This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]Your thread title is misleading. And he isn't entirely wrong, if you read the article that is.TheWalkingGhost
It is pretty obvious that Romney is latching onto something to rationalize his defeat. His badly run campaign and his overall weakness as a candidate was much more of a factor than these so-called "gifts".
Still not wrong in that those things helped a lot.Yeah, it's pretty amazing when people vote in their own self-interest isn't it?
Well when your on food stamps or some sort of welfare, you are going to vote democrat 95/100 times because they are the ones giving you free stuffmingmao3046
Those people still recieved those things under Republican Presidents. While Repubilcans have talked about ending social welfare for years, they haven't been able to do so, despite having the Presidency and control of both houses at times.
Well duh, only Republicans are dumb enough to vote against their own self-interests.
this just in, voters vote for the candidate that will make their lives better. stunning.Abbeten
The problem is that our political system now lets voters make the lives of other citizens worse, and politicians prey on that. A balance needs to be reached.
[QUOTE="Abbeten"]this just in, voters vote for the candidate that will make their lives better. stunning.GIJames248
The problem is that our political system now lets voters make the lives of other citizens worse, and politicians prey on that. A balance needs to be reached.
Voters have always had this power. And what changes would you suggest to strike a 'balance?'[QUOTE="GIJames248"][QUOTE="Abbeten"]this just in, voters vote for the candidate that will make their lives better. stunning.Abbeten
The problem is that our political system now lets voters make the lives of other citizens worse, and politicians prey on that. A balance needs to be reached.
Voters have always had this power. And what changes would you suggest to strike a 'balance?'In a limited sense yes, we have always been able to influence the good of others in our nation, but the government now has much greater power (and thus the voting block) to mess around with people (and people fewer or weaker rights to protect themselves from the government), primarily through the now accepted power of the government to significantly redistribute wealth in the guise of social programs and welfare. Until that power is revoked people will always be tempted to vote for candidates who will give them the most of someone else's money. I do not expect the problem to be solved because people are fundamentally too selfish to care about others if they can benefit themselves in a safe way by hurting others, but that doesn't mean they problem is not lamentable.
Voters have always had this power. And what changes would you suggest to strike a 'balance?'[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="GIJames248"]
The problem is that our political system now lets voters make the lives of other citizens worse, and politicians prey on that. A balance needs to be reached.
GIJames248
In a limited sense yes, we have always been able to influence the good of others in our nation, but the government now has much greater power (and thus the voting block) to mess around with people (and people fewer or weaker rights to protect themselves from the government), primarily through the now accepted power of the government to significantly redistribute wealth in the guise of social programs and welfare. Until that power is revoked people will always be tempted to vote for candidates who will give them the most of someone else's money. I do not expect the problem to be solved because people are fundamentally too selfish to care about others if they can benefit themselves in a safe way by hurting others, but that doesn't mean they problem is not lamentable.
This is clearly untrue because the states that receive the most from and contribute the least to the federal government routinely vote republican.Not to mention that the government's power to 'redistribute wealth' through social programs and welfare cannot possibly be as robust as you are implying, given the fact that income inequality is enormous and still rising.
There's also the impetus on politicians to govern correctly and not shepherd the country into a massive crisis because all the promises of welfare programs in the world won't save them when their opponent hangs an insolvent state around their neck come reelection time.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]Your thread title is misleading. And he isn't entirely wrong, if you read the article that is.TheWalkingGhost
It is pretty obvious that Romney is latching onto something to rationalize his defeat. His badly run campaign and his overall weakness as a candidate was much more of a factor than these so-called "gifts".
Still not wrong in that those things helped a lot. So you are saying that education and health-care are gifts that the poor shouldn't have access to?[QUOTE="GIJames248"]
[QUOTE="Abbeten"] Voters have always had this power. And what changes would you suggest to strike a 'balance?'Abbeten
In a limited sense yes, we have always been able to influence the good of others in our nation, but the government now has much greater power (and thus the voting block) to mess around with people (and people fewer or weaker rights to protect themselves from the government), primarily through the now accepted power of the government to significantly redistribute wealth in the guise of social programs and welfare. Until that power is revoked people will always be tempted to vote for candidates who will give them the most of someone else's money. I do not expect the problem to be solved because people are fundamentally too selfish to care about others if they can benefit themselves in a safe way by hurting others, but that doesn't mean they problem is not lamentable.
