# Good choice for Romney?



## TRENCHLORD

I think so. 

They need someone sharp and edgy, so he's probably the best choice of the bunch.
Rubio might have gotten them Florida, without which the election is over and Obama wins again.
I can't wait to watch the Ryan vs Biden dabate. It won't make much difference to the eventual election result, but it will be some good laughs .

These guys could pass as father and son. It's just feels so, "right" (p.i.).


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ

Obeezy's gonna smash these clowns.........

Now if we could get a REAL secular socialist liberal in there (and a few dozen in congress), we could actually fix some of the problems wrought by 30+ years of corporate-religious-GOP insanity.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Yeah, lets work real hard to be like Cuba , and get our budget lined out just like Greece.


----------



## lurgar

Not like my father would vote GOP anyways, but he's literally just now getting onto medicare this month and Ryan wants to get rid of it entirely.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

lurgar said:


> Not like my father would vote GOP anyways, but he's literally just now getting onto medicare this month and Ryan wants to get rid of it entirely.



well getting rid of, and privatizing are two completely different things. anyways his plan did change a little as he worked the medicare angle to more palatable 

Forbes broke down his plan as it stands today: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...proved-plan-for-medicare-and-medicaid-reform/
i like Ryan. i just like him in the house more.... but ehhh whatever. he was bound to run eventually


----------



## TRENCHLORD

lurgar said:


> Not like my father would vote GOP anyways, but he's literally just now getting onto medicare this month and Ryan wants to get rid of it entirely.


 
Ryan's plan might be the only current proposal that will spare many of the nescesary social spending programs, because left to status quo they are going right down the ole septic tank.


----------



## Blind Theory

Just from an aesthetic stand point he LOOKS like the right choice They seriously look like they are related or something. 

I don't know very much about Ryan's politics however so I can't say how I feel about it with much confidence. All I can say is that I don't want Obama in office again.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Blind Theory said:


> Just from an aesthetic stand point he LOOKS like the right choice They seriously look like they are related or something.
> 
> I don't know very much about Ryan's politics however so I can't say how I feel about it with much confidence. All I can say is that I don't want Obama in office again.



Your username is quite apt here 

Ryan just cements Romney as "more of the same." It's not going to change my vote (in fact, it has the opposite effect) but I'm not the target audience.

Simplified, albeit apt:


----------



## Blind Theory

Just to be clear, I don't really care what his policies are like. I'm still not voting for Obama.


----------



## Randyrhoads123

Paul Ryan on the Issues

This guy is completely anti-progress in anything. He is the manifestation of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, only focusing on the individual no matter the cost to society.

It's certainly not going to help Romney in appealing to a wider audience. Ryan is about as far right as you can get. Moderates and 3rd party voters will not be swayed by this, most likely just pushed even farther away.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Randyrhoads123 said:


> Paul Ryan on the Issues
> 
> This guy is completely anti-progress in anything. He is the manifestation of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, only focusing on the individual no matter the cost to society.
> 
> It's certainly not going to help Romney in appealing to a wider audience. Ryan is about as far right as you can get. Moderates and 3rd party voters will not be swayed by this, most likely just pushed even farther away.



I think the Ryan selection is Romney's way of saying "Hey. Remember that crazy primary season where everyone said I wasn't conservative? Well, look at this. I've literally got the poster boy for the Tea Party on my side now. You really should vote for me, 'cause I'm conservative with a capital 'C' now! Really."


----------



## TRENCHLORD

TemjinStrife said:


> Simplified, albeit apt:


 
It seems you are not oversimplifying, but in fact just not accurate.

Deciding that TAKING all the money from the people isn't a good idea IS NOT the same as giving money to the rich.

If any money was given to the rich (which that would be a first), it would have to be their own money just being "given" back to them.

50% of the folks pay NOTHING as is. That's 0% for those fuzzy at math.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
We need to flat tax so that this class warfare jelousy crap ends.


----------



## Waelstrum

Which is more important: making sure that nobody is jealous of anybody or fixing the economy? Flat tax, trickle down effect, Reganomics: these things are all proven not to work. Again, look at the UK, and look at Australia. One did the cutting tax and spending thing your Tea Party is so enthusiastic about, t'other increased spending and taxes like it's 1984.* Which one is in a double dip recession and which one is doing fine?



*Obviously it's not like 1984, but I have had someone compare universal healthcare to 1984 on this forum, so I thought I'd spell it out.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

I do miss this guy.


----------



## Edika

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah, lets work real hard to be like Cuba , and get our budget lined out just like Greece.



I don't want to derail your discussion, but unlike what most people think of Greece's financial problems they didn't come from a socialist government (which never was the case anyway). It was backhanded deals, squandering public wealth for personal profit, buying votes by making more public servants than required, buying an unsettling amount of weapons in triple value while being "part" of the European Union that filled the pocket of Greek politicians and the our good friends the NATO allies (yes I am Greek).
Now what does that remind you? (wink wink nudge nudge, say no more!)

End rant and please continue your discussion !


----------



## Isan

lurgar said:


> Not like my father would vote GOP anyways, but he's literally just now getting onto medicare this month and Ryan wants to get rid of it entirely.


 

He plans on turning it into a voucher plan that allows people to choose from insurance plans, which adds competition and thusly lowering the price for everyone..


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Edika said:


> I don't want to derail your discussion, but unlike what most people think of Greece's financial problems they didn't come from a socialist government (which never was the case anyway). It was backhanded deals, squandering public wealth for personal profit, buying votes by making more public servants than required, buying an unsettling amount of weapons in triple value while being "part" of the European Union that filled the pocket of Greek politicians and the our good friends the NATO allies (yes I am Greek).
> Now what does that remind you? (wink wink nudge nudge, say no more!)
> 
> End rant and please continue your discussion !


