Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Class of 2013 grads poised to flood job market: Will dreams get dashed, or are fortunes rising?
Penn Live ^ | 05/03/2013 | John Luciew

Posted on 05/03/2013 8:25:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

There’s no two ways about it. The Great Recession and the anemic recovery have been especially brutal on younger workers. The blue skies and sunny smiles of May graduations often turn to soured realities of menial jobs unrelated to college majors and mounting student loan debts.

But is the labor market log jam that locked out so many recent college grads from launching careers finally starting to break?

Consider some recent good news for a change:

The Bethlehem-based National Association of Colleges and Employers found that the average starting salary for new college graduates earning bachelor’s degrees increased a healthy 5.3 percent over last year. This, according to the group’s April salary survey.

Read More: Top salaries by major.

Billed as the first look at starting salaries for the Class of 2013, the survey found that the average starting salary for these college graduates stands at $44,928, up from the 2012 average salary of $42,666.

“The sizable gains in several disciplines—particularly in health sciences and business—have helped to drive up the average starting salary for the Class of 2013,” explains Marilyn Mackes, NACE executive director.

Not all college degrees are created equally when it comes to the salary survey.

With a whopping increase of 9.4 percent, health sciences garnered the highest increase among the disciplines. This jump brings the average starting salary for these graduates to $49,713. Business also saw a solid gain—7.1 percent—bumping the average salary for these grads to $54,234, the association reported.

Likewise, education and computer science saw ample increases. The average starting salary for education majors climbed 5.1 percent to $40,480, while the average salary for computer science majors jumped to $59,977, 4.3 percent higher than last year.

Engineering: 4.0 percent, to $62,535; communications: 3.8 percent, to $43,145; and math and sciences: 3.1 percent, to $42,724 -- all seeing increases that exceeded 3 percent.

At the other end of the salary spectrum, graduates with degrees in humanities and social sciences lagged badly, with just a gain of just 1.9 percent, to $37,058.

All this talk of salary increases presupposes a grad’s ability to land a job within his or her major in the first place.

On this front, especially, the news for the Class of 2013 remains grim.

In a corresponding hiring outlook survey, the association said employers reported hiring plans that were mostly flat when it came to offering jobs to the Class of 2013.

Overall, employers taking part in the spring survey said they would hire 2.1 percent more new college grads from the Class of 2013, than they hired from the Class of 2012. That’s down from the 13 percent increase that employers had projected in the fall of 2012.

And perhaps most troubling, a full one-third of respondents reported plans to hire fewer new grads than they did a year ago.

“The new projection is consistent with recent job reports that show job growth is less than anticipated,” says NACE's Mackes.

And there’s the rub: Any news of salary spikes for the Class of 2013 grads is soured by the continued scarcity of actual jobs.

Thus, the Depression-like unemployment and under-employment situation among our nation’s younger workers and recent college grads looks to linger still.

Despite the pomp and circumstance and optimism and euphoria of graduation, many May grads might not make it off their launching pads for some time to come. That’s the shame of it, but it’s what the numbers say.






TOPICS: Business/Economy; Education; Society
KEYWORDS: college; jobs; unemployment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 05/03/2013 8:25:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
College still pays – especially certain college degrees – if grads can find jobs in their major, that is.

Here are the projected starting salaries the Class of 2013 can expect should these new college grads be among the lucky ones to land jobs. The figures are from the National Association of Colleges and Employers annual spring salary survey.

Category   2013 Average Salary/ 2012 Average Salary/ %change

Business        $54,234                   $50,633                     7.1%

Communications $43,145              $41,550                     3.8%

Computer Science $59,977            $57,529                     4.3%

Education          $40,480              $38,524                     5.1%

Engineering       $62,535               $60,151                     4.0%

Health Sciences  $49,713               $45,442                     9.4%

Humanities/Social $37,058             $36,371                     1.9%

Math & Science    $42,724             $41,430                     3.1%

Overall                $44,928             $42,666                     5.3%

*Source: April 2013 Salary Survey, National Association of Colleges and Employers



2 posted on 05/03/2013 8:27:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Mittens should have addressed the issue in his concession speech last November. He should have said: “Good luck finding a job.”


3 posted on 05/03/2013 8:27:20 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

4 posted on 05/03/2013 8:28:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET
HERE WAS THE JOB PICTURE FOR COLLEGE GRADS IN THE PAST FEW YEARS...


5 posted on 05/03/2013 8:29:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

They will be competing with the “Amnesty Class of 2013” too.


6 posted on 05/03/2013 8:32:57 AM PDT by Sybeck1 (What has the GOP done today to gain your support in 2014?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET
Mittens should have addressed the issue in his concession speech last November. He should have said: “Good luck finding a job.”

What are you talking about? Romney, politically speaking, is Obama. -- If JFK had been running in the election he would have been the most conservative candidate there (except, perhaps, Gary Johnson, who ran Libertarian party; Vergil Goode, who ran Constitution party, or Tome Hoefling, of America's party).

7 posted on 05/03/2013 8:38:25 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Of some interest in 1951 it was $2500 per year for accountants. But $2500 was about the cost of a 4 year education. So carrying that forward if today’s 4 year education would cost $100,000 then $100,000 would be the starting salary, not $50,000. Today’s students have it twice as bad if they even can get jobs. What happened?


8 posted on 05/03/2013 8:39:46 AM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Like the others really had a chance of winning?


9 posted on 05/03/2013 8:39:50 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
What happened?

Pell Grants and Student Loans...who cares how much tuition is if someone else is paying for it, or if I don't have to worry about paying for it until years later?

10 posted on 05/03/2013 8:41:50 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Wow, tough chart.

My youngest daughter came out of college in Dec. 2009. She searched, and searched for a job and couldn't find one. She finally got a certificate that would allow her to teach English overseas, and is now beginnning her third year in Japan teaching English. I'm not sure when we will see her back here.

11 posted on 05/03/2013 8:44:24 AM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Marxists for sale! Get your fresh marxists!


12 posted on 05/03/2013 9:15:03 AM PDT by Blogatron (Death to islaam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET
Like the others really had a chance of winning?

