actual darwinism, is that the winner is not usually the most fit, but rather the most fortunate. This is a big difference. In nature there is a level playing field. If some lions are hand fed and others have to hunt, natural darwinism does not apply!
What is happening now is that corporations and very wealthy people are removing themselves from the rules of nature that are required for a free market to truley work. A free market is only healthy when better stuff equals better survival rate. In this economy, the fittness of ancestors determines the fittness of offspring regardless of whether or not the offspring inherit the traits that allow them to be more fit. We do not have social darwinism in this country, we have a cast system with 99% of the population being born serfs, and 1% royalty.
Yes serfs can make it to the 1% in America, but they have to be 1000 times better than those born into the 1%. Because of this, you get 1000 romneys for every zuckerberg. You get 1000 mcdonalds for every joe's burgers. You get an overall decline in the quality of goods and services. Home Depots and Lowes are superheavy weights and bob's hardware is a phantom weight with almost no chance of winning. The endgame is perhaps a country where 2 or 3 corporations own and control everything.
If you think that this is paranoid, look at what happened to radio over the last 20 years.
Romney and Ryan have more money. That has a big influence. They were also able to get voter ID laws passed in a few states. using the weather is a clever strategy for the dems, but i still think r&r have better than even odds right now.
They predict the rest of the stuff doesn't matter, and that R&R will pick up ALL 10 swing states. I find that really hard to believe, but is interesting coming out of Boulder, a huge Obama supporting community.
Concerning the whole rape issue, I don't care what Romney or Ryan think about rape, they're not women so what they think about the issue doesnt matter. I live in Richmond, Virginia and I witnessed the protests and uproar caused by Gov. Bob Mcdonnel and the whole Ultrasound Legistlation. I was confused as to why none of the female politicians spoke up and said that the decision should be made by women only. I have no idea what its like to be a women and neither do Romney or Ryan (unless I've been misinformed, haha) so what right do I have making a decision about an issue that I know pretty much nothing (besides what I learned in sex ed, and from my wife) about? There should be a special group of women appointed or maybe even voted for (by women only maybe) that sit down and talk the issue out, making fair and considerate legistlation for women. It shouldnt be decided by a room full of old guys, or by men period.
I think Romney and Ryan are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
"Concerning the whole rape issue, I don't care what Romney or Ryan think about rape, they're not women so what they think about the issue doesnt matter."
From what I understand from doctors, it's really rare for a man to get pregnant if he's raped. If it’s a legitimate rape, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
University of Colorado professor's model predicts R&R win, based solely on economic data which has worked to predict elections accurately since 1980:
there are a few factors that are unique to this election that the model dosen't factor in.
1. Romney is rich. in this post 2008 world most americans hate the rich and realize that they are greedy liars.
2. Romney looks like your boss. Most people hate their boss.
The only way that I see Romney winning is if the dems fail to show up. This could be a big problem. People are just not that excited. The first election made history (first black president) people wanted to be part of that. This time around its just another boring old election for some. I will bet that the youth turnout is really low this time. Obama needs to excite the youth. Hmmmm how can he do that? How about weeeeeeeeeeeeed.
What if Romney + Ryan win?
i need a new hobby instead of posting on internet forums.
EKE, i suspect your "BTW, Nam, I'm curious: when you say you want to get rid of "self-absorbed greedy people", how shall we do that? Confiscate all their wealth, or simply send them to the guillotine? Or both?" comment was supposed to be directed at me.
i think growing divide between rich and poor in our country is a big a problem. i think estate tax is a place to look to diminish that divide. a better solution would be for the ultra wealthy to employ those who want to earn an honest living and pay them a reasonable wage, but that's clearly not going to happen. our country bet a lot on trickle down economics over the past 20 or 30 years. it didn't work. now we have a real problem. honestly, i think it would be difficult to implement in such a way that you aren't punishing people who really do want to work hard compared to nutters living off other people's work, and i don't really have any answers there.
turns out for romney, he's actually first generation wealth instead of legacy wealth, so that wouldn't fix him anyway. I would still think he had a lot of help through his father's money and influence, but i can't be too upset with george. also, i didn't know that about the inheritance bit and i like to form opinions based of fact rather than making stuff up, so thank you stone and i apologize both for my previously misguided statement as well as my continuing misguided statements.
