This is a PRIVATE poll, just interested to see how the bodybuilding community votes since the most recent polls just came out. I don't care either way, but am definitely interested to see the outcome . Just a little social experiment.
I was just trying to figure out how to do that because I thought it was unfair. Good call.Can we have a third option? Undecided or third party? Or is this more to see who we think will win over who we want to or will vote for?
Just add a third option that says: "Independent/Third Party" or something like that. Thanks man!Tell me what you want and I can edit the poll
Yeah, I mean the most recent polls say 47% to 46% in favor of mccain, but the point is that it is so damn close. Those numbers have up to a 2% error too.Wow....I just voted, and the results thus far are 7, 7, and 5....pretty daggone tight...
holy
Yeah, I mean the most recent polls say 47% to 46% in favor of mccain, but the point is that it is so damn close. Those numbers have up to a 2% error too.
As for VP's. Honestly they don't do much anyways, you want to pick a presidential candidate who reflects your values. I just don't want to give my paycheck to the poor. Sounds harsh but I don't believe in distribution of wealth, it is socialist and I am not a socialist.
Sh*t, I would!I would literally give my left nut for a Ron Paul Presidency ( I have all the kids I want, I should be able to get by fine minus one )
That's not harsh, that's life.I just don't want to give my paycheck to the poor. Sounds harsh but I don't believe in distribution of wealth, it is socialist and I am not a socialist.
Sh*t, I would!
EDIT: Ok, I really wouldn't, I love my balls, but I'd vote for him or donate money, but I'm sorry, I love my balls.
agreed and at the end of the day, the national polls are meaningless. It is the state by state polls, specifically the swing states that truly matter.Yeah, I mean the most recent polls say 47% to 46% in favor of mccain, but the point is that it is so damn close. Those numbers have up to a 2% error too.
I agree on the electoral votes. Unfortunately it will be impossible to tell anything until the election anyways because the swing states contain so many votes that it could go either way.What matters most is the fact that Obama has more electoral votes than McCain. McCain was behind in the public polls for a little while, but I am surprised to see that he caught up. I'm not surprised that it happened shortly after he announced choosing a female candidate as his VP choice.
Completely agree! Quite an unfortunate development. I wonder how much, if any, of that negative stream found its way into the voting structure in this poll.......
I noticed there has been some Obama hatred coming out lately. A lot of groups have been blasting the internet with things of why he shouldn't be elected. Mostly recently one of the largest black church groups in the US just posted a video about it. I was shocked to see that actually.
Well I am a conservative so I hope haha, but I am as open as they come and if someone wants to vote liberal I don't hate them for it, everyone is entitled to their vote. I just hate big government.Completely agree! Quite an unfortunate development. I wonder how much, if any, of that negative stream found its way into the voting structure in this poll....
agreed 100%. Even in the system we have now, the more you make the higher % you pay of your paycheck...its a double whammy, if you will, and it is not entirely fair to those who qualify for the higher tax brackets/alternative minimums taxesYeah, I mean the most recent polls say 47% to 46% in favor of mccain, but the point is that it is so damn close. Those numbers have up to a 2% error too.
As for VP's. Honestly they don't do much anyways, you want to pick a presidential candidate who reflects your values. I just don't want to give my paycheck to the poor. Sounds harsh but I don't believe in distribution of wealth, it is socialist and I am not a socialist.
I don't necessarily have issues with it. Abuses of the system invariably occur, but external forces beyond the influences of individual agents can often precipitate unfortunate conditions; that is life: Mediating your personal decisions through constructs (government, economy and so on) which are not dictated by your personal whims.As for VP's. Honestly they don't do much anyways, you want to pick a presidential candidate who reflects your values. I just don't want to give my paycheck to the poor. Sounds harsh but I don't believe in distribution of wealth, it is socialist and I am not a socialist.
Good post . As I stated before I welcome intelligent experiences no matter what party you support. Nothing annoys me more than people who support any candidate and they don't even know them or understand their policies etc.but I have no doubt in my mind you readily capitalize upon a system which keeps them poor:
While I like this story, I do not think it is entirely complete or accurate. In many, many instances it certainly is, however, there are cases of true hardship, where help is most certainly needed. Unfortunately, the story cannot be written that wayHere is a good story of how I feel:
Father/Daughter Talk
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken a back, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes =2 0because she's too hung over.'
Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will b oth have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'
As I disagree most strongly with the italicized point - and feel it is the most inaccurate statement in your rebuttal - allow me to address that first: 'Bad luck' and 'choice' are vague descriptors of the entire socioeconomic platform we operate upon; 'bad luck' implies randomness, and 'choice' implies the ability to dictate the external factors of production and consumption which assist in determining one's economic position; neither are true.Good post . As I stated before I welcome intelligent experiences no matter what party you support. Nothing annoys me more than people who support any candidate and they don't even know them or understand their policies etc.