This is clearly untrue because the states that receive the most from and contribute the least to the federal government routinely vote republican.Not to mention that the government's power to 'redistribute wealth' through social programs and welfare cannot possibly be as robust as you are implying, given the fact that income inequality is enormous and still rising.
There's also the impetus on politicians to govern correctly and not shepherd the country into a massive crisis because all the promises of welfare programs in the world won't save them when their opponent hangs an insolvent state around their neck come reelection time.
With the way the electoral college works the states votes are complicated, but demographically the Democrats dominate most people groups that recieve government aid or help.
How in the world can you deny that effectively the US government is positioned to redistribute wealth in the form of social services? The fact that there are still poor people and rich people does not in anyway indicate that poor people are not recieving money the government has taken from the rich or middle class people. We know for a fact that a lot of poor people recieve money from a government that does not collect substantial taxes from them but does collect taxes from the middle and upper classes.
Politicians who worry about governing correctly would show at least a little concer for governing morally, and that would include not using the police state to take away the private property of some and use it to cover the tuition costs or food stamps of someone else. Although that is a good way to get votes.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]Still not wrong in that those things helped a lot. So you are saying that education and health-care are gifts that the poor shouldn't have access to?It is pretty obvious that Romney is latching onto something to rationalize his defeat. His badly run campaign and his overall weakness as a candidate was much more of a factor than these so-called "gifts".
Diablo-B
I think 'loot' would be a better term than 'gift'
This is clearly untrue because the states that receive the most from and contribute the least to the federal government routinely vote republican.[QUOTE="Abbeten"]
[QUOTE="GIJames248"]
In a limited sense yes, we have always been able to influence the good of others in our nation, but the government now has much greater power (and thus the voting block) to mess around with people (and people fewer or weaker rights to protect themselves from the government), primarily through the now accepted power of the government to significantly redistribute wealth in the guise of social programs and welfare. Until that power is revoked people will always be tempted to vote for candidates who will give them the most of someone else's money. I do not expect the problem to be solved because people are fundamentally too selfish to care about others if they can benefit themselves in a safe way by hurting others, but that doesn't mean they problem is not lamentable.
GIJames248
Not to mention that the government's power to 'redistribute wealth' through social programs and welfare cannot possibly be as robust as you are implying, given the fact that income inequality is enormous and still rising.
There's also the impetus on politicians to govern correctly and not shepherd the country into a massive crisis because all the promises of welfare programs in the world won't save them when their opponent hangs an insolvent state around their neck come reelection time.
With the way the electoral college works the states votes are complicated, but demographically the Democrats dominate most people groups that recieve government aid or help.
How in the world can you deny that effectively the US government is positioned to redistribute wealth in the form of social services? The fact that there are still poor people and rich people does not in anyway indicate that poor people are not recieving money the government has taken from the rich or middle class people. We know for a fact that a lot of poor people recieve money from a government that does not collect substantial taxes from them but does collect taxes from the middle and upper classes.
Politicians who worry about governing correctly would show at least a little concer for governing morally, and that would include not using the police state to take away the private property of some and use it to cover the tuition costs or food stamps of someone else. Although that is a good way to get votes.
Demographically, but not geographically. Fact remains that those states that are the biggest drains on the federal teat routinely vote republican, more reliably than the rest of the country.I'm not denying that wealth redistribution is taking place, although I will deny that it is a bad thing. The point is, you say the federal government is now vested with unbelievable power to redistribute wealth, and yet the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. Just seems to throw a damper on your fear of some crazy socialist state.
Your last two sentences are meaningless. They amount to 'well gosh, if politicians were concerned about governing correctly, they would be doing everything that I want them to do!' Guess what? People can be concerned about governing correctly and have different ideas about what constitutes correct governing.
So you are saying that education and health-care are gifts that the poor shouldn't have access to?[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] Still not wrong in that those things helped a lot. GIJames248
I think 'loot' would be a better term than 'gift'
IMO health-care is a universal right that shouldn't be determined by how much money a person has because you are talking about a person's live.
Education, it is in our best interest to educate our people if we are going to be able to compete in a globalized economy against countries that do invest in educating their youth.