 
I agree completely.
Those are the assured problems that occur everytime that a nation starts letting the government assume more power over the GDP (by over-regulating/taxing private commerce)


----------



## TemjinStrife

Isan said:


> He plans on turning it into a voucher plan that allows people to choose from insurance plans, which adds competition and thusly lowering the price for everyone..



Except the voucher plan doesn't increase along with the cost for healthcare like the current system does, which means that the program becomes much less effective.


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> I do miss this guy.



Also, there are no words for how terrible, impossible, and plain idiotic Herman Cain's tax plan was


----------



## troyguitar

TRENCHLORD said:


> We need to flat tax so that this class warfare jelousy crap ends.



I agree.

Flat tax on all income from any source, period. No deductions for anything, ever. None of this bullshit with rich people paying less in % than middle class people. If you make $1 billion, you now owe the government $250 million no matter what the fuck you do with the money or how you got it. No hiding it in some corporation or international account.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

troyguitar said:


> I agree.
> 
> Flat tax on all income from any source, period. No deductions for anything, ever. None of this bullshit with rich people paying less in % than middle class people. If you make $1 billion, you now owe the government $250 million no matter what the fuck you do with the money or how you got it. No hiding it in some corporation or international account.


 
Yeah there has been far too much tax shielding.
We can look no farther than G.E. and Jeffery Emil as the single best and well known example.


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah there has been far too much tax shielding.
> We can look no farther than G.E. and Jeffery Emil as the single best and well known example.



And Willard Mittens Romney 

It's a corollary to the Streisand Effect... the harder you try to keep people from talking about something, the more people talk about it!


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> It seems you are not oversimplifying, but in fact just not accurate.
> 
> Deciding that TAKING all the money from the people isn't a good idea IS NOT the same as giving money to the rich.
> 
> If any money was given to the rich (which that would be a first), it would have to be their own money just being "given" back to them.
> 
> 50% of the folks pay NOTHING as is. That's 0% for those fuzzy at math.
> National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?
> We need to flat tax so that this class warfare jelousy crap ends.



Tax breaks are the equivalent of giving someone money, just like subsidies, as the end result is the same. The end user has more money lined in their pocket.

You are grossly exaggerating as even on that page (which you've posted in the past) says the bottom 50 pay taxes. The bottom 50 could pay 30%, as well as the rich, and cumulatively they'd still be paying next to nothing compared to the wealthy so your "plan" to solve this problem in fact doesn't work. The rich would have to pay like ~1-5% (maybe less) in taxes to match the bottom 50% because 90% of say 30,000 is 27,000. Now lets take that as a percentage of say someone who makes just a million, that is 2.7%.

There is a limited amount of money in circulation (inflation over long term has nullifying effect) so if 1% hold almost all of the money I think they should be paying quite a bit more (and I don't mean percent wise, but actual cash value). Anyone who thinks differently has to be delusional.


----------



## skeels

Mittens?

Seriously?




Seriously?














I miss Frank Zeidler...


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> There is a limited amount of money in circulation (inflation over long term has nullifying effect) so if 1% hold almost all of the money I think they should be paying quite a bit more (and I don't mean percent wise, but actual cash value). Anyone who thinks differently has to be delusional.


 
The top 1% of earners in this country pay 36.7% of all federally collected income tax, even though their earnings only account for 16.9% of the country's total cumulative income.
Most of us don't pay anything by the time our refunds and earned income credits come back to us.
The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What - Forbes


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> The top 1% of earners in this country pay 36.7% of all federally collected income tax, even though their earnings only account for 16.9% of the country's total cumulative income.
> Most of us don't pay anything by the time our refunds and earned income credits come back to us.
> The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What - Forbes



Speak for yourself.


----------



## troyguitar

Usually those numbers conveniently only count income from salaries and not investments/capital gains/other corporate crap which is where most of the very rich make most of their money - and pay little to no taxes on it.

And last I checked I'm in the group he's talking about and paying WAY more than 5%


----------



## TemjinStrife

troyguitar said:


> Usually those numbers conveniently only count income from salaries and not investments/capital gains/other corporate crap which is where most of the very rich make most of their money - and pay little to no taxes on it.
> 
> And last I checked I'm in the group he's talking about and paying WAY more than 5%





"Income Tax" is hardly a good indicator of the money that people at the top earn. Usually it is capital gains and other "paper" revenue streams that do not count as "income" for the purpose of the income tax that make up the bulk of their "earnings."

Let's make the easy comparison. According to the returns he released, Romney pays less than half of the taxes, percentage-wise, than my upper-middle-class parents do, yet he makes hundreds to thousands of times more money each year.


----------



## flint757

The issue in general is while preaching I want a flat tax he is not considering that even with a regressive tax as a percent of the whole the rich pay more, but as a percent of their individual income pay less taxes. Even if they paid 90% of all cumulative tax dollars if they only paid 30% of their individual income while the rest of us paid say 75% of our individual income it still wouldn't be right nor fair especially when you account for the fact that just to survive is more expensive when your poor and investing money is pretty much impossible. (a luxury the wealthy have and barely get taxed on, capital gains)

I personally think luxury taxes should be higher as well.

Disclaimer: obviously my numbers mean nothing in this post, just for explanatory purposes.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Not to move away from the $700,000,000,000+ that Obama is raiding from Medicare to pay for Obamacare (which he only pretends can be paid back),

but have you guys/gals seen this yet?