surely there is a point where if working 40 hours a week doesn't pay you enough to feed yourself, a lot of people will be disincentivized to work. the wealthy and the right wing nuts are just going to tell them they're lazy and pretend that it isn't a problem. i don't think that's wise.
when the poor get too poor and the rich get too rich i think there is a concern that there will be an increase in crime and other problems that i think are common when masses of people get desperate. so what if the choice really is to confiscate wealth before the poor start building guillotines?
the problem is growing wealth disparity. along with that is limited social mobility. it keeps getting harder for someone in poverty to move up to the middle class in america. there is a dialogue going on in our country about what role government should take in our economy. on one hand, there is a group of people who want to keep that gap growing by prioritizing investment income over working wages and keeping regulation minimized so business can easily profit without encumbrances like environmental restrictions. on the other hand is a group scrambling to hold on to what few jobs they can in a an environment that's growing more hostile towards those of us who want to work hard and improve our lives.
EKE - the top marginal tax rate under Clinton was 39.6% -- job creation was significant during that period, and most economists agree that the higher rate did not discourage business owners from expanding their businesses and adding new employees.
In my lifetime the top tax rate has varied from 92% (in the early 1950s) to a low of 28% in 1988-1989. In between, the top rate was all over the place. In the most recent history, the rate has tended to be in the 30-39% range. However, it was over 70% during the entire Nixon administration. It really didn't start to fall substantially until Reagan came into office and that idiot Gingrich took over speakership of the House.
I'm both a business owner and an investor - and have been for more than 30 years. I can tell you categorically that I've never, ever, made a business or investmetn decision based on my marginal income tax rate. I make business and investment decisions based on what opportunities are open to me and how I can capitalize on those opportunities. I've done very well following that approach.
I would not object to a higher income tax rate on me, or others who do well in this country. Individuals no less well regarded than Warren Buffet agree with me. I feel an moral obligation to support the country that helped to make me successful. I am grateful that I was born in the USA and I don't object to supporting my country.
@curtkram: "the problem is growing wealth disparity"
This is, in my opinion, the real problem that we face.
I don't object to people doing well, but I do object to them doing well at the expense of others. Great cultures are based on a broad distribution of opportunity and success . While individuals - such as Mark Zuckerberg - still can do exceptionally well in our society, the vast majority of the middle class struggle to even get by, much less prepare properly for retirement and to educate their children and to pay for decent health care.
Those on the right don't seem to realize that a healthy and prosperous middle class create markets and growth opportunities for business.
EKE i think you were talking actually to curtkram. however let me say i agree with the majority if not all of his (and stone's) last post or two....
if romney wins the moon will turn to blood and ww3 will commence.
There will just be a further increase in unfairness - the golden rule well prevail - "those with the gold will make the rules" those will will just have to accept further negative consequences. - Is this what we want? "gonna but ya be back in chains"
The ww3 thing is a real possibility. Iran may be the catalyst for the next world war. I can't believe how reckless these politicians are with there rhetoric.
Why not? Romney wins in Nov. Israel decides to go for it and there weare - Iran sinks one of our Nimitz class boats with a sea skimming missile and ...
Israel will be making the pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear faciltieis, if one occurs. In that event, even Obama has made it clear he would staunchly support Israel if further conflict arose. Please don't act like Romney is the only one who would support Israel in another middle-eastern war.
i believe the US is currently trying very hard to prevent israel from attacking iran, even thought they really want to. if we elected leaders that relaxed the efforts to prevent the attack, i think it's reasonable to think that it will be much more likely to happen.
on the other hand, there is a pretty good chance it doesn't matter and israel could lose patience before november. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/16/obama-s-last-chance-before-israel-bombs-iran.html i haven't been paying attention too much to the israel situation, but really this should be getting more press attention. if obama slipped in the polls in, let's say the last week of september, he could probably pick up a few percentage points by sending a bunch more troops back to the mid-east. presidents are much more likely to be re-elected during times of war, aren't they?
it's august now, so november is 3 months away and the end of the world is 4.5 months away.
I agree. There has been far too little media attention on the iran issue. That is kind of scary in and of itself. It feels like they are trying to slip it under our noses.
I am not a conspiracy dude, but it really seems as if this is a long planned event. We are just waiting for syria to fall first. Scary....