Irrelevant.
As I see it Romney was so close to Obama, politically, that his win would be virtually indistinguishable from an Obama win [policy-wise]. (IE Romney and Obama are only a few cents different when compared to ideologies of, say, JFK or RR which would be [at least] hundreds of dollars different.)

Besides, to say that they didn't have a chance of winning is to say that their votes did not count [because their candidates lost] and yet Romney lost, so then does that make the votes for him not count? -- You cannot have it both ways: either a vote for someone who loses counts or it does not, and if it does not then why vote?

13 posted on 05/03/2013 9:26:28 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
My youngest daughter came out of college in Dec. 2009. She searched, and searched for a job and couldn't find one. She finally got a certificate that would allow her to teach English overseas, and is now beginnning her third year in Japan teaching English. I'm not sure when we will see her back her

I've thought about doing the same; I do want to go to Japan, someday.

14 posted on 05/03/2013 9:28:05 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Oh, don't be silly - you can walk straight out of a baccalaureate degree and into a $100,000 a year "consultancy" job. If your name happens to be Chelsea Clinton, that is...

Yeah, it's looking a little tough on the employment market, although better marginally than the last couple of years. I have a nephew just entering college after spending the year after his high school graduation doing commercial house cleaning. I think it turned out to be a fantastic decision, actually - I asked him a couple of weeks ago what he wanted to do, and he said, "Not this." He's looking at a business major. Completely different kid from a year ago.

15 posted on 05/03/2013 9:33:50 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

LOL...Starbucks is hiring. Those Liberal Arts majors fit right in.


16 posted on 05/03/2013 9:40:06 AM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company after the election, & laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: As I see it Romney was so close to Obama, politically, that his win would be virtually indistinguishable from an Obama win [policy-wise].

Let’s assume that Romney keeps his promises.

1) He would immediately grant waivers to all states for Obamacare.

2) He would sign a bill given to him by Congress to repeal Obamacare and start from scratch.

3) At the corporate level, the Romney plan would make reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.

4) Romney would also permanently repeal the 0.9 percent tax on wages and the 3.8 percent tax on investment income of high-income individual taxpayers that were imposed by the 2010 health reform legislation and are scheduled to take effect in 2013.

5) Governor Romney would have permanently extended ALL the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that were scheduled to expire in 2013, repeal the AMT and certain tax provisions in the 2010 health reform legislation, and cut individual income tax rates by an additional 20 percent.

6) Would sign a bill that would PERMANENTLY do away with the death tax.

Tell me how that is similar to Obama again?


17 posted on 05/03/2013 9:41:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

“My youngest daughter came out of college in Dec. 2009. She searched, and searched for a job and couldn’t find one. She finally got a certificate that would allow her to teach English overseas, and is now beginnning her third year in Japan teaching English. I’m not sure when we will see her back here.”

My frat mate from Stanford also graduated but in 2008 and is now also in Japan teaching English, advanced and pro. The funny part, is that we were joking at what career he could get as an English major. He is now in his 6th year in the Hokkaido prefecture teaching in the local gakuen’ (high school) and has a small business catering to Japanese professionals. Of course he’s popular in the high school there..how many blonde dudes do you see in Japan? Whenever I head to the Philippines, I make sure to drop by for a couple of days and hang out with him.


18 posted on 05/03/2013 9:44:55 AM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company after the election, & laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
RE: As I see it Romney was so close to Obama, politically, that his win would be virtually indistinguishable from an Obama win [policy-wise].

Let’s assume that Romney keeps his promises.

Lets.

1) He would immediately grant waivers to all states for Obamacare.

Ah, yes, and thus grant a nice method to blackmail the states to himself or any future president: do what I say or you'll lose your waiver!

2) He would sign a bill given to him by Congress to repeal Obamacare and start from scratch.

This is a null promise -- do you think congress is going to do any such thing? Hell, they're exempt from Obamacare so they have no reason to care.

3) At the corporate level, the Romney plan would make reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.

He cannot do that -- Congress is in charge of laws, not the President.

4) Romney would also permanently repeal the 0.9 percent tax on wages and the 3.8 percent tax on investment income of high-income individual taxpayers that were imposed by the 2010 health reform legislation and are scheduled to take effect in 2013.

He cannot do that -- Congress is in charge of laws, even tax laws, not the President.

5) Governor Romney would have permanently extended ALL the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that were scheduled to expire in 2013, repeal the AMT and certain tax provisions in the 2010 health reform legislation, and cut individual income tax rates by an additional 20 percent.

He cannot do that, the President does not have the authority to alter the law, that is the purview of the Congress.

6) Would sign a bill that would PERMANENTLY do away with the death tax.

Mostly meaningless: there would be nothing stopping the next congress/admin form passing a new death-tax; furthermore, congress has no intention of ending any tax.

Tell me how that is similar to Obama again?

They're both statists, and socialists, who have no concept of the proper limits of authority for the position of President. -- How are they different?

19 posted on 05/03/2013 10:00:53 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The Lower House did just that. It died in Senate.

See here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/obamacare-repeal_n_1665772.html

The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives, on a near party-line vote of 2 44- 1 85, passed a bill on Wednesday to repeal President Barack Obama’s overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system.

________________________________

Had Romney won, his victory would have carried the headwinds for Congressional control as well.

And the Obamacare repeal bill would have passed both houses and gone to a President Romney.


20 posted on 05/03/2013 10:13:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
"Pell Grants and Student Loans...who cares how much tuition is if someone else is paying for it, or if I don't have to worry about paying for it until years later?

Well maybe there are other factors too. Some grads seem to have quite a load. [I had GI bill pay for mine when it was $500 year, private school. ] Today everyone wants to go to college, employers want it, it's a seller's market. Thanks.

21 posted on 05/03/2013 10:14:09 AM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Dreams will get crushed.

I got of college in 2008 and wasn't able to find my first real job for 3 years because I had to take a crappy job to build up my experience in marketing to get the job I wanted. No experience = no job and unless these grads have connections or a field that is in demand they will face a similar situation. The only thing that has changed since 2008 has been the horrendous math that the government uses to calculate the jobless rate. I feel sorry for the conservative kids who did not vote for an administration that doesn't care about a prosperous job market in America.