However, I am glad you brought up the above point. Not sure how many economics classes you have taken as I don't know your background, but take any microeconomics class and one of the things you will learn is that there HAS TO BE poor. The country cannot run if there are not poor people. It is impossible for everyone to be rich. It is one of those things that no one wants to accept but the bottom line is it has to be that way. Why change it? Although some people who are poor might just have bad luck, the bulk of them chose to not take the higher ground. If they are uneducated and chose to be that way then why change it? Many of my friends came from the ghettos of Miami at F schools are are currently working toward their doctorate. Bottom line is I don't feel sorry for those who don't work as hard probably because I had to work so hard.'
Firstly, 'poor' and 'rich' are subjectively relative terms, used to denote two positions on opposing ends of the spectrum of a closed economic system; in that respect, Microeconomics does not necessitate nor presuppose 'poorness' and 'richness', it simply presupposes a certain level of economic stratification; such that a gradient of workers laborers at a level sufficiently low enough to profit from their labor, and subsequently profit from the products of their labor. In a micro sense, the individual laborer 'sells' his labor to his employer for a wage - he/she assumes that the capital he receives is worth more than both his/her labor, as well as the time/product/information he/she produced. On the other hand, the employer assumes the opposite: That the time and tasks performed by the laborer are worth more than his capital (I will refrain from delineating capital in terms of variable labor, time consumption, mechanics and so on) - in response, the employer pays the laborer.Not sure how many economics classes you have taken as I don't know your background, but take any microeconomics class and one of the things you will learn is that there HAS TO BE poor.
Honestly do the same thing I did, take out loans. My mother was a single mother of 3 and my father didn't make much at all. Neither of them made a savings account for college when I was a child, nor did they have enough money to pay for my schooling.Rather than continue on an affirmative line of thought, let me pose a question to you: As a seventeen year old male, born into destitute community, and being personally financially 'unequipped' yourself, how would you remove yourself from that environment to seek higher education? Your mother and father both work 12+ hours daily for minimum wage, do not possess the ability to fund private schooling, and since the inception of your academic career have not been able to foster you due to the constraints of subsistence.
Makes sense: after all, giving your paycheck to the wealthy makes so much more sense & supports the middle-class, too! I mean, it's only socialism if you re-distribute wealth *downward*, right?I just don't want to give my paycheck to the poor. Sounds harsh but I don't believe in distribution of wealth, it is socialist and I am not a socialist.
Makes sense: after all, giving your paycheck to the wealthy makes so much more sense & supports the middle-class, too! I mean, it's only socialism if you re-distribute wealth *downward*, right?
Hell, the poor & middle-class ought to be glad the rich and powerful are willing to screw 'em: wouldn't want the R & P to take everything this country has made possible for them & move it all overseas - hey, wait....
You're a nut case. :fool2:I guess you guys don't see how regan and bush ****ed over the middle east and gave birth to a demon. Blinded from the truth by corporate news. I guess its not your fault.
You know they say republican party is less government control but if you look back at all the republican presidents they all past constitutional laws. Banning marijuana, prohormones. This isn't up to the federal government but the individual state - "ron paul". I mean come on how is a president going to ban cocaine by saying it is the reason black men are taking advantage of white women. Does racism not exist?? Anyone here actually know the president who said that?? This the level modern history republicans operate on
republicans pass laws to insure minorities don't reach the top but their time is coming to an end.
Now you've made the step up to idiot. Keep climbing that ladder.:clap2:your mind is 2 weak to comprehend. You probably one of those people who still think marijuana is addicting.
lol
Wow, your insights are paramount to that of a tuna fish. Take off your tin foil hat there turbo and realize everyone isnt out to get you.your mind is 2 weak to comprehend. You probably one of those people who still think marijuana is addicting.
lol
Try and reconsider my post, from the vantage point of macro-level dynamics effecting the actions of individual agents (re: Mills 'Milieu affecting Personal Issues'); the point was not just the end product - taking out a loan - but rather the conglomerate effects of community on the individual.Honestly do the same thing I did, take out loans. My mother was a single mother of 3 and my father didn't make much at all. Neither of them made a savings account for college when I was a child, nor did they have enough money to pay for my schooling.
I attended a D school with a 3.7 GPA, went to FSU where I took out loans every year and decided to pursue my doctor of pharmacy where I will take out more.
If you are "that" poor then college is paid for. I received a $2000 pell grant each semester and $4000 more for being an undergrad science major, not to mention the bright futures that paid 100% of my actual tuition. I just needed to pay for housing via loans. I am not saying don't help the poor at all, so I apologize if I came off that way. What I don't advocate is redistribution of wealth, which is much different then "helping the poor". There are plenty of social programs to keep the poor on their feet, but unfortunately the tax system is so that no one wants to work hard enough (who are below the poverty line) to work above the poverty line because instead of tax credits they will be taxed and have a smaller net income. Who would want to do that?! Redistribution of wealth, in my opinion makes no sense. You are taking away from the people who have spend the most, create the jobs, and have worked to get there.
But again everyone's viewpoint is different and I respect that.
So you are in the top 5% tax bracket? Wow, good for you.Yeah, I mean the most recent polls say 47% to 46% in favor of mccain, but the point is that it is so damn close. Those numbers have up to a 2% error too.
As for VP's. Honestly they don't do much anyways, you want to pick a presidential candidate who reflects your values. I just don't want to give my paycheck to the poor. Sounds harsh but I don't believe in distribution of wealth, it is socialist and I am not a socialist.
Not very relevant. I am pretty close to the bottom, and I still think that redistribution of wealth isn't right.So you are in the top 5% tax bracket? Wow, good for you.
:bruce3:
its only considered redistribution of the wealth if you take from the rich n give to the poor right?Not very relevant. I am pretty close to the bottom, and I still think that redistribution of wealth isn't right.
Adams
Yet another quality post by you yoking. Don't be a knob and put words in my mouth. Did I say all was good with bailing out corps? I dont think I did, but please quote me if I did so.its only considered redistribution of the wealth if you take from the rich n give to the poor right?
but when they take from the middle class/poor n bail out big corporations its somehow considered a good deed n saving the economy
open your eyes adam if your not making multi-millions every year then obamas tax raises aren't going to hurt you
What? Giving money to the rich is simply purchasing something from a store. The owner of the store is rich but the money you spent gets distributed through the company and stimulates the economy. There is no other way to give a paycheck to the rich other than buying something so I am not understanding where you are getting at.Makes sense: after all, giving your paycheck to the wealthy makes so much more sense & supports the middle-class, too! I mean, it's only socialism if you re-distribute wealth *downward*, right?
Hell, the poor & middle-class ought to be glad the rich and powerful are willing to screw 'em: wouldn't want the R & P to take everything this country has made possible for them & move it all overseas - hey, wait....
Very well said. :goodpost:this is funny but so old and tiring the poor fight the middle class the middle class fights the rich i was reading the above discussion good points both sides but does it bother me that someone might make as much in a month than i do in a few days no i put myself in the position that i am in now it seems to me that politicians always preach the american dream and be all you can be but when you do that those same people look upon on you as devil. i have tried to help some bros from back in tha day and they are perfectly content to be where they are.
Define, "middle class", though. The hollowing out of the middle class engaged when real wage increased ceased in the 1970's has all but decimated the concept of, "the middle class". If you look at the concentration of wealth - even at the 200,000+ ranges - it is more or less the super-elite, and then us....this is funny but so old and tiring the poor fight the middle class the middle class fights the rich...
Pretend for a moment you are a drug counsellor, taking on a new case: The patient is described as lazy, unmotivated, selfish and otherwise unfavorable - in other words, the typical symptoms of a drug user. However, as with all other drug counsellors, the very first component of this individual's life you examine is the family. Why? Because, for example, laziness and lack of motivation may very well be individual traits, but they also may be very symptomatic of a deeply troubling family dynamic; that is, conditional traits of his/her environment. You see, it is important to investigate beyond the individual, into his/her environment, in order to determine the root cause; not for the purposes of blame, or to remove the onus from the individual, but to identify the perpetuating causes of his disease....i have tried to help some bros from back in tha day and they are perfectly content to be where they are...
I agree with what you say here and you are more open minded than many liberals I have spoken to. The problem is that most liberals think in this Utopian mindset. Wealth redistribution actually isn't that crazy of a concept, neither is communism. The simple concepts behind them (if you look beyond Russia, China, and those who have abused it) are very elegant. However, Utopian societies have been attempted and even at the village level they just simply don't work, greed is part of human nature.One must realize that 'laziness' is individual - and no doubt pieces of **** exist - but the same disparity compounded, and compounded, and compounded is indicative of external factors.
That being said, I do not believe in universal redistribution of the wealth, or assisting those who abuse the system. I simply feel we are operating on a playing field which is fundamentally inequitable. You should ask yourself, "What is it that makes my friends content to be where they are? Is this symptomatic of a larger community problem?
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Obama, McCain missing from some ballots | Politics | 0 | ||
Obama flicks off Clinton and McCain | Politics | 45 | ||
McCain, Obama, and 'the Change We Need' | Politics | 21 | ||
Obama mocks McCain's call to fire SEC chairman | Politics | 87 | ||
Obama vs. McCain - A Clear Choice | Politics | 0 |