Gay Republicans Praise Romney for Ryan VP Pick | Advocate.com


----------



## Jakke

Well, he is a good-looking man

As for the pick... It had potential to motivate the extremely conservative base, but I think it will backfire. The reason being, there are just not enough extremely conservative voters. Obama can grab easy points on how crazy Ryan is, and will gain hugely on this

Just a sidenote, I read in this morning's paper that under Ryan, Romney would pay 0.8% in taxes. Food for thoughts...


----------



## flint757

I would assume people are aware of that (Ryan wants to do the same thing except get rid of it all together, needless to say he isn't helping Romney with the elderly vote). The healthcare reform bill is supposed to function similarly though, it's healthcare for healthcare so I don't see the problem. The only thing happening here is a shift. If this works out it would be stupid to have 3 different government funded healthcare programs, it makes since to combine and cut which is what I assume will happen over time.


----------



## celticelk

Anyone who asserts that a flat tax is "fair" doesn't quite understand economics, I think. Let's say there's a flat 10% tax on all income. Compare the cases of the wage-earner who makes $20,000/year, $200,000/year, and $2 million/year. The earner who makes $20,000 pays $2000 in taxes and has $18,000 left over. The earner who makes $200,000 pays $20,000 and has $180,000 left over. The earner who makes $2 million pays $200,000 and has $1.8 million left over. The problem here is that the marginal utility of every additional dollar earned is *not* the same. That tax rate cuts substantially into the ability of the person making $20K a year to simply pay for the basics: food, shelter, transportation. Neither the $200,000 nor the $2 million earner will be impacted to nearly the same degree. Moreover, the $2 million earner is paying money that, given the usual trends among that income bracket, would otherwise be simply sitting in the bank. The government takes that tax money and does stuff with it, which is a net gain for the broader economy (doing stuff employs people). For the $20,000 and the $200,000 earner, you're taking money that they would otherwise be spending on goods and services, so the stimulative effect of government activity is offset by the loss of private spending. This, in a nutshell, is why a progressive tax system is fairer than a flat tax system. You can certainly quibble about how to calibrate a progressive system most "fairly," but the progressive tax is undoubtedly more supportive of social equity than a flax tax.


----------



## Jakke

^Exactly, and that is why I still laughed an extremely attractive girl in the face (who I had a crush on, ahhh, seventh grade..) when she claimed flat tax was such a great thing.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> Anyone who asserts that a flat tax is "fair" doesn't quite understand economics, I think. Let's say there's a flat 10% tax on all income. Compare the cases of the wage-earner who makes $20,000/year, $200,000/year, and $2 million/year. The earner who makes $20,000 pays $2000 in taxes and has $18,000 left over. The earner who makes $200,000 pays $20,000 and has $180,000 left over. The earner who makes $2 million pays $200,000 and has $1.8 million left over. The problem here is that the marginal utility of every additional dollar earned is *not* the same. That tax rate cuts substantially into the ability of the person making $20K a year to simply pay for the basics: food, shelter, transportation. Neither the $200,000 nor the $2 million earner will be impacted to nearly the same degree. Moreover, the $2 million earner is paying money that, given the usual trends among that income bracket, would otherwise be simply sitting in the bank. The government takes that tax money and does stuff with it, which is a net gain for the broader economy (doing stuff employs people). For the $20,000 and the $200,000 earner, you're taking money that they would otherwise be spending on goods and services, so the stimulative effect of government activity is offset by the loss of private spending. This, in a nutshell, is why a progressive tax system is fairer than a flat tax system. You can certainly quibble about how to calibrate a progressive system most "fairly," but the progressive tax is undoubtedly more supportive of social equity than a flax tax.



While I completely agree with you, a lot of their money does sit in a bank, but a lot of it is also invested typically. Also worthy of note is that the more money a bank has the more loans it can give out because it gives them more leeway being further away from the reserve amount. Although, the fact that 10k can turn into 100k through investments and loans through the bank by only keeping the reserve amount and investing the rest (which every bank that gets said amount will do) seems like a poor model to me. They aren't "creating" money, but it is the one (and probably only) pitfall of the FDIC (false sense of security). What I can say is while economics makes sense (logically as in what they tell you is doable) when you really think about the different things we do/don't do it doesn't make any sense (or at least to me ). Inflation is another thing that just seem rather odd to me.

Anyhow I just felt like adding that and saying that I agree with you.


----------



## ddtonfire

Your Republican Friend To Explain Why Paul Ryan Is Great Choice | The Onion - America's Finest News Source



> NEW YORKSources confirmed that in response to Mitt Romney's announcement of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, your Republican friend will soon explain to you that while the Wisconsin representative may appear to be a risky pick, he actually brings more to the ticket than you'd think. "If you stop for a second to consider his experience defending his "Path to Prosperity" budget in Congress, the fact that he hails from a swing state, and his keen political instincts, Paul Ryan makes perfect sense," your Republican friend will reportedly tell you this week, making sure to reference his earlier Facebook post observing that Ryan's latest Medicare proposal is co-sponsored by a Senate Democrat. "Combine that with his youthful energy and record of demolishing every opponent he's ever faced, and youve got a pretty strong ticket." The detailed explanation is expected to be a marked departure from 2008, when, following the selection of Sarah Palin, your Republican friend remained completely silent.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

celticelk said:


> Anyone who asserts that a flat tax is "fair" doesn't quite understand economics


 
Anyone who asserts that a flat tax is unfair doesn't understand fairness.

Fairness has nothing to do with the social engineering that is the progressive tax system.

Why in the hell should someone have to pay a higher tax rate just because they have/make more money?
Just because "they can"?

If lessor earners are that concerned and jealous about it, why don't they take on a second or third job, or even find a better job.
And, if that doesn't work for them and they are still jealous, then maybe start making sacrifices like the beans and rice diet and even walking instead of driving. 