22 posted on 05/03/2013 10:14:23 AM PDT by erod (I'm a Chicagoan till Chicago ends...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: He cannot do that — Congress is in charge of laws, not the President.

Again I am assuming that a Romney victory would carry the Senate and House together.

It is better than just maintaining the lower house.

And my argument still is this — THERE *IS* (emphasis) a difference between a President Romney and a President Obama.

The former ( although imperfect ) would be better.


23 posted on 05/03/2013 10:15:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: They’re both statists, and socialists, who have no concept of the proper limits of authority for the position of President. — How are they different?

I just outlined the difference above.

Better a lesser statist than the one that we have.

If you want to find the perfect man, you’re never going to vote in any election.


24 posted on 05/03/2013 10:16:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Had Romney won, his victory would have carried the headwinds for Congressional control as well.

Would that be a good thing?
Consider the recent push on gun-banning... do you think the republicans would have put up as much resistance (pitiful though it was) if Romney had been in office?
Romney would, at best, maintain status quo -- at worst there would be "party unity" on implementing his socialist dreams.

And the Obamacare repeal bill would have passed both houses and gone to a President Romney.

I don't believe that, not one bit. But let's suppose you're right... would such a congress write up an new healthcare, a Romneycare if you will, to replace it like was mentioned up-thread?

25 posted on 05/03/2013 10:20:47 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Again I am assuming that a Romney victory would carry the Senate and House together.

There's not much to support that assumption -- traditionally the opposite party as the president is likely to make gains in the Congress, IIRC.

It is better than just maintaining the lower house.
And my argument still is this — THERE *IS* (emphasis) a difference between a President Romney and a President Obama.

The difference is that one's a hard-line socialist and the other's a fabian socialist. I grant that much, but I still say they're socialists.

The former ( although imperfect ) would be better.

I honestly have my doubts about that -- a republican congress would likely show less resistance to statism even than they do under Obama, which means that we would be more 'normalized'... Obama at least has some polarizing effects.

26 posted on 05/03/2013 10:25:41 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
>> RE: They’re both statists, and socialists, who have no concept of the proper limits of authority for the position of President. — How are they different?
>>
>I just outlined the difference above.

Ah, differences without any distinction.

> Better a lesser statist than the one that we have.
> If you want to find the perfect man, you’re never going to vote in any election.

Honestly, who said anything about 'perfect'?
Is a refusal to vote for a Statist (or Socialist) a flat-out rejection of anyone who's not perfect?

27 posted on 05/03/2013 10:53:52 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: Ah, differences without any distinction.

The willingness to cut taxes IS a distinction.

RE: Is a refusal to vote for a Statist (or Socialist) a flat-out rejection of anyone who’s not perfect?

Again, there are DEGREES of desire for statism. I argue that Romney is less ( MUCH LESS ) of a statist than Obama and would have been better (relatively) than what we have now.

We were not given palatable choices in 2012, however, to simply let Obama romp when there was a lesser evil alternative was the wrong thing to do.

THAT is the distinction.


28 posted on 05/03/2013 11:31:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: Would that be a good thing?

I believe that Todd Akin and Richard Murdock being in the Senate would be much better than the alternatives if that’s what you’re asking.

Allen west being in Congress would have been better than his opponent winning.

RE: Consider the recent push on gun-banning... do you think the republicans would have put up as much resistance (pitiful though it was) if Romney had been in office?

With Todd Akin, Richard Murdock and Allen West in there? YES.

RE: Romney would, at best, maintain status quo — at worst there would be “party unity” on implementing his socialist dreams.

Again, I never said Romney was the best of the bunch that wanted to be President in 2012.

We are comparing Romney with OBAMA and THAT makes the huge difference.

I have personally never bought the argument that Romney would be just as bad or worse than Obama. All my gut instincts tell me he would be better (even if it isn’t saying much ).

If a train is on the way towards the cliff at 100 MPH (Obama), I’d rather it ran at 75 MPH ( Romney ) so that it will give me more time to prepare.


29 posted on 05/03/2013 11:38:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Jump off at 100 MPH ASAP, dust yourself off and head for the hills because it just keeps going faster.


30 posted on 05/03/2013 12:38:27 PM PDT by RHS Jr (Pity the banksters when Jesus comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RHS Jr

It is still possible to slow it down.


31 posted on 05/03/2013 12:52:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RHS Jr

Or even reverse course.

However, it won’t happen if we do nothing and just let the Obama’s of this world romp.


32 posted on 05/03/2013 12:53:25 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>> RE: Ah, differences without any distinction.
>
> The willingness to cut taxes IS a distinction.

I view it as rationalization, and a willingness to buy into moral relativism.

>> RE: Is a refusal to vote for a Statist (or Socialist) a flat-out rejection of anyone who’s not perfect?
>
>Again, there are DEGREES of desire for statism. I argue that Romney is less ( MUCH LESS ) of a statist than Obama and would have been better (relatively) than what we have now.

And I’m saying “bollocks!” — Let’s change things around a bit and look at a single issue: abortion. Obama is _very_ pro abortion, Romney is absolutely willing to make exceptions for incest, rape (killing the innocent), and “the health of the mother” (code-words for “at will” & status quo). — Voting for Obama or Romney therefore does nothing to end the American Holocaust.

>> We were not given palatable choices in 2012, however, to simply let Obama romp when there was a lesser evil alternative was the wrong thing to do.
>
> THAT is the distinction.

No it is not. We were given the opportunity to choose between evil and good-compromised-with-evil (which *ALWAYS* works to evil’s favor).
What I’ve taken from people with your stance is that “the lesser of two evils” is *always* acceptable and there is no room for the absolute stance of someone saying “I will not vote for [socialists/statists/abortionists/something-I-find-utterly-repugnant/whatever].”

Is that what it means to be a Republican? That it’s ‘ok’ to give up a mile so long as you don’t give up a mile and an inch?
Is there any point where you would say “the line must be drawn here!”?


33 posted on 05/03/2013 1:22:56 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: I view it as rationalization, and a willingness to buy into moral relativism.

Willingness to cut taxes and unwillingness IS a difference. It isn’t moral relativism.