It's miserable. I find it possible, unlikely, but possible, that somehow if reelected Obama could find the political mechanism to prevent Israel from striking unilaterally. He already has Shimon Peres attempting to shut Netanyahu down, but it seems pretty obvious that is having little effect. If that could be sustained until the Iranian election next june, there is the possibility, still unlikely, that a second green wave could plunge Iran into what would likely become a syria-esque civil war. And that to me is the best case scenario. Terrifyingly, much more likely, Netanyahu will wait until he can guess the winner of the next election. If Romney has even the plausibility of winning, Netanyahu will wait, knowing a Romney presidency will deliver to him a coordinated joint attack this spring and all he's ever dreamed for in the next 4 years. If Obama seems more than likely to win however, He will most likely strike before, knowing the election forces Obama's hand absolutely into a follow up air campaign after the totally inevitable Iranian retaliation against Israel, and likely also us and Saudi Arabia.
Of course the government of Iran needs only to wait. The Revolutionary Guard is begging for a Romney win, knowing an attack ensures there will be no contest during the upcoming election and that their control over the country will be permanent and absolute.
Either way, in all likelihood we will be in a state of all out war within a year. As the radiation spreads, and bodies pile up, and global energy prices balloon to near catastrophic levels and the global economy comes to another screeching halt, Netanyahu will have sealed the fate of Israel and the US as global pariahs for decades to come. With Obama we have some slim chance to avoid that, with Romney we have none.
whenever i wonder why architects don't get paid much, i look at these boards and realize that you're all really really dumb. and then my confusion disappears.
i appreciate your contribution i r.
thanks.
stick to architecture.
flag the troll "ir giv up"
stick to dating websites ir
Well, please, give up, enlighten us ;)
fuck no.
i'm not wasting my time on retards.
I am absolutely amazed at the amount of effort put into this discussion, and then it is literally put to shame my your (i r giv up) efforts at dischord. You chastise other people for engaging in discourse, while you yourself behave childishly and cast insults at others for no other reason that your own amusement.
ignore the bastard .. he's a dick
anyways, I mostly agree with oe's assessment. Netanyahu's chuminess with neocons and defense lobbyists irritated Obama initially. This was evident when Obama gave aid to the Palestinian authority back in April-ish.
Within Iran however, it's difficult to visualize how secularization (even among the younger folks) will immediately redefine their current regime.
sometimes I think this will simply draw out, cold war style.
r&r? not for grandma
:'(
:D
:D
O M G whyyyyyy? : ' ((((
-. .
.' '.
/ O O \
: :
| |
: ', ,' :
\ '-.____.-' /
'. U .'
'-... . ..- '
ahh 2006
David Simon on the state of things..
http://davidsimon.com/mitt-romney-paid-taxes-at-a-rate-of-at-least-13-percent-and-hes-proud-to-say-so/
double post,...
I'll fill it in with an alternative view:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/tracy-morgan-mitt-romney-weed-letterman_n_1796088.htm
Xenakis Do you think Romney or Bush has ever had to go on a job interview or work or be self reliant? They are silver spooners. We are lazy because we have microwaves and remotes for the TV not to mention fast food. Being born int o poverty is different. You start with nothing and and you have hope and pray someone gives you a chance.
If they buy or steal the election and/or people without the new IDs can not vote then you will see dis pare and chaos. The folks in gated communities think they are sheltered and generally are not in contact with the general public. But that will eventually change. Tax breaks but no jobs but they have billions to spend on commercials! They have sandbagged Obamas first four years. No No No then blame him... Its sad...
obama outspent mccain 3 to 1, did 'bama 'buy' the election?
Thats the whole idea - we need to be self reliant - to as you say build our own city or city layer to be independent of the 1% power structure - I am beginning to see that sort of thing in Oakland now - little independent co-op things poking through. - it just needs to be expanded on to generate momentum - and therin lies the danger - a tipping point to where the "big boys" BofA Citi et all muscle in
A more honest appraisal...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?_r=1
They will try to find ways of "bootstrapping" the "underperforming" assets of the country, i.e., the poor.
e.g., Ryan will accelerate social Darwinism - I suspect we are moving that way anyway -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/social-darwinism-election_b_1027743.html
Let the market do its work. Don't blame the rich for your problems! Blame yourselves for being unemployed. Let nature take its course.
That's Social Darwinism. Doesn't it sound familiar?
This thread is a non-issue because Hurricane Issac (currently brewing in the mid-Atlantic) will hit Tampa during their convention and wipe out all of the republican party.