Most of the people bitching about "fairness" are struggling so hard that they still have the cash for all the latest gadgets, fast food, alcohol and tobacco, satelite or cable TV, cell phones with unlimited minutes, energy drinks, music gear, ect.,, ect.,,,

Seems like the "poor and impovrished" are sure living awful high on the hog to me.

Social "justice" seems like one of the most unfair big brother tactics that I've ever heard of.
Quite frankly, it sounds a little like a nasty case of pussyitis.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

TRENCHLORD said:


> Most of the people bitching about "fairness" are struggling so hard that they still have the cash for all the latest gadgets, fast food, alcohol and tobacco, satelite or cable TV, cell phones with unlimited minutes, energy drinks, music gear, ect.,, ect.,,,
> 
> Seems like the "poor and impovrished" are sure living awful high on the hog to me.


 
I've seen argument like this mentioned a few times in different places, so it'd be interesting to see some research and statistics to back it up in some way. I'm not saying for sure that it _isn't_ true, being as I've never seen anything "official" about it, but it's a bit hard to just accept when I only ever hear about it from people who are trying to justify making things more difficult for impoverished people economically.


----------



## Jakke

Oh forcrisssakes Trench, being rich often has nothing to do with pulling oneself up your bootstraps, it's all about opportunity. What you seems to be wanting, just so the rich *gasp* won't have to pay a fair share, is wage-slaves. 
You are basically advocating creating a class of slaves to the upper classes (and I hate all that class-war bullshit). Think about it, if someone has to have three jobs to make things go around, just because the rich who can afford to pay more taxes won't (because it's not "fair"), will they do anything more than work? 
Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with "jealousy" (come on, that's a kindergarden argument), it has do with recognizing not everyone come from good conditions, that people are sometimes unlucky, and not everyone get opportunities to succeed. For a man like Mittens, who earns an unholy amount of money by closing down businesses and firing people, to scream about fairness (or his cheerleaders for that matter) when his electoral base by large don't see themselves as "affording" to take care of weaker countrymen is fucking disgusting.
If an insanely rich man pays ten to twenty extra percent in taxes, will he even notice it? Of course not, these people are still going to be filthy rich, but they will actually contribute to the society that allowed them to be filthy rich.

The american fream does not exist anymore man, the low payed workers who are fighting against tax raises on the basis of "I might get rich one day and will profit from it" are just douped. Truth is, no matter how hard they work, they will never get rich, because they lack the contacts and opportunities. The assholes behind the Tea Party knows this of course, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> Anyone who asserts that a flat tax is unfair doesn't understand fairness.
> 
> Fairness has nothing to do with the social engineering that is the progressive tax system.
> 
> Why in the hell should someone have to pay a higher tax rate just because they have/make more money?
> Just because "they can"?
> 
> If lessor earners are that concerned and jealous about it, why don't they take on a second or third job, or even find a better job.
> And, if that doesn't work for them and they are still jealous, then maybe start making sacrifices like the beans and rice diet and even walking instead of driving.
> 
> Most of the people bitching about "fairness" are struggling so hard that they still have the cash for all the latest gadgets, fast food, alcohol and tobacco, satelite or cable TV, cell phones with unlimited minutes, energy drinks, music gear, ect.,, ect.,,,
> 
> Seems like the "poor and impovrished" are sure living awful high on the hog to me.
> 
> Social "justice" seems like one of the most unfair big brother tactics that I've ever heard of.
> Quite frankly, it sounds a little like a nasty case of pussyitis.



you are making a lot of assumptions and generalizations that are not even universally true.

As an aside on a few threads I've commented on my opinion about how money seems to work and pulling up your bootstraps won't do shit as someone always has to be at the bottom of the totem pole.

[EDIT]

Money is not attached to effort either as I know people who work ridiculously hard 7 days a week, they aren't millionaires and it'd be damn near impossible to work 3 jobs without them basically being part time which means worse benefits/pay. Just because you aren't rich doesn't mean you're lazy. The rich and businesses benefit more from the government than any typical citizen ever will so I think they deserve t take on more of the burden. You can point the finger at entitlements, but obviously if the poor needs welfare then obviously they can't match even .001% of the tax dollars a wealthy person can pay.

Furthermore taxes aren't punishment, I wish people would stop making it out as such.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Taxes are the burden you bear to support your civilization.


----------



## celticelk

The differences between Trenchlord's post and mine are, I think, fairly representative of the two opposing schools of thought on taxes, and especially on taxes as regards the lower-income segments of American society. Trench's position is (apparently - correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here) that he has a right to every penny that he earns, and that there are very few legitimate reasons to take any of that money out of his pocket via taxation. If he has to pay taxes, then everyone else should pay at the same rate, and if they're unable to shoulder the burden, they should make sacrifices of time or "luxury" items rather than receive a reduced tax rate, since only they are responsible for that inability to pay.

My position is that taxation is the way that we provide goods and services that benefit our whole society (roads, libraries, civil protection, etc.) but which cannot be efficiently provided by the private market, and that paying taxes is therefore part and parcel of living in an advanced democracy. I believe that while it is certainly possible that low-income individuals or families are low-income due to laziness, it is much more likely that a complex of social factors is involved. I further believe that reducing the relative tax burden on low-income individuals and families is an efficient way to help them rise out of poverty, and furthermore that helping the disadvantaged in our society is a moral duty and that tax-supported programs that primarily benefit the disadvantaged (welfare, health care, etc.) are a worthwhile use of tax dollars, even when holding that positions means that I personally will bear an increased tax burden.