RE: Obama is _very_ pro abortion, Romney is absolutely willing to make exceptions for incest, rape (killing the innocent), and “the health of the mother” (code-words for “at will” & status quo). — Voting for Obama or Romney therefore does nothing to end the American Holocaust.

I’m with you regarding abortion. I am not even willing to kill the baby even when the mother is raped. I’d rather we help the child get adopted.

But yet, what is LESS WORSE? To save some babies or not to save any baby at all?

Rape and Incest are small numbers compared to the vast number of abortions out there.

So, your choice — Leave all babies to be killed or some babies to be killed. Given this hard choice, I select the later reluctantly.

RE: No it is not. We were given the opportunity to choose between evil and good-compromised-with-evil (which *ALWAYS* works to evil’s favor).

Oh yes it is. Cutting corporate taxes to 25% and eliminating the death tax is NOT compromise.

It is a HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Better than leaving it at 35% ( the highest in the world ) and leaving the death tax existent.

RE: Is that what it means to be a Republican? That it’s ‘ok’ to give up a mile so long as you don’t give up a mile and an inch?

Again, you are not given the best choice. You are given the choice between two evils. In which case, i have no choice but to select the lesser one.

It has nothing to do with being Republican, it is simply a way of stopping, reversing or slowing down the greater evil.


34 posted on 05/03/2013 1:30:50 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

> If a train is on the way towards the cliff at 100 MPH (Obama), I’d rather it ran at 75 MPH ( Romney ) so that it will give me more time to prepare.

And what I’m saying is that to my POV the difference isn’t a mere 35 MPH, it’s 2 MPH when you’re talking about bullet-trains [~185 MPH] over a 50 Mile stretch — so little difference compared to everything that for practical end-user usage there’s little point in distinguishing it.

>> RE: Consider the recent push on gun-banning... do you think the republicans would have put up as much resistance (pitiful though it was) if Romney had been in office?
>
> With Todd Akin, Richard Murdock and Allen West in there? YES.

You’re “assuming things not in evidence” to use the legal phrase, the scenario was only whether an Obama/Romney election-win would have altered things — I said nothing about Akin/Murdock/West winning as well. (Granted I do think that they’d be against the gun-control if they had, West especially, but that’s not what we’re talking about.)

> We are comparing Romney with OBAMA and THAT makes the huge difference.

Not really, it’s like comparing Mao and Stalin mass murderers [30M & >20M, respectively] when the question isn’t about their mass-murderer but whether it’s desirable to have a Tyrant at the head of government at all.


35 posted on 05/03/2013 1:36:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: And what I’m saying is that to my POV the difference isn’t a mere 35 MPH, it’s 2 MPH when you’re talking about bullet-trains [~185 MPH] over a 50 Mile stretch — so little difference compared to everything that for practical end-user usage there’s little point in distinguishing it.

Again, a corporate tax cut from 35% to 25% is HUGE, so is the elimination of a death tax. So is the willingness to sign a repeal of Obamacare.

From my POV it isn’t a small difference. It is a REVERSAL of the train’s direction.

RE: You’re “assuming things not in evidence” to use the legal phrase, the scenario was only whether an Obama/Romney election-win would have altered things — I said nothing about Akin/Murdock/West winning as well. (Granted I do think that they’d be against the gun-control if they had, West especially, but that’s not what we’re talking about.)

I believe it is a valid assumption. The tide of country went with the President and his party. A Romney victory would have carried the republican party with him. It has been like this in most cases. There is seldom a case where the president wins and his party loses. Most people vote along party lines.

RE: Not really, it’s like comparing Mao and Stalin mass murderers

Now you’re really stretching it.

One wants to cut taxes, the other one wants to raise them. No comparison whatsoever.


36 posted on 05/03/2013 1:43:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>> RE: Obama is _very_ pro abortion, Romney is absolutely willing to make exceptions for incest, rape (killing the innocent), and “the health of the mother” (code-words for “at will” & status quo). — Voting for Obama or Romney therefore does nothing to end the American Holocaust.
>
> I’m with you regarding abortion. I am not even willing to kill the baby even when the mother is raped. I’d rather we help the child get adopted.

We are in agreement there.

> But yet, what is LESS WORSE? To save some babies or not to save any baby at all?

Let me flip that around: which is worse to allow it to continue, or to make a token gesture that has no impact and then pat ourselves on the back as if we had done something?

This is not exactly a hollow hypothetical, the Gnosell trial is a perfect example of how the Partial Birth Abortion ban is impotent — what he did wasn’t exactly “an isolated incident,” but (though it’s not reported) more mainstream than anyone with a conscience would be comfortable admitting.

> Oh yes it is. Cutting corporate taxes to 25% and eliminating the death tax is NOT compromise.
> It is a HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Again, the President has no such authority. That is altering law and properly under the Congress, not the Executive.

> Again, you are not given the best choice. You are given the choice between two evils. In which case, i have no choice but to select the lesser one.

That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

> It has nothing to do with being Republican, it is simply a way of stopping, reversing or slowing down the greater evil.

No, it is not. It is the process of making the normal into extremes and the extremes into normal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Ask yourself this: if you were presented with the Obama/Romney choice over and over again (different people, but the same premises), the only difference being how bad they were [really bad vs. pretty bad] do you not resign to embracing a policy of “the best that can happen is to stay the same”? — If that is the case, then at what point will you ever “reverse the evil” — the answer is you will not, not ever.


37 posted on 05/03/2013 1:52:12 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>> RE: Not really, it’s like comparing Mao and Stalin mass murderers
>
> Now you’re really stretching it.

Of course — because you will not hear when it is plainly stated I have to use hyperbola. Notice that you did not really refute the comparison, only said that I’m “stretching it” (which I admit), this means that there *is* something there to be stretched: that is, the comparison is not utterly invalid.

> Again, a corporate tax cut from 35% to 25% is HUGE, so is the elimination of a death tax.

Looking back at the Abortion issue, you were perfectly willing to endorse Romney, even though he is against your view on abortion [which you said carries on even into rape]... and why? because of a willingness to cut the tax rate. So then, how much is a human life worth to you in terms of tax-rate percentage points?

My point is that you are validating my observation: there is [apparently] nothing where you would say “this is unacceptable” and you would always vote for “the lesser of two evils.” — In such a system there is never any need to field anyone good, and indeed you can set whatever policy you want so long as the two presented have very similar stances.