Education and health-care arent gifts, loot or luxuries. They are necessities and investments that will make the country more profitable in the long run.
Which do you think would be better for the economy a, a country full of uneducated adults whose parents couldn't afford to go to college when they were young or a country that is dominating the rest of the world in math, science and engineering?
So you are saying that education and health-care are gifts that the poor shouldn't have access to?[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] Still not wrong in that those things helped a lot. GIJames248
I think 'loot' would be a better term than 'gift'
oh you're THAT hardline perhaps you should look into peter thiel's floating cities. only there can you truly be free of those insipid moochers[QUOTE="GIJames248"]
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So you are saying that education and health-care are gifts that the poor shouldn't have access to?Diablo-B
I think 'loot' would be a better term than 'gift'
IMO health-care is a universal right that shouldn't be determined by how much money a person has because you are talking about a person's live.
Education, it is in our best interest to educate our people if we are going to be able to compete in a globalized economy against countries that do invest in educating their youth.
Education and health-care arent gifts, loot or luxuries. They are necessities and investments that will make the country more profitable in the long run.
Which do you think would be better for the economy a, a country full of uneducated adults whose parents couldn't afford to go to college when they were young or a country that is dominating the rest of the world in math, science and engineering?
If healthcare and education are universal rights, do they trump the universal rights to human self-ownership and property though? I think healthcare as an ideal, but I do not see it trumping the right to the fruit of my own labor.
[QUOTE="GIJames248"]
[QUOTE="Abbeten"] This is clearly untrue because the states that receive the most from and contribute the least to the federal government routinely vote republican.
Not to mention that the government's power to 'redistribute wealth' through social programs and welfare cannot possibly be as robust as you are implying, given the fact that income inequality is enormous and still rising.
There's also the impetus on politicians to govern correctly and not shepherd the country into a massive crisis because all the promises of welfare programs in the world won't save them when their opponent hangs an insolvent state around their neck come reelection time.
Abbeten
With the way the electoral college works the states votes are complicated, but demographically the Democrats dominate most people groups that recieve government aid or help.
How in the world can you deny that effectively the US government is positioned to redistribute wealth in the form of social services? The fact that there are still poor people and rich people does not in anyway indicate that poor people are not recieving money the government has taken from the rich or middle class people. We know for a fact that a lot of poor people recieve money from a government that does not collect substantial taxes from them but does collect taxes from the middle and upper classes.
Politicians who worry about governing correctly would show at least a little concer for governing morally, and that would include not using the police state to take away the private property of some and use it to cover the tuition costs or food stamps of someone else. Although that is a good way to get votes.
Demographically, but not geographically. Fact remains that those states that are the biggest drains on the federal teat routinely vote republican, more reliably than the rest of the country.I'm not denying that wealth redistribution is taking place, although I will deny that it is a bad thing. The point is, you say the federal government is now vested with unbelievable power to redistribute wealth, and yet the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. Just seems to throw a damper on your fear of some crazy socialist state.
Your last two sentences are meaningless. They amount to 'well gosh, if politicians were concerned about governing correctly, they would be doing everything that I want them to do!' Guess what? People can be concerned about governing correctly and have different ideas about what constitutes correct governing.
Its funny how folks who scream wealth redistribution through social programs never bring up the tax breaks and gov't aid that big business, corporations, banks, and wall street get while tax payers flip the bill.[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]
[QUOTE="GIJames248"]
I think 'loot' would be a better term than 'gift'
GIJames248
IMO health-care is a universal right that shouldn't be determined by how much money a person has because you are talking about a person's live.
Education, it is in our best interest to educate our people if we are going to be able to compete in a globalized economy against countries that do invest in educating their youth.
Education and health-care arent gifts, loot or luxuries. They are necessities and investments that will make the country more profitable in the long run.
Which do you think would be better for the economy a, a country full of uneducated adults whose parents couldn't afford to go to college when they were young or a country that is dominating the rest of the world in math, science and engineering?
If healthcare and education are universal rights, do they trump the universal rights to human self-ownership and property though? I think healthcare as an ideal, but I do not see it trumping the right to the fruit of my own labor.