----------



## celticelk

Bringing it back somewhat to Ryan as Romney's VP choice, here's a summary of Ryan's budget plan: What's In The Ryan Plan? - NYTimes.com


----------



## TemjinStrife

"Job creators"? Hardly.


----------



## synrgy

The majority of our voting populous treat politics like a team sport. Most people don't vote in support of candidates; they're generally voting against whichever party they've been made to believe by their media-of-choice is the modern embodiment of pure evil. GRANTED: Some of this populous _thinks_ they're voting based on issues, but when you press them on what those issues are, you tend to find that they're mostly regurgitation of empty rhetoric which has no basis in reality. I have an old acquaintance on FB who tried to convince me that Obama had quadrupled the debt. I provided him a link to the treasury numbers that proved we're nowhere NEAR that kind of increase, and he waved that off as "lies" without any actual evidence to support his negation. Typical.

My honest opinion is that this pick doesn't matter in the slightest. While I admit that my perspective is distorted by my limited experience/social-circles, I'm observing that the lines were drawn in the sand the second Obama won the last election, if not sooner. I pretty firmly believe that _most_ voters had their minds made up to vote _for_ or _against_ Obama, without regard to whomever his opposition proved to be, long before the primaries were even over. To pretend otherwise is to ignore that the opposition was claiming he was a failure _before he even took the oath of office_. In turn, I think Romney's pick of Ryan as a running mate will be mostly inconsequential to the election results.

Semi-related, I don't believe that many of the self-described "undecided" voters are _actually_ undecided. I think they just don't want their social circles to know how they _really_ feel. I mean, in my humble opinon, if one can't find enough of a difference between each of the choices to make a quick decision, one's not paying enough attention to even deserve a right to vote in the first place.


----------



## MFB

Here's my only contribution to the thread, enjoy


----------



## TRENCHLORD

celticelk said:


> Bringing it back somewhat to Ryan as Romney's VP choice, here's a summary of Ryan's budget plan: What's In The Ryan Plan? - NYTimes.com


 
Just for comparison, here's another piece on it. Not nearly as radical sounding as many have been led to believe.
Fact Check: Ryan budget plan doesn&#39;t actually slash the budget | Fox News


----------



## TemjinStrife

LOL. Even Fox News admits that the rich get massive tax cuts under the Ryan budget, while the poor pay more.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

TemjinStrife said:


> LOL. Even Fox News admits that the rich get massive tax cuts under the Ryan budget, while the poor pay more.


 
Poor people don't create jobs. Business owners do create jobs.
Without growing the job market how are poor people going to ever have a shot at being anything other than poor?
It's all about expanding the oportunity for prosperity.
With Obama's system the only thing that's growing is the welfare culture and governmental dependancy.

Bottom line is that we now have an employers market.
Personally I prefer an employees market, where you can bounce around from one job to the next until you find what you like, with no worries about having a hard time finding another job or moving up the ladder.

Even some of Bill Clinton's former top staff members are totaly on board with the Ryan plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzpuqWo6yU&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Jakke

TRENCHLORD said:


> *Poor people don't create jobs. Business owners do create jobs*.



You did not see that clip with Nick Hanauer, did you?



TRENCHLORD said:


> Without growing the job market how are poor people going to ever have a shot at being anything other than poor?



Well, with your idea of wage-slavery... Not a snowball's chance in hell.


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> Poor people don't create jobs. Business owners do create jobs.
> Without growing the job market how are poor people going to ever have a shot at being anything other than poor?
> It's all about expanding the oportunity for prosperity.
> With Obama's system the only thing that's growing is the welfare culture and governmental dependancy.
> 
> Bottom line is that we now have an employers market.
> Personally I prefer an employees market, where you can bounce around from one job to the next until you find what you like, with no worries about having a hard time finding another job.
> 
> Even some of Bill Clinton's top staff members are totaly on board with the Ryan plan.


Watch the video I posted above, dude. 

Rich people don't create jobs. Business owners don't create jobs by themselves. The job market only grows if there is money among the masses to pay for products, which forces business owners to expand to meet demand. By putting more money in the hands of the rich, the Ryan budget simply keeps more money in bank accounts and out of the economy.

Rich people also don't contribute more effectively to the economy than poor people. A millionaire doesn't consume 1000 times more food, cars, and consumer goods than someone who makes $100,000/year, or $20,000 a year.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Jakke said:


> Well, with your idea of wage-slavery... Not a snowball's chance in hell.


 
Actually it's the employer's market that kills wage growth.
In an empoyee's job market, employer's are FORCED to increase wages if they want enough hands to man the deck (which is also the only way they can grow profits).


----------



## TemjinStrife

TRENCHLORD said:


> Actually it's the employer's market that kills wage growth.
> In an empoyee's job market, employer's are FORCED to increase wages if they want enough hands to man the deck (which is also the only way they can grow profits).



So you're saying there isn't enough demand for products to create jobs? Sounds like a cash flow problem affecting the masses of people who buy products. If you want to increase consumption on a large scale, make sure the largest section of the population possible has as much money as possible.

Give a guy making $30k/year an extra $2k (15%), and what's he going to do with it? Pay bills, buy food, fix his car, pay medical bills, maybe get a nice TV if he can swing it. All of these things put money into the flow of commerce, which lets the mechanics, the grocery store owners, doctors, and the guy working at Best Buy keep their jobs. This, in turn, gives those people enough money to buy their own stuff.

Give a guy making $2 million a year an extra 15% ($300,000) and what is he going to do with it? Since he's not living paycheck-to-paycheck, he's likely just going to invest the majority of it somewhere, where it will grow money for him, but stay out of the general flow of commerce. This is why trickle-down economics hasn't worked.