38 posted on 05/03/2013 1:59:34 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: Let me flip that around: which is worse to allow it to continue, or to make a token gesture that has no impact and then pat ourselves on the back as if we had done something?

Well, in this case, you would not have voted for Ronald reagan then. What did he do for the pro-life movement that prevented abortions from happening under his term?

It is better for someone to at least SPEAK OUT against the practice than not. Even a small light is better than total darkness.

If as you say, Gosnell’s case is not an isolated incident, then it has been happening since Roe vs Wade even under Reagan.

Are we then to argue that we’d rather not have a Reagan as President and allow the likes of Mondale or Carter to be President simply because he could not do anything about abortion?

rE: Again, the President has no such authority. That is altering law and properly under the Congress, not the Executive.

But HE HAS THE BULLY PULPIT. And I argue that a bully pulpit FOR tax cuts is better than the tired old Obama rhetoric we’ve been hearing. And again, i argue that if Romney had won, the two houses would have gone GOP.

RE: That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. —

OK, I’ll bite. In a Romney vs Obama scenario, what is the third choice? And ask yourself what would have happened if enough people voted this way?

I argue that it is EXACTLY what we have now.

RE: Ask yourself this: if you were presented with the Obama/Romney choice over and over again (different people, but the same premises), the only difference being how bad they were [really bad vs. pretty bad] do you not resign to embracing a policy of “the best that can happen is to stay the same”? — If that is the case, then at what point will you ever “reverse the evil” — the answer is you will not, not ever.

Again, I’d vote for the Romney — IF — He keeps his promise to cut corporate taxes to 25%, eliminate the death tax and sign Obamacare repeal.

And yes, I believe he would have done that.

In a primary, I would have chosen someone else, and I did. However, it did not end up the way I wanted.

Therefore, I only have a Romney and Obama to choose.

Guess what I choose the lesser evil. Why? because to do nothing simply ensures the greater evil wins.


39 posted on 05/03/2013 2:04:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>> RE: That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. —
>
> OK, I’ll bite. In a Romney vs Obama scenario, what is the third choice? And ask yourself what would have happened if enough people voted this way?

(1) Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, ran Libertarian and got 1% of the popular vote.
(2) Vergil Goode, Constitution party.
(3) Tom Hoefling, America’s Party.

There’s three choices right there.
I’ll only go w/ the top one, Johnson, but the others were in the running too. Johnson is slightly less firm on the abortion issue than I’d like, saying it should be a state-level decision, but that’s a respectable position to take when you consider that before Roe v Wade that’s exactly the position the states were in (and most had anti-abortion laws which Roe v. Wade dissolved). He left NM with a budget surplus, which is pretty impressive when you know how the State works... and did such a good job he was reelected even though, at the time, the State was solidly Democrat. ~ As President I would expect him to end the War on Drugs (which, along with the War on Terror has has VERY obviously deleterious effect on the 4th and 5th amendments and arguably the 6th). I would also expect him to seriously reign in federal spending, possibly even dissolving federal agencies; he would oppose tax increases and encourage congress to lower the rate [perhaps endorsing a uniform flat-rate].

Have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ils8Ost3Dt8&feature=BFa

In short, there is absolutely nothing I can think of that a Romney presidency would have over a Johnson presidency... and a good deal more that Johnson had over Romney.

> Guess what I choose the lesser evil. Why? because to do nothing simply ensures the greater evil wins.

I never said “do nothing.”


40 posted on 05/03/2013 2:24:44 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: (1) Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, ran Libertarian and got 1% of the popular vote.
(2) Vergil Goode, Constitution party.
(3) Tom Hoefling, America’s Party.

And you honestly believe these people can get more than 3% total even when you add all of their votes up?

I might like some of them better than Romney, but I’m not going to waste my vote on them.

RE: In short, there is absolutely nothing I can think of that a Romney presidency would have over a Johnson presidency...

I voted for Santorum over Romney, Unfortunately, he did not win. so, the real practical choice in November was Romney vs Obama.

RE: I never said “do nothing.”

OK, you voted for Gary Johnson. I’m sure Obama’s team will appreciate all the help he got.


41 posted on 05/03/2013 2:40:20 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: He left NM with a budget surplus, which is pretty impressive when you know how the State works...

Since we’re into referring to Wikipedia, let’s talk about surpluses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

Romney stated that Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus.[47] Official state figures said that fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus.[3][48] For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures.[48] The state’s “rainy day fund”, more formally known as the Stabilization Fund, was replenished through government consolidation and reform. At the close of fiscal year 2006, the fund enjoyed a $2.155 billion balance.[48]

As the state’s fiscal outlook improved, Romney repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, urged the legislature to reduce the state income tax from a flat rate of 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent.[49] (In 2000, voters had approved a gradual reduction in the income tax from 5.85 to 5.0 percent; but as an emergency measure in response to the fiscal crisis, the legislature had halted the rollback at 5.3 percent in 2002.[49])

He also proposed a “tax-free shopping day”,[50] a property tax relief for Seniors,[51] and a manufacturing tax credit.

The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship.[3] According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, from 2002 to 2006 the average rate of state and local taxes in Massachusetts rose from 9.6 percent to 10.2 percent (compared to the national rate, which rose from 9.5 percent to 9.7 percent).[52]

THAT WAS IN THE VERY BLUE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

You really believe a Governor Obama would do all those above?

So no difference between Obama and Romney? NOPE.


42 posted on 05/03/2013 2:44:20 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>> RE: I never said “do nothing.”
>
> OK, you voted for Gary Johnson. I’m sure Obama’s team will appreciate all the help he got.

Ah, so we’re back to “he lost, so your vote doesn’t matter”? Well, Romney lost, therefore you vote didn’t matter either.
So, who is better off here? Me who did not compromise with evil, or you who did?

>> RE: (1) Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, ran Libertarian and got 1% of the popular vote.
>
> And you honestly believe these people can get more than 3% total even when you add all of their votes up?

That depends on if the people buy into the “you’re wasting your vote if you vote third-party”-idea — and, honestly, what better way to change that in America than to vote 3rd party? [The only other option involves bloodshed.]