Because disregarding the philosophical line, investments in education and healthcare basically pay for themselves. Unless you'd rather live in a country with an uneducated and disabled/sickly workforce.[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]
[QUOTE="GIJames248"]
I think 'loot' would be a better term than 'gift'
GIJames248
IMO health-care is a universal right that shouldn't be determined by how much money a person has because you are talking about a person's live.
Education, it is in our best interest to educate our people if we are going to be able to compete in a globalized economy against countries that do invest in educating their youth.
Education and health-care arent gifts, loot or luxuries. They are necessities and investments that will make the country more profitable in the long run.
Which do you think would be better for the economy a, a country full of uneducated adults whose parents couldn't afford to go to college when they were young or a country that is dominating the rest of the world in math, science and engineering?
If healthcare and education are universal rights, do they trump the universal rights to human self-ownership and property though? I think healthcare as an ideal, but I do not see it trumping the right to the fruit of my own labor.
No one is arguing that we should tax all your income away. The only tax increase on the table is going back to the tax rates for those making more then 250K back to the Clinton days, how is that a trumping of your rights. Our taxes pay for police, fire and sanitation departments. Surely those aren't more of a "universal right" then health care. Would you advocate the gov't ending those too?[QUOTE="GIJames248"]
[QUOTE="Abbeten"] This is clearly untrue because the states that receive the most from and contribute the least to the federal government routinely vote republican.
Not to mention that the government's power to 'redistribute wealth' through social programs and welfare cannot possibly be as robust as you are implying, given the fact that income inequality is enormous and still rising.
There's also the impetus on politicians to govern correctly and not shepherd the country into a massive crisis because all the promises of welfare programs in the world won't save them when their opponent hangs an insolvent state around their neck come reelection time.
Abbeten
With the way the electoral college works the states votes are complicated, but demographically the Democrats dominate most people groups that recieve government aid or help.
How in the world can you deny that effectively the US government is positioned to redistribute wealth in the form of social services? The fact that there are still poor people and rich people does not in anyway indicate that poor people are not recieving money the government has taken from the rich or middle class people. We know for a fact that a lot of poor people recieve money from a government that does not collect substantial taxes from them but does collect taxes from the middle and upper classes.
Politicians who worry about governing correctly would show at least a little concer for governing morally, and that would include not using the police state to take away the private property of some and use it to cover the tuition costs or food stamps of someone else. Although that is a good way to get votes.
Demographically, but not geographically. Fact remains that those states that are the biggest drains on the federal teat routinely vote republican, more reliably than the rest of the country.I'm not denying that wealth redistribution is taking place, although I will deny that it is a bad thing. The point is, you say the federal government is now vested with unbelievable power to redistribute wealth, and yet the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. Just seems to throw a damper on your fear of some crazy socialist state.
Your last two sentences are meaningless. They amount to 'well gosh, if politicians were concerned about governing correctly, they would be doing everything that I want them to do!' Guess what? People can be concerned about governing correctly and have different ideas about what constitutes correct governing.
If my last two sentences are meaningless then the sentences in your prior post are equally meaningless. I may have incorrectly assumed that you think people have a significant right to their own property (i.e. they ought not be forcibly and involuntarily deprived of their property in as much as that is possible). One of the great gains of the Enlightenment was a heightened esteem for human rights and dignity, but if you don't share that esteem then not much is going to sway you toward human rights. Also, the gap between rich and poor is not a direct indication because currently the poor receive aid from the government primarily in non-monetary ways (includeding food stamps and tax breaks or exemptions), mostly through services and not through goods, so of course their average income doesn't go up, they just get free services outside of their income bracket; their income bracket doesn't change. In the sameway, an middle class family's income bracket doesn't change even if their taxes go up. So while the poor are provided services and lifestyle above their income bracket through social programs and the middle class family has lifestyle cramped by taxes none of them actual experience upward or downward income change.
Demographically, but not geographically. Fact remains that those states that are the biggest drains on the federal teat routinely vote republican, more reliably than the rest of the country.[QUOTE="Abbeten"]
[QUOTE="GIJames248"]
With the way the electoral college works the states votes are complicated, but demographically the Democrats dominate most people groups that recieve government aid or help.