Never mind the fact that you can give 150 people 15% more for what it costs to give that one multimillionaire 15% more. Is that one millionaire going to put all of that money into the flow of commerce? Not likely. He's not consuming 150 times more than the average person.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Well it looks like the Ryan pick is really energizing not only the base, but also many Independants and senior citizen registered democrats.
With so many different demographics making the switch to Romney all at once, it's becoming more and more likely that he's the next prez.
This new Newsweek cover says it all for many who were on top of the fence.





Dipping the presidential hand in the Medicare cookie jar to the tune of $716,000,000,000 is just no way to win re-election.
Now that the cat is out of the bag, Obama's "plan" has seniors freaking out far worse than ever.


----------



## flint757

Interesting as I've heard more senior citizens concerned with Ryan than not, you know since he wants to literally eliminate medicare.

As for independents and moderates I highly doubt that only because Ryan as his sidekick makes him even more conservative not less. Ryan has been going around talking about his financial plan which would do the same thing so how is that any better for the senior citizens or independents.

Newsweek is hardly an objective rag when it comes to talking about anything. If you read the sub heading it is an article written by an individual, I'd hardly call that an everyone is jumping ship movement especially since polls are pointless as only one really counts and we still have a couple months for that one. Anyone who follows poll surveys is literally wasting their time. 

Also, taking money from one medical service and placing it in another that is run by the same people (you know the government) is hardly dipping your hand in the cookie jar.


----------



## Valennic

If Romney does get elected, with Ryan as his VP, those of us under the 25k a year line are going to be totally and royally fucked. They don't care about normal people, it's plain and simple. I'm not an Obama supporter, but Romney and Ryan are just terrible. They have no business being in charge of a country that's supposed to be by the people and for the people, when they only want to care about business.


----------



## Jakke

TRENCHLORD said:


> Dipping the presidential hand in the Medicare cookie jar to the tune of $716,000,000,000 is just no way to win re-election.
> Now that the cat is out of the bag, Obama's "plan" *has seniors freaking out far worse than ever*.



Oh no! Is it the death panels again?

Seriously, with your "dipping the hand into the cookie jar" you makes it sound like he stole something (and placed in an off-shore account), he redistributed money (as Flint put it first), so now hopefully americans won't have to die if they lack health-coverage.

As for the Newsweek cover.. I'm sure you pounce at anything like this, but if you look at it (as Flint also said, I see now), it's an opinion article! It's not any sort of objective reporting, if we are going to start equating opinions or assertions with facts, then the jews really did cause WWII and and Dave Mustaine is correct when he claims Obama planned the Aurora shooting. 
Not to mention that Nevermore in that case is the best metal band ever, because that is my opinion.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Jakke said:


> Oh no! Is it the death panels again?
> 
> Seriously, with your "dipping the hand into the cookie jar" you makes it sound like he stole something (and placed in an off-shore account), he redistributed money (as Flint put it first), so now hopefully americans won't have to die if they lack health-coverage.


 
Tell that to all the scared old people at the coffee shops.
The last thing they want is more broken promises, which is exactly how they (at least every one I talk to in the mornings at Hardees and McDonalds) are seeing it.
I'm hearing many of them say that they are switching over and voting Romney, mostly because they trust Paul Ryan.
That man just connects with the older generation better than anyone else on either ticket.
I think this will be one of those very rare elections in which the number 2 man actually makes a huge difference for the ticket.

Plus this number 2 isn't helping Obama's chances at all lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYtEuuhFRPA


----------



## Jakke

TRENCHLORD said:


> Tell that to all the scared old people at the coffee shops.



But then I think you are forgetting one crucial fact. Old people are afraid of everything, especially now when old people (who are generally a lot less progressive than younger people) are scared shitless by the republican side. It's a tactic by politicians, and especially the right to get votes by fear, they want people to fear putting their vote on the other side.

FOX News' average viewer age is 65, I am not surprised that old people are scared when they hear the pure scare-propaganda from there every day. If you have no other source for news, and FOX fabulates about death panels, or how Obama is the antichrist, of course they are going to be scared of him.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well it looks like the Ryan pick is really energizing not only the base, but also many Independants and senior citizen registered democrats.
> With so many different demographics making the switch to Romney all at once, it's becoming more and more likely that he's the next prez.
> This new Newsweek cover says it all for many who were on top of the fence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dipping the presidential hand in the Medicare cookie jar to the tune of $716,000,000,000 is just no way to win re-election.
> Now that the cat is out of the bag, Obama's "plan" has seniors freaking out far worse than ever.



I encourage you to actually find out what's going on with that $716 million "cut" to Medicare. For example: Understanding Medicare "Cuts" - NYTimes.com. Short version: these are cuts in *overpayment* through Medicare Advantage and hospital reimbursement; the latter cuts were negotiated *by the hospital industry*, who did the calculus and figured out that the reduction in revenue that they'd suffer from those cuts was more than offset by having more Americans able to actually *pay* for hospital visits.. Then there's the pesky fact that despite his ostensible commitment to repealing the ACA, Ryan's budget *assumes* these cuts to Medicare as part of his fiscal plan. Can't have it both ways, kids.

Trench may well be correct that the seniors of America can be scared into voting for Romney based on threats to Medicare, but they'll be doing it based on disinformation.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> It seems you are not oversimplifying, but in fact just not accurate.
> 
> Deciding that TAKING all the money from the people isn't a good idea IS NOT the same as giving money to the rich.
> 
> If any money was given to the rich (which that would be a first), it would have to be their own money just being "given" back to them.
> 
> 50% of the folks pay NOTHING as is. That's 0% for those fuzzy at math.
> National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?
> We need to flat tax so that this class warfare jelousy crap ends.