> I might like some of them better than Romney, but I’m not going to waste my vote on them.

And there’s your problem: you think that a vote for someone that doesn’t win is wasted. — If that is the case than anyone who voted for the loser, no matter how close, also doesn’t count.

> RE: In short, there is absolutely nothing I can think of that a Romney presidency would have over a Johnson presidency...
>
> I voted for Santorum over Romney, Unfortunately, he did not win. so, the real practical choice in November was Romney vs Obama.

And? How’d that work out? Did you get your guy in? Does the Republican party have any incentive to tun a better (less-socialist or less-statist) candidate? Of course not, they can *ALWAYS* count on your vote because there is, apparently, no point where you’ll say “I won’t vote foe X because he is Y” (X being the candidate, and Y being some philosophy), because there is no Y that you find repugnant enough to declare unacceptable.

You’ve said that, very nearly explicitly, and keep saying it.
I disagree, saying there are things which are not acceptable.
But there is one other point that differentiates us: I accept your authority to vote as you see fit... you do not accept that same authority in me — “OK, you voted for Gary Johnson. I’m sure Obama’s team will appreciate all the help he got.”

So — let me ask... how are you different from the liberals who blast anyone who doesn’t agree with them? Or is there something about me, specially, that invalidates my right to vote the way I see fit?


43 posted on 05/03/2013 2:56:09 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: So, who is better off here? Me who did not compromise with evil, or you who did?

You because you wasted your vote on somebody who has NO CHANCE of winning.

RE: That depends on if the people buy into the “you’re wasting your vote if you vote third-party”-idea — and, honestly, what better way to change that in America than to vote 3rd party? [The only other option involves bloodshed.]

Or, to slowly change the party that has the best chance of winning. You are willing to give up on the Republican party as irreformable. I’m not. That’s the difference between you and me.

I’d rather say — OK Mr. Romney, we voted for you BECAUSE you promised to do this this and this and if you don’t, you’re out.

You’d rather waste your vote on Gary Johnson.

RE: And there’s your problem: you think that a vote for someone that doesn’t win is wasted.

Yes because IT IS TRUE.

RE: And? How’d that work out? Did you get your guy in? Does the Republican party have any incentive to turn a better (less-socialist or less-statist) candidate? Of course not, they can *ALWAYS* count on your vote because there is, apparently, no point where you’ll say “I won’t vote foe X because he is Y” (X being the candidate, and Y being some philosophy), because there is no Y that you find repugnant enough to declare unacceptable.

OK, what did your vote do for Gary Johnson? did it not help Obama to win? How many people in America even KNOW who Gary Johnson is?

I voted for Romney because at least he PROMISED ( and I believe he intended to fulfill it ) to REVERSE what Obama did between 2008 and 2012. That would have made a HUGE difference.

If he did that there’s the message to the Republican party — DON’T BE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS.

And come to think of it, we were already slowly getting there... Congress actually VOTED to repeal Obamacare. Had we won back the Senate AND the Presidency, the chances of it being repealed would have increased. The message to both parties would have been CLEAR.

REPEAL OBAMACARE !! we voted for it.

Now, because Obama is still President (thanks to those who stayed at home or those who wasted their vote on someone who get less than 1% of the vote), Obamacare is still the law and full implementation comes next year.

RE: So — let me ask... how are you different from the liberals who blast anyone who doesn’t agree with them? Or is there something about me, specially, that invalidates my right to vote the way I see fit?

Simple, I voted for someone who WILL reverse SOME HUGE liberal policies. That IS something. And that IS the difference.

And I never said you cannot vote the way you fit. I just said you wasted your vote.


44 posted on 05/03/2013 3:23:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

> You because you wasted your vote on somebody who has NO CHANCE of winning.

And he had no chance “because nobody would vote for him”?

> Or, to slowly change the party that has the best chance of winning.

Yes, and by compromising you signal to the party that (a) evil is acceptable, and (b) they really don’t need to push for any of the good things in the platform — ending abortion, government responsibility, government accountability, government limitations — hell, all through this you’ve argued against government limitations (specifically tax-rates, which are under congress and not the president).

> You are willing to give up on the Republican party as irreformable. I’m not. That’s the difference between you and me.

Have you ever tried to help someone who doesn’t want help? Someone who doesn’t think they have a problem?
That is the Republican party, and I refuse to support them while they do jack-shit about actually striving for their stated goals:

As a Party:
They say they’re pro 2nd Amendment — When have they pushed to repeal GCA or NFA... or eliminating gun-free zones?
They say they’re pro government accountability — What have they done to hold the likes of Fast & Furious or Bengahazi to accountability?
They say they’re for government reducing spending — When was the last time they cut [not renamed/restructured] a federal agency?
They say they’re for ending abortion — When was the last time they pushed back on that? (And is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of any effect?)
They say they’re for reducing tax burdens — When was the last time they pushed for a no-strings reduction? (Bush’s tax-cuts don’t count because they had strings.)
They say they’re for Constitutional limitations — When was the last time they pushed to reduce (not even end) the War on Drugs? (Which destroys the bill of rights.)

So, how am I going to “reform” a group that, by its actions, shows it has no intention of doing anything it says it wants to do? How are you?
If my vote is wasted, then what of your emotions and passions and investment to this party?

> I’d rather say — OK Mr. Romney, we voted for you BECAUSE you promised to do this this and this and if you don’t, you’re out.
> You’d rather waste your vote on Gary Johnson.

Or would you simply give him the excuse of “under Obama it would have been worse”? Moreover, would the congress have backed you to throw him out?

>> RE: And there’s your problem: you think that a vote for someone that doesn’t win is wasted.
>
>Yes because IT IS TRUE.

Then YOUR VOTE WAS WASTED BECAUSE ROMNEY DIDN’T WIN!

> OK, what did your vote do for Gary Johnson? did it not help Obama to win? How many people in America even KNOW who Gary Johnson is?

It contributed to giving him 1% of the popular vote.
No, unless you wish to claim that any vote that wasn’t Romney was actually for Obama — in which case you’re admitting that all votes are worthless.
At least 1%, obviously; likely a lot more who discarded him as an option because “a third party can’t win.”