How in the world can you deny that effectively the US government is positioned to redistribute wealth in the form of social services? The fact that there are still poor people and rich people does not in anyway indicate that poor people are not recieving money the government has taken from the rich or middle class people. We know for a fact that a lot of poor people recieve money from a government that does not collect substantial taxes from them but does collect taxes from the middle and upper classes.
Politicians who worry about governing correctly would show at least a little concer for governing morally, and that would include not using the police state to take away the private property of some and use it to cover the tuition costs or food stamps of someone else. Although that is a good way to get votes.
GIJames248
I'm not denying that wealth redistribution is taking place, although I will deny that it is a bad thing. The point is, you say the federal government is now vested with unbelievable power to redistribute wealth, and yet the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. Just seems to throw a damper on your fear of some crazy socialist state.
Your last two sentences are meaningless. They amount to 'well gosh, if politicians were concerned about governing correctly, they would be doing everything that I want them to do!' Guess what? People can be concerned about governing correctly and have different ideas about what constitutes correct governing.
If my last two sentences are meaningless then the sentences in your prior post are equally meaningless. I may have incorrectly assumed that you think people have a significant right to their own property (i.e. they ought not be forcibly and involuntarily deprived of their property in as much as that is possible). One of the great gains of the Enlightenment was a heightened esteem for human rights and dignity, but if you don't share that esteem then not much is going to sway you toward human rights. Also, the gap between rich and poor is not a direct indication because currently the poor receive aid from the government primarily in non-monetary ways (includeding food stamps and tax breaks or exemptions), mostly through services and not through goods, so of course their average income doesn't go up, they just get free services outside of their income bracket; their income bracket doesn't change. In the sameway, an middle class family's income bracket doesn't change even if their taxes go up. So while the poor are provided services and lifestyle above their income bracket through social programs and the middle class family has lifestyle cramped by taxes none of them actual experience upward or downward income change.
heh you're right, i don't consider taxes to be theft and consequently i reject out of hand any and all advancements made in the Enlightenment era. things like this are why i love internet libertarians so much also you are drastically overinflating the size of benefits received through welfare programs like food stamps....Also, the gap between rich and poor is not a direct indication because currently the poor receive aid from the government primarily in non-monetary ways (includeding food stamps and tax breaks or exemptions), mostly through services and not through goods, so of course their average income doesn't go up, they just get free services outside of their income bracket; their income bracket doesn't change. In the sameway, an middle class family's income bracket doesn't change even if their taxes go up. So while the poor are provided services and lifestyle above their income bracket through social programs and the middle class family has lifestyle cramped by taxes none of them actual experience upward or downward income change.GIJames248I think you are confused about something. The reason the poor pay low to no taxes isn't because they are begin given a "gift" or special treatment from the gov't. Its because we have a progressive tax rate which dictates that the more you make the higher tax % you would pay. The less you make the less you pay. Individuals who are poor can barely afford to feed them and their kids. How could you justify increasing their taxes so the rich could pay 36% instead of 39.5% in taxes?
At least McCain had th decency to acknowledge that President Obama ran a good campaign. I had a small bit of respect for Republicans for nominating one of the most moderate candidates in their field, even if they did force him further right than he's been. Even their moderates now, though, are playing into the Limbaugh/O'Reily culture war narrative. I'm glad the country had the sense to reject Republicans in the election, but the fact that sh*t like this still flies at all is a major disappointment.
[QUOTE="GIJames248"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"]
IMO health-care is a universal right that shouldn't be determined by how much money a person has because you are talking about a person's live.
Education, it is in our best interest to educate our people if we are going to be able to compete in a globalized economy against countries that do invest in educating their youth.
Education and health-care arent gifts, loot or luxuries. They are necessities and investments that will make the country more profitable in the long run.
Which do you think would be better for the economy a, a country full of uneducated adults whose parents couldn't afford to go to college when they were young or a country that is dominating the rest of the world in math, science and engineering?
Diablo-B
If healthcare and education are universal rights, do they trump the universal rights to human self-ownership and property though? I think healthcare as an ideal, but I do not see it trumping the right to the fruit of my own labor.