You just responded to an oversimplification with an oversimplification.

Taking ALL the money? Is this a meme now? 

50% of the folks are so poor they can barely afford to live in the first place. The United States is now number one in child poverty and you're worried about "the individual"? Good joke.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> 50% of the folks are so poor they can barely afford to live in the first place. The United States is now number one in child poverty.


 
Are you sure you are living here in the U.S.?
I'm sure you have "unbiased" stats to back these claims up, right?


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Are you sure you are living here in the U.S.?
> I'm sure you have "unbiased" stats to back these claims up, right?











TRENCHLORD said:


> Well it looks like the Ryan pick is really energizing not only the base, but also many Independants and senior citizen registered democrats.
> With so many different demographics making the switch to Romney all at once, it's becoming more and more likely that he's the next prez.
> This new Newsweek cover says it all for many who were on top of the fence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dipping the presidential hand in the Medicare cookie jar to the tune of $716,000,000,000 is just no way to win re-election.
> Now that the cat is out of the bag, Obama's "plan" has seniors freaking out far worse than ever.



If you knew anything about Newsweek, you'd know that the week before this issue featured a cover story blatantly calling Mitt Romney an insecure wimp. It's a balanced news source, so I don't expect you to understand it. 

Just kidding. That cover title took even me off guard at first. I'd have to give the medal of journalistic brutality to the latter, though.


----------



## ddtonfire

I said this in a thread here a while ago, but Newsweek has long since lost (or better yet, squandered) any relevance in anything.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


>


 
You did notice that little part that says; SELECTED DEVELOPED COUNTRIES?

That's not exactly a reasonable backdrop for unbiased stats.

It would need to be a graph featuring all countries if it were going to show the United States true ranking in the world concerning child poverty.
So Ethiopia is kicking our ass now on child care?


----------



## highlordmugfug

Keep moving the goalposts buddy. 
EDIT: And is it really all that important how we're doing compared to Ethiopia, when we're doing worse than Spain, Greece, Italy, Japan, Canada, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Slovakia, Australia, Belgium, Malta, France, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Slovenia, Norway, the Netherlands, Cyprus, Finland, and Iceland?

Is that not enough?
And if we are doing better than Ethiopia, does that mean we're done? If we're ahead of anyone, are we set? Good to go? Is that the kind of America you really want, Trench? 
"The good ole, U.S. of A.: it's not the shittiest place in the world!"
What a slogan.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

highlordmugfug said:


> Keep moving the goalposts buddy.


 
I'm not the one who brought up child poverty, and then pulled out a graph that only ranks "selected developed countries", as a tool to try to show the United States failing to take care of it;s children.


----------



## highlordmugfug

"Selected" is not the part that's important, "Developed" is. The fact that we're failing when compared to that many other developed countries, is an issue worth addressing.

EDIT: And it's kind of depressing that your response to "23.1% of children in the United States live in poverty" is to nitpick about the wording of the heading on the chart, and to ask to see a the statistics from a country you assume is doing worse than us.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

highlordmugfug said:


> "Selected" is not the part that's important, "Developed" is. The fact that we're failing when compared to that many other developed countries, is an issue worth addressing.


 
I can agree with that. I was just wanting to keep it in the factual realm here instead of making off the wall indictments of America.
It is a trend worth addressing in proper context.


----------



## Valennic

TRENCHLORD said:


> I can agree with that. I was just wanting to keep it in the factual realm here instead of making off the wall indictments of America.
> It is a trend worth addressing in proper context.



He gave you facts meng. Plenty of them. Addressed in the proper context. You keep changing the context. 

And as far as SELECTED developed countries go, what use is there comparing us to Ethiopia or other such small third world countries? You really think it should be considered an accomplishment to be better than them? Theres a reason countries are divided into different categories on that point. It's illogical and asinine to compare the ability of a first world country to care for its citizens to the ability of a THIRD world country to do so. Those countries listed above are our main "competition". Any additions are just adding useless information to the mix.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Valennic said:


> He gave you facts meng. Plenty of them. Addressed in the proper context. You keep changing the context.
> 
> And as far as SELECTED developed countries go, what use is there comparing us to Ethiopia or other such small third world countries? You really think it should be considered an accomplishment to be better than them? Theres a reason countries are divided into different categories on that point. It's illogical and asinine to compare the ability of a first world country to care for its citizens to the ability of a THIRD world country to do so. Those countries listed above are our main "competition". Any additions are just adding useless information to the mix.


 
No, he stated clearly that America was dead last in the world when it comes to child poverty.

Then, he showed a graph displaying our ranking among selected (hand selected I'm quite sure) countries. 
And, to top it off, this graph only selected countries out of developed nations to which compare.

Apples to apples guys, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Valennic

TRENCHLORD said:


> No, he stated clearly that America was dead last in the world when it comes to child poverty.
> 
> Then, he showed a graph displaying our ranking among selected (hand selected I'm quite sure) countries.
> And, to top it off, this graph only selected countries out of developed nations to which compare.
> 
> Apples to apples guys, that's all I'm saying.



The only country I could logistically see being below us is China. That's basically one country. Besides, even then, I'm not entirely sure THEYRE below us. And even if we're not DEAD LAST, I think you're missing the point entirely.

Which is that we are failing MISERABLY in that department. Who gives a fuck if we're above or below a few others, if we're THAT FAR BEHIND THAT MANY COUNTRIES. We have a serious fucking problem. Dead last or not.