> If he did that there’s the message to the Republican party — DON’T BE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS.

By being like the Democrats and selecting a statist & socialist?
“We had to destroy the village to save it.”

> And come to think of it, we were already slowly getting there... Congress actually VOTED to repeal Obamacare. Had we won back the Senate AND the Presidency, the chances of it being repealed would have increased. The message to both parties would have been CLEAR.

That if we had bacon we could have bacon and eggs, if only we had some eggs?
Or that only a Socialist/statist can be President?
Hell, I don’t think the Republican party would understand anything less than losing nearly all its voters, and it’s been doing a bang-up job of that: McCain, Romney... but don’t worry, they’re sure to hear your cries and give you a woman candidate who has plenty of experience in government — Olympia Snowe.

> Now, because Obama is still President (thanks to those who stayed at home or those who wasted their vote on someone who get less than 1% of the vote),

Johnson did not get less than one percent, and I still think Romney could have ended up being worse (because the Republicans wouldn’t put up even token resistance to his socialism).

> Obamacare is still the law and full implementation comes next year.

Sucks to be you. :)
[/Schadenfreude]
And me. :(


45 posted on 05/03/2013 4:22:10 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: And he had no chance “because nobody would vote for him”?

Ask yourself, what was his poll standings prior to the elections? If he were in double digits, maybe we can talk.

RE:Yes, and by compromising you signal to the party that (a) evil is acceptable,

And by wasting your vote on someone who has no chance of winning, you allowed the greater evil to prevail.

and (b) they really don’t need to push for any of the good things in the platform —

Why not? There were good things in the Romney platform. I just outlined a few of them.

RE: Have you ever tried to help someone who doesn’t want help? Someone who doesn’t think they have a problem?

I don’t believe that ALL members of the Republican party feels that they don’t have a problem.

When you vote for someone, you can always tell them WHAT PART of the platform you want passed and what laws you want repealed.

So no, I don’t believe the GOP is iredeemable.

RE: They say they’re pro 2nd Amendment — When have they pushed to repeal GCA or NFA... or eliminating gun-free zones?

Errr... Need I remind you that without the Republican party, the MAJORITY of whom voted against the Toomey-Manchin bill, we would already be having background checks now.

And because we have a Republican party, Reid cannot even muster the numbers to pass his gun control votes.

RE: They say they’re pro government accountability — What have they done to hold the likes of Fast & Furious or Bengahazi to accountability?

What the heck is Darrel Issa and his supporters doing?
You think it is easy to fight this with Obama in power and the Senate under Dem control with the media behind them all the way?

RE: They say they’re for government reducing spending — When was the last time they cut [not renamed/restructured] a federal agency?

The 2010 Congress actually voted for a balanced budget. It was DOA in the Senate.

You think with Gary Johnson as president anything would have happened to reduce spending by a significant amount?

RE: They say they’re for ending abortion — When was the last time they pushed back on that? (And is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of any effect?)

Uh huh as I said before, with this, then I would guess you would not vote for Ronald Reagan. What did he do to push back abortion?

At least W. Bush signed a bill banning partial birth abortion.

RE; They say they’re for Constitutional limitations — When was the last time they pushed to reduce (not even end) the War on Drugs? (Which destroys the bill of rights.)

This is issue an where conservatives DO NOT AGREE.

And oh yeah, marijuana is slowly being legalized even as we speak.

RE: So, how am I going to “reform” a group that, by its actions, shows it has no intention of doing anything it says it wants to do?

Disagree, this congress might not be perfect, but under the circumstances, most are trying their best to counter the Obama agenda.

One can only imagine had both houses and the presidency been under GOP control...

we won’t get everything we want, but things would have been a heck of a lot better than what we have now.


46 posted on 05/03/2013 6:01:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: ohnson did not get less than one percent, and I still think Romney could have ended up being worse (because the Republicans wouldn’t put up even token resistance to his socialism).

I don’t call these socialism:

1) Cutting corporate taxes down to 25%

2) Repeal of the death tax.

3) Repeal of Obamacare.

If we could just have accomplished those 3, it would be a step in the right direction.


47 posted on 05/03/2013 6:03:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>> RE: They say they’re pro 2nd Amendment — When have they pushed to repeal GCA or NFA... or eliminating gun-free zones?
>
> Errr... Need I remind you that without the Republican party, the MAJORITY of whom voted against the Toomey-Manchin bill, we would already be having background checks now.

My point isn’t about simply stopping more infringements, but ridding the ones we already have.

>> RE: They say they’re pro government accountability — What have they done to hold the likes of Fast & Furious or Bengahazi to accountability?
>
> What the heck is Darrel Issa and his supporters doing?
> You think it is easy to fight this with Obama in power and the Senate under Dem control with the media behind them all the way?

AND YOU APPARENTLY DON’T GET THAT THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING A BIG DEAL OF IT!! *REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE ON SOME STUPID COMMITTEE. (Yes, yelling, F&F makes me Furious.) — That’s not even talking about Syria, Benghazi, or even Obama’s eligibility EACH of those should have been a BIG deal in the Republican party.

>> RE: They say they’re for government reducing spending — When was the last time they cut [not renamed/restructured] a federal agency?
>
> The 2010 Congress actually voted for a balanced budget. It was DOA in the Senate.

What if I think the only reason it passed was so the Senate could kill it? I’m starting to get cynical like that.

> You think with Gary Johnson as president anything would have happened to reduce spending by a significant amount?

No; the budget is the Congress’s responsibility, not the President’s... seriously, you made that point yourself just a sentence ago.

>> RE: They say they’re for ending abortion — When was the last time they pushed back on that? (And is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of any effect?)
>
> Uh huh as I said before, with this, then I would guess you would not vote for Ronald Reagan. What did he do to push back abortion?

I’m not over thirty — to me, and anyone younger, Reagan may as well be a statistical anomaly in the history of the Republican party.

> At least W. Bush signed a bill banning partial birth abortion.

I used to think that was a good thing; now I’m not so sure... it could have been a useless feel-good gesture.

>> RE; They say they’re for Constitutional limitations — When was the last time they pushed to reduce (not even end) the War on Drugs? (Which destroys the bill of rights.)
>
> This is issue an where conservatives DO NOT AGREE.