Well, probably not all of the party because doubtless Romney will jet his ass out of there but there will be enough voting members left behind to perish that it will sink the party.
Those who fall behind are left behind, yo!
the problem with social darwinism, as opposed to actual darwinism, is that the winner is not usually the most fit, but rather the most fortunate. This is a big difference. In nature there is a level playing field. If some lions are hand fed and others have to hunt, natural darwinism does not apply!
What is happening now is that corporations and very wealthy people are removing themselves from the rules of nature that are required for a free market to truley work. A free market is only healthy when better stuff equals better survival rate. In this economy, the fittness of ancestors determines the fittness of offspring regardless of whether or not the offspring inherit the traits that allow them to be more fit. We do not have social darwinism in this country, we have a cast system with 99% of the population being born serfs, and 1% royalty.
Yes serfs can make it to the 1% in America, but they have to be 1000 times better than those born into the 1%. Because of this, you get 1000 romneys for every zuckerberg. You get 1000 mcdonalds for every joe's burgers. You get an overall decline in the quality of goods and services. Home Depots and Lowes are superheavy weights and bob's hardware is a phantom weight with almost no chance of winning. The endgame is perhaps a country where 2 or 3 corporations own and control everything.
If you think that this is paranoid, look at what happened to radio over the last 20 years.
They will not win.
Isaac gettin' closer.
Makin'em sweat, yo!
Romney and Ryan have more money. That has a big influence. They were also able to get voter ID laws passed in a few states. using the weather is a clever strategy for the dems, but i still think r&r have better than even odds right now.
since i just can't let these threads die, i felt the need to share this:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/us/texas-judge-warning/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
it's like an addiction. i probably need help. oh well, i guess if the world doesn't end in december we have civil war in texas to look forward to.
University of Colorado professor's model predicts R&R win, based solely on economic data which has worked to predict elections accurately since 1980: http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-ticket-wins-2012-presidential-election-says-cu-study
They predict the rest of the stuff doesn't matter, and that R&R will pick up ALL 10 swing states. I find that really hard to believe, but is interesting coming out of Boulder, a huge Obama supporting community.
Funding for college students (such as myself) falls drastically as well
i still can't stop. must see music video for those that may or may not support akin:
http://youtu.be/mg_4O6XmKAQ
taylor ferrara may be my new favorite singer.
curtkam
that video is pretty cool haha
Concerning the whole rape issue, I don't care what Romney or Ryan think about rape, they're not women so what they think about the issue doesnt matter. I live in Richmond, Virginia and I witnessed the protests and uproar caused by Gov. Bob Mcdonnel and the whole Ultrasound Legistlation. I was confused as to why none of the female politicians spoke up and said that the decision should be made by women only. I have no idea what its like to be a women and neither do Romney or Ryan (unless I've been misinformed, haha) so what right do I have making a decision about an issue that I know pretty much nothing (besides what I learned in sex ed, and from my wife) about? There should be a special group of women appointed or maybe even voted for (by women only maybe) that sit down and talk the issue out, making fair and considerate legistlation for women. It shouldnt be decided by a room full of old guys, or by men period.
I think Romney and Ryan are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
"Concerning the whole rape issue, I don't care what Romney or Ryan think about rape, they're not women so what they think about the issue doesnt matter."
CHECK YOUR CISEXUAL BINARY-GENDER PRIVILEGE, YO!
Men can be raped, too.
From what I understand from doctors, it's really rare for a man to get pregnant if he's raped. If it’s a legitimate rape, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
University of Colorado professor's model predicts R&R win, based solely on economic data which has worked to predict elections accurately since 1980:
there are a few factors that are unique to this election that the model dosen't factor in.
1. Romney is rich. in this post 2008 world most americans hate the rich and realize that they are greedy liars.
2. Romney looks like your boss. Most people hate their boss.
The only way that I see Romney winning is if the dems fail to show up. This could be a big problem. People are just not that excited. The first election made history (first black president) people wanted to be part of that. This time around its just another boring old election for some. I will bet that the youth turnout is really low this time. Obama needs to excite the youth. Hmmmm how can he do that? How about weeeeeeeeeeeeed.
1. Romney is rich. in this post 2008 world most americans hate the rich and realize that they are greedy liars.
wut
The first election made history (first black president) people wanted to be part of that.
shhhh! you're not supposed to say he was elected because he is black!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.