----------



## highlordmugfug

...so you're upset that he compared how we were doing, with 25 other countries that it would make perfect sense to compare ourselves to (Apples to apples)?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Valennic said:


> The only country I could logistically see being below us is China. That's basically one country. Besides, even then, I'm not entirely sure THEYRE below us. And even if we're not DEAD LAST, I think you're missing the point entirely.


 
I'm not the one who said we were deadlast. It's not my point to miss.

We aren't even remotely close to the bottom on any graph including ALL nations on the globe. That's complete grandstanding to even suggest it.

Here ya go, 1.6 billion people still live without electricity. That's 1/4 of all mankind.
U.S. child poverty isn't nearly as bad (any child poverty is bad, so I'm speaking in reletive terms only) as the left pretends/requires it to be.


----------



## highlordmugfug

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm not the one who said we were deadlast. It's not my point to miss.
> 
> We aren't even remotely close to the bottom on any graph including ALL nations on the globe. That's complete grandstanding to even suggest it.


No one is suggesting that, so you're arguing with yourself. And again: not the point.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well it looks like the Ryan pick is really energizing not only the base, but also many Independants and senior citizen registered democrats.
> With so many different demographics making the switch to Romney all at once, it's becoming more and more likely that he's the next prez.
> This new Newsweek cover says it all for many who were on top of the fence.




So, what you're saying is..... that you've never grasped how the media imposes ideas on people so as to manipulate their perspective on things?

Small Polls are a miserably worthless means of gathering statistics, and Small Poll results given by a biased media source (read: all of them) are even more worthless. 

*facepalm*


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> No, he stated clearly that America was dead last in the world when it comes to child poverty.
> 
> Then, he showed a graph displaying our ranking among selected (hand selected I'm quite sure) countries.
> And, to top it off, this graph only selected countries out of developed nations to which compare.
> 
> Apples to apples guys, that's all I'm saying.


As far as developed countries go we are doing better than Romania actually, theirs is 25.5% according to a Unicef Report released back in may.

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf


----------



## Valennic

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm not the one who said we were deadlast. It's not my point to miss.
> 
> We aren't even remotely close to the bottom on any graph including ALL nations on the globe. That's complete grandstanding to even suggest it.



That's not the point I was saying you were missing.

Do you not see those numbers?  Do you see the names of the countries we are behind? 

Do you see that massive gap between our country and the ones above it? That's the point I'm trying to make. We're WAY behind, regardless of how far down we are. I could give a fuck if we're at the bottom or not, but quite frankly we're doing terribly.

And more to the point, all nations do not matter in that graph. Like I said before, comparing us to a third world country is asinine to the degree of retardation.

EDIT: And don't grab the retardation part of my post and run with it please. The point there is you can't logically compare us to them. Necris stated Romania is below us. We're not at the bottom. Whoo hoo. I still don't think we should be celebrating it


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm not the one who said we were deadlast. It's not my point to miss.
> 
> We aren't even remotely close to the bottom on any graph including ALL nations on the globe. That's complete grandstanding to even suggest it.
> 
> Here ya go, 1.6 billion people still live without electricity. That's 1/4 of all mankind.
> U.S. child poverty isn't nearly as bad (any child poverty is bad, so I'm speaking in reletive terms only) as the left pretends/requires it to be.



If you're really that concerned with being anal about facts and being very specific with our rhetoric, why not address this post:



celticelk said:


> I encourage you to actually find out what's going on with that $716 million "cut" to Medicare. For example: Understanding Medicare "Cuts" - NYTimes.com. Short version: these are cuts in *overpayment* through Medicare Advantage and hospital reimbursement; the latter cuts were negotiated *by the hospital industry*, who did the calculus and figured out that the reduction in revenue that they'd suffer from those cuts was more than offset by having more Americans able to actually *pay* for hospital visits.. Then there's the pesky fact that despite his ostensible commitment to repealing the ACA, Ryan's budget *assumes* these cuts to Medicare as part of his fiscal plan. Can't have it both ways, kids.
> 
> Trench may well be correct that the seniors of America can be scared into voting for Romney based on threats to Medicare, but they'll be doing it based on disinformation.



..rather than avoiding it, since it's a much more meaningful correction to your assertion, than was yours to Treeunit.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

highlordmugfug said:


> No one is suggesting that, so you're arguing with yourself. And again: not the point.


 
Treeunit 212 said "the United States is now number 1 in child poverty".
Maybe you came on late and didn't catch that post?


----------



## Valennic

TRENCHLORD said:


> Treeunit 212 said "the United States is now number 1 in child poverty".
> Maybe you came on late and didn't catch that post?









Why does that little tidbit of information still matter?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Adam Of Angels said:


> If you're really that concerned with being anal about facts and being very specific with our rhetoric, why not address this post:
> 
> 
> 
> ..rather than avoiding it, since it's a much more meaningful correction to your assertion, than was yours to Treeunit.


 
It's the New York Times for jesus sakes . They are as credible as Fox News right?
The Obama team is doing everything they can now to explain away that $716,000,000,000 power grab. I'm not suprised at all of their "explainations".


----------



## YngwieJ

celticelk said:


> I encourage you to actually find out what's going on with that $716 million "cut" to Medicare. For example: Understanding Medicare "Cuts" - NYTimes.com. Short version: these are cuts in *overpayment* through Medicare Advantage and hospital reimbursement; the latter cuts were negotiated *by the hospital industry*, who did the calculus and figured out that the reduction in revenue that they'd suffer from those cuts was more than offset by having more Americans able to actually *pay* for hospital visits.. Then there's the pesky fact that despite his ostensible commitment to repealing the ACA, Ryan's budget *assumes* these cuts to Medicare as part of his fiscal plan. Can't have it both ways, kids.
> 
> Trench may well be correct that the seniors