No, it’s not. But it’s plain to anyone who reads the Constitution that it is a gross overreach of the Federal Government’s power (Art 1, Sec 8) and routinely justifies violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. It can be argued that it corrupts/weakens the 6th Amendment as throwing drug-charges into otherwise non-related crimes may color the jury’s opinion (rather like how they tried to make the investigation of Waco about child-abuse/pedophilia rather than what it was supposed to be: focusing on the legitimacy and propriety of the government’s actions).

> And oh yeah, marijuana is slowly being legalized even as we speak.

I didn’t say anything about legalizing it; I hate the smell and don’t want to try it... but what does concern me is how many are able to rationalize the violations of the Bill of Rights because “they’re druggies” — the bill of Rights protections aren’t dependent on the actions of the person precisely because THEY’RE RESTRICTIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

>> RE: So, how am I going to “reform” a group that, by its actions, shows it has no intention of doing anything it says it wants to do?
>
> Disagree, this congress might not be perfect, but under the circumstances, most are trying their best to counter the Obama agenda.

BWAHAHAHAHA! — I don’t agree. If they were, they’d have made an issue of his eligibility.

> One can only imagine had both houses and the presidency been under GOP control...
> we won’t get everything we want, but things would have been a heck of a lot better than what we have now.

Right. [/sarc]
You know, Jesus had something to say about people that don’t use even the little that they have: even that little bit will be taken away.
Mat 5:19 — “For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”


48 posted on 05/03/2013 6:35:52 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

RE: My point isn’t about simply stopping more infringements, but ridding the ones we already have.

I’m with you here, but remember this — you’re not going to get every thing you want. Even a modest gain is considered a victory. The left did not get to where it is today in one big bang and neither will conservatives.

RE: AND YOU APPARENTLY DON’T GET THAT THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING A BIG DEAL OF IT!! *REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE ON SOME STUPID COMMITTEE. (Yes, yelling, F&F makes me Furious.) — That’s not even talking about Syria, Benghazi, or even Obama’s eligibility EACH of those should have been a BIG deal in the Republican party.

And how big a deal should it be if you have the media against you?

You can shout it from the housetops and the “big deal” isn’t going to be big unless it gets published and made a big deal of in the media.

How big a deal did conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity make on these?

With so many issues that need to be addressed you might want them to keep talking about it everyday, but this isn’t happening.

And what’s the solution to this? To vote for Gary Johnson and allow Obama to win?

RE; What if I think the only reason it passed was so the Senate could kill it? I’m starting to get cynical like that.

Well I’m not as cynical as you. And if we had a Republican president and Paul Ryan as VP, hey the chances of it passing would be better.

RE: No; the budget is the Congress’s responsibility, not the President’s... seriously, you made that point yourself just a sentence ago.

And you seem to have forgotten my counter argument — a Romney/Ryan victory would have the COAT_TAIL EFFECT, which I believe happens most of the time.

And if Ryan used his bully pulpit as VP to pound the balanced budget, why would it not become a reality?

RE: I used to think that was a good thing; now I’m not so sure... it could have been a useless feel-good gesture.

Not sure what you’re after here... a president signs the ban into law and you’re not even happy with it.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

RE: The Drug wars...

Ronald Reagan himself continued the drug war. He appointed among others, Bill Bennett to be his Drug Czar.

Are you going to not vote for someone like him simply because of this one issue?

RE: If they were, they’d have made an issue of his eligibility.

And how’s that going to help? Many people have made his eligibility an issue, nothing came out of it.

I guess you wanted a lawsuit.

If so, why did your candidate (the one you voted for ) not file one? He didn’t and you still voted for him.

RE: You know, Jesus had something to say about people that don’t use even the little that they have: even that little bit will be taken away.

And Romney/Ryan is THAT little that we have. So yes, I DID use it. But that little thing is bigger than the even littler one that you voted for.


49 posted on 05/03/2013 7:19:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; butterdezillion

>> RE: I used to think that [the Partial-birth Abortion Ban] was a good thing; now I’m not so sure... it could have been a useless feel-good gesture.
>
> Not sure what you’re after here... a president signs the ban into law and you’re not even happy with it.
> Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

No. I’m saying that it may’ve been only a “feel good” law.
According to Wikipedia:
A 2007 article in The Boston Globe reported that, in response to this statute, many abortion providers had adopted the practice of injecting the fetus with lethal drugs before all late-term abortions. Typically, a concentrated salt solution is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle. Even though these providers do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures, they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them “to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused.”

Which seems like the effect of people saying; “ok, we can’t use forks, so we’ll use sporks.” — I wasn’t able to find the abortion-rates to compare before and after, but I think I read somewhere that the PBA did nothing to the overall rate of abortions, if that is the case then the Act was useless and indeed counterproductive in that it gives people a false sense of accomplishment.

> Ronald Reagan himself continued the drug war. He appointed among others, Bill Bennett to be his Drug Czar.
> Are you going to not vote for someone like him simply because of this one issue?

I’m not over thirty, when you say “Ronald Regan” it hits me as personally as saying “John Adams”... Actually, Adams is one of my favorite presidents, so you’d get more connection there.

>> RE: If they were, they’d have made an issue of his eligibility.
>
> And how’s that going to help? Many people have made his eligibility an issue, nothing came out of it.
> I guess you wanted a lawsuit.

Hm, I think I’d let Butter answer that question... and only an idiot would comment like that, considering that all the multiple lawsuits so far have been thrown out because of “lack of standing.”

> If so, why did your candidate (the one you voted for) not file one? He didn’t and you still voted for him.

I don’t know — why don’t you ask him? The point isn’t me, or him, but that the Republican party rolled over on this issue... and Fast and Furious, and the “KMA” Obama pulled in Syria, and... maybe, soon to be, Benghazi. Hell, what issues are they actually pushing back on?

>> RE: You know, Jesus had something to say about people that don’t use even the little that they have: even that little bit will be taken away.
>
> And Romney/Ryan is THAT little that we have. So yes, I DID use it.

LOL, you say that and I hear: “There is only one Party, and Romney is its Prophet.”


50 posted on 05/03/2013 8:25:49 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson