What the 2012 election taught us

What the 2012 election taught us

There are 10313 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 6, 2012, titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#7817 Feb 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Where will the money come from to pay for anyone's gov't?
which recent president hasn't spent more than they took in?
A trillion a year..........all of them before Obama.

“or Fox News”

Since: Jan 08

Vicksburg, MI

#7818 Feb 5, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Just look at you and see what the New Left rhetoric has created which abandoned the Old Left(FDR) in favor of this New Left rhetoric.
New Left
The New Left was a range of activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who focused their attention on marginal identities and, eventually, identity politics. They rejected involvement with the labor movement and Marxism's historical theory of class struggle. Abandoning the Marxist goals of educating the proletariat, the New Left turned to student activism as its reservoir of power.
In both the U.S. and Japan, the "New Left" was associated with the Hippie movement and college campus protest movements. The American New Left in particular opposed what it saw as the prevailing authority structures in society, which it termed "The Establishment", and those who rejected this authority became known as "anti-Establishment" .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
Left-wing politics
In politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished.
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (17891799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".
The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution, socialism, communism, and anarchism. Beginning in the last half of the Twentieth Century, the phrase left-wing has been used to describe an ever widening family of movements, including the civil rights movement, anti-war movements, and environmental movements,[dubious discuss], and finally being extended to entire parties, including the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. In two party systems, the terms "left" and "right" are now sometimes used as labels for the two parties, with one party designated as the "left" and the other "right", even when neither party is "left-wing" in the original sense of being opposed to the ruling class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politi...
Wikipedia? Really? THAT'S your source....lol....Wikipedia.... oh man...LOL

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7819 Feb 5, 2013
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia? Really? THAT'S your source....lol....Wikipedia.... oh man...LOL
Perhaps it was an oversight by you, but you didn't put any content into your post. I'll help you rectify your mistake. Here's the post you didn't answer again:

The New Left was a range of activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who focused their attention on marginal identities and, eventually, identity politics. They rejected involvement with the labor movement and Marxism's historical theory of class struggle. Abandoning the Marxist goals of educating the proletariat, the New Left turned to student activism as its reservoir of power.
In both the U.S. and Japan, the "New Left" was associated with the Hippie movement and college campus protest movements. The American New Left in particular opposed what it saw as the prevailing authority structures in society, which it termed "The Establishment", and those who rejected this authority became known as "anti-Establishment" .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
Left-wing politics
In politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished.
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (17891799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".
The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution, socialism, communism, and anarchism. Beginning in the last half of the Twentieth Century, the phrase left-wing has been used to describe an ever widening family of movements, including the civil rights movement, anti-war movements, and environmental movements,[dubious discuss], and finally being extended to entire parties, including the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. In two party systems, the terms "left" and "right" are now sometimes used as labels for the two parties, with one party designated as the "left" and the other "right", even when neither party is "left-wing" in the original sense of being opposed to the ruling class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politi ...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#7820 Feb 5, 2013
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia? Really? THAT'S your source....lol....Wikipedia.... oh man...LOL
truth hurts and that is all you can post with nothing to back up your rebuttal, again the truth hurts.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#7821 Feb 5, 2013
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia? Really? THAT'S your source....lol....Wikipedia.... oh man...LOL
Shoot the messanger, since you can't refute the message. Where have I seen that before.........oh yes Obama's speeches.
Major Republic-an

United States

#7822 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>Dufus, you still haven't answered the question. All it takes is to name a source of money.

Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

All it takes is a simple source of money to answer the question.
You're an annoying azzhole.

“or Fox News”

Since: Jan 08

Vicksburg, MI

#7823 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it was an oversight by you, but you didn't put any content into your post. I'll help you rectify your mistake. Here's the post you didn't answer again:
And allow me to rectify yours.

It was no oversight on my part at all.

Everybody with an above average intelligence(which apparently eliminates you) knows that Wikipedia can be edited to say anything by anybody. Therefore it is NOT a credible source for an argument, hence why I laughed at the use of it to prove anything.

In academia, if you were to use that as a source for your argument, the instructor would fail the paper and ask you to resubmit it using a CREDIBLE source.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7824 Feb 5, 2013
Major Republic-an wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an annoying azzhole.
Turn you rcomputer off, dufus.

And, dufus, you still haven't answered the question. All it takes is to name a source of money.

Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

All it takes is a simple source of money to answer the question.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#7825 Feb 5, 2013
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
And allow me to rectify yours.
It was no oversight on my part at all.
Everybody with an above average intelligence(which apparently eliminates you) knows that Wikipedia can be edited to say anything by anybody. Therefore it is NOT a credible source for an argument, hence why I laughed at the use of it to prove anything.
In academia, if you were to use that as a source for your argument, the instructor would fail the paper and ask you to resubmit it using a CREDIBLE source.
That can be said about most of the sources you loons use to try and prove garbage. Many things about Obama's histry have been removed, edited or outright changed.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7826 Feb 5, 2013
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
And allow me to rectify yours.
It was no oversight on my part at all.
Everybody with an above average intelligence(which apparently eliminates you) knows that Wikipedia can be edited to say anything by anybody. Therefore it is NOT a credible source for an argument, hence why I laughed at the use of it to prove anything.
In academia, if you were to use that as a source for your argument, the instructor would fail the paper and ask you to resubmit it using a CREDIBLE source.
I consider Wikipedia to be infinitely more credible than George Soros' Snopes so-called "truth" site that is notorious for "proving" points with "high level sources" and "administration officials" and never names them.

But, we digress. You make some statement about the source, yet you never answer the content of the post, which is typical for you Democrats when the thruth gets shoved up your ass.
how abotu you go back and actually address the content of the post....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7827 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Turn you rcomputer off, dufus.
And, dufus, you still haven't answered the question. All it takes is to name a source of money.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
All it takes is a simple source of money to answer the question.
From US treasuries and tax revenue, as it has for all the previous administrations.

“or Fox News”

Since: Jan 08

Vicksburg, MI

#7828 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider Wikipedia to be infinitely more credible than George Soros' Snopes so-called "truth" site that is notorious for "proving" points with "high level sources" and "administration officials" and never names them.
But, we digress. You make some statement about the source, yet you never answer the content of the post, which is typical for you Democrats when the thruth gets shoved up your ass.
how abotu you go back and actually address the content of the post....
Well at least I don't ask the same stupid questions over and over again.

Anything from Wikipedia is to be suspect information and hardly the truth. I could post that Ronald Reagan was the bastard son of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster on that site if I so chose, doesn't make it so. But some lunkhead who believes that Wikipedia is like the Encyclopedia Britannica would probably use it as a source of information in a report about Ronald Reagan.

So I won't respond to any drivel that comes from a website that can be edited via the mass internet public and it hardly constitutes "having the truth [sic] shoved up your ass" Wikipedia is the internet equivalent of the check out line tabloids that you and your right wing conspiracy loons look to for information.

Answer me this:

Do you watch the Flintstones as a documentary?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7829 Feb 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>From US treasuries and tax revenue, as it has for all the previous administrations.
US Treasury notes have to be purchased with money from a source of money. And, only Congress can authorize such.
But, your answer is half-way correct. You can say increasing the debt as a general answer, and be specific if you actually name the countries or entities that will porcure these Treasury notes Congress authorizes to be sold.
However, to increase the already obscene debt, your answer is the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren that will have to pay for the government's insane spending today... which means they won't have any money to spend for their own benefit when they expect the same benefits from the government that can't even pay for it today.
What you're really saying when you say increase the already insane debt is, take it from people not born yet and leave them with nothing.... like taking candy from a baby, isn't it?

The other half of your answer was still not an answer to the question. "Taxes" is not a source of money. It is only a method of collecting money from a source of money. You have to identify the source of money the taxes will be levied against.
To identify a source of money that taxation will pay for the government, you actually have to identify a source of money where there is actually enough money there to pay for Obama's government.

So, where is all that money you are going to tax?
Shakalaka

Morrow, GA

#7830 Feb 5, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
I think Shakalaka must have gone to Clayton County schools. Or perhaps she is a teacher there?
What you "think" nobody gives a dam. What you Know doesn't amount to much either.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#7831 Feb 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>From US treasuries and tax revenue, as it has for all the previous administrations.
Ah, you mean the people. Now since Obama's tax increase on the rich has already been eaten up with the money for Sandy victims, who's he going to come to next. Right, the middle class, which has been his intention from the beginning.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7832 Feb 5, 2013
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
Well at least I don't ask the same stupid questions over and over again.
Anything from Wikipedia is to be suspect information and hardly the truth. I could post that Ronald Reagan was the bastard son of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster on that site if I so chose, doesn't make it so. But some lunkhead who believes that Wikipedia is like the Encyclopedia Britannica would probably use it as a source of information in a report about Ronald Reagan.
So I won't respond to any drivel that comes from a website that can be edited via the mass internet public and it hardly constitutes "having the truth [sic] shoved up your ass" Wikipedia is the internet equivalent of the check out line tabloids that you and your right wing conspiracy loons look to for information.
Answer me this:
Do you watch the Flintstones as a documentary?
Please provide an example of your contention.
What has Wikipedia published that is not true?

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#7833 Feb 5, 2013
Hypnotic Phantom wrote:
<quoted text>
Well at least I don't ask the same stupid questions over and over again.
Anything from Wikipedia is to be suspect information and hardly the truth. I could post that Ronald Reagan was the bastard son of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster on that site if I so chose, doesn't make it so. But some lunkhead who believes that Wikipedia is like the Encyclopedia Britannica would probably use it as a source of information in a report about Ronald Reagan.
So I won't respond to any drivel that comes from a website that can be edited via the mass internet public and it hardly constitutes "having the truth [sic] shoved up your ass" Wikipedia is the internet equivalent of the check out line tabloids that you and your right wing conspiracy loons look to for information.
Answer me this:
Do you watch the Flintstones as a documentary?
No but looking at Obama's photo shopped skeet shooting fraud, he must.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7834 Feb 5, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, you mean the people. Now since Obama's tax increase on the rich has already been eaten up with the money for Sandy victims, who's he going to come to next. Right, the middle class, which has been his intention from the beginning.
As was every other politician looking for the office. we all know we need to increase our tax revenue when the economy is strong enough to do so. sad that so many went along with the 'lets just tax some of us' hype of the left, but it is easy to get the majority of people to persecute the minority...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7835 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
US Treasury notes have to be purchased with money from a source of money. And, only Congress can authorize such.
But, your answer is half-way correct. You can say increasing the debt as a general answer, and be specific if you actually name the countries or entities that will porcure these Treasury notes Congress authorizes to be sold.
However, to increase the already obscene debt, your answer is the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren that will have to pay for the government's insane spending today... which means they won't have any money to spend for their own benefit when they expect the same benefits from the government that can't even pay for it today.
What you're really saying when you say increase the already insane debt is, take it from people not born yet and leave them with nothing.... like taking candy from a baby, isn't it?
The other half of your answer was still not an answer to the question. "Taxes" is not a source of money. It is only a method of collecting money from a source of money. You have to identify the source of money the taxes will be levied against.
To identify a source of money that taxation will pay for the government, you actually have to identify a source of money where there is actually enough money there to pay for Obama's government.
So, where is all that money you are going to tax?
Anyone on the planet can invest in the US if they wish. many do, as we are still the safest, most reliable place to put your money.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#7836 Feb 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Anyone on the planet can invest in the US if they wish. many do, as we are still the safest, most reliable place to put your money.
Investing is not the same as controlling investment, idiot.
Read it again.
Well, you probably don't have a sufficient education to comprehend the concepts. You were educated by the so-called "progressives" that destroyed what was the finest educatin system in the world and replaced it with the most expensive education system in the world that generates the most ignorant workforce in the industrialized world.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 min Susanm 319,960
News Sen. Al Franken Accused Of Sexual Assault By LA... 3 min Ms Sassy 26
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min russianrepukes 1,641,335
News Bergdahl's hometown blindsided by hatred in wak... (Jun '14) 6 min Jeremy 16
News Donations to Clinton Foundation plunged along w... 8 min too much 10
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 9 min swampmudd 41,829
News In the wake of Al Franken, Democrats should rev... 16 min Chicagoan by Birth 2
News Roy Moore's sexual assault allegations cloud Al... 2 hr pakalolo 187
News Donald Trump pauses for a water break 3 hr AlrightyThen 91
More from around the web