No one is arguing that we should tax all your income away. The only tax increase on the table is going back to the tax rates for those making more then 250K back to the Clinton days, how is that a trumping of your rights. Our taxes pay for police, fire and sanitation departments. Surely those aren't more of a "universal right" then health care. Would you advocate the gov't ending those too?Well, I think the rule of law is necesary and a pretty decent return on the taxes I pay, and helps ensure the few property rights I have. I would not consider fire coverage a right or necessity, but I am fine with paying taxes toward it because it is pretty sensible and cost effective as a community, similar to paying for roads and certain parts of the infrastructure. The population should be compelled to act against their will as much as possible, and I would guess far more than %90 of people are fine with paying for the police and fire coverage they enjoy, but a much, much larger portion doesn't want to be forces to buy insurance or pay for a government option to be provided to others on their dime. That is one of those things that should very obviously be up to the individual in how they want to spend their money. In terms of welfare and food stamps it is even more ridiculous in that, under the threat of imprisonment, you are paying for someone else's lifestyle. We would never dream of going to the middle class family down the street and stealing two thousand dollars in goods from them and pawning it toward a poor persons college tuition, but if we can use a ballot to do it than it is fine.
I would err on the side of freedom. People should be free to pay for their own or someone's healthcare as they see fit, and they should be free in decideding whether they want to pay for someone else's education or food stamps as they see fit also. I suspect many of the people who want the government to pay for healthcare and other social programs do not on their own volition pay for anyone elses college education or health insurance (or even a part of it). The benefit of personal freedom is that people who want to pay for someone else's healthcare or college are not in anyway restrained from doing so, but they also cannot use the police to force someone into helping them.
Do you think that the GOP really had a choice during the primaries? I really could not see someone like Santorum or Bachmann running nearly as close a campaign as Romney did. I thought it would be Romney early on, because he was the most moderate in a field full of batsh1t crazy extreme right-wingers. If the GOP continues to field a bunch of looneys like they did this year, then kiss them goodbye. I look forward to the circus that was this year's GOP primary in the future though. They sure gave us plenty of laughs.At least McCain had th decency to acknowledge that President Obama ran a good campaign. I had a small bit of respect for Republicans for nominating one of the most moderate candidates in their field, even if they did force him further right than he's been. Even their moderates now, though, are playing into the Limbaugh/O'Reily culture war narrative. I'm glad the country had the sense to reject Republicans in the election, but the fact that sh*t like this still flies at all is a major disappointment.
theone86
[QUOTE="theone86"]Do you think that the GOP really had a choice during the primaries? I really could not see someone like Santorum or Bachmann running nearly as close a campaign as Romney did. I thought it would be Romney early on, because he was the most moderate in a field full of batsh1t crazy extreme right-wingers. If the GOP continues to field a bunch of looneys like they did this year, then kiss them goodbye. I look forward to the circus that was this year's GOP primary in the future though. They sure gave us plenty of laughs.At least McCain had th decency to acknowledge that President Obama ran a good campaign. I had a small bit of respect for Republicans for nominating one of the most moderate candidates in their field, even if they did force him further right than he's been. Even their moderates now, though, are playing into the Limbaugh/O'Reily culture war narrative. I'm glad the country had the sense to reject Republicans in the election, but the fact that sh*t like this still flies at all is a major disappointment.
Engrish_Major
I guess it's easier to make a moderate more extreme than the other way around. I agree that seeing them faceplant in big elections is amusing, though they're still ahead in the house and in governorships. What disturbs me more than anything is how many people are willing to buy into this sort of thing. I wish that when someone like Rush calls himself the spokesman of the party they would try to distance themselves from him, or that conservatives would reject crazy candidates like Bachmann more unanimously. The really batsh*t insane ones get voted out, but it's still disturbing how much support there is for even the ones who lose elections like that one rape-comment candidate.
my wife definitely voted for obama because of "free contraceptives"... yup.. she is that shallow. that's the only reason. if only mittens had promised her something marginally more expensive for free she would have voted for him.. but foolishly he didn't.... :roll: comp_atkinslol Really?
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]my wife definitely voted for obama because of "free contraceptives"... yup.. she is that shallow. that's the only reason. if only mittens had promised her something marginally more expensive for free she would have voted for him.. but foolishly he didn't.... :roll: Stevo_the_gamerlol Really? i assumed the eyeroll indicated that i wasn't being serious... but that seems to be why romney thinks young women voted for obama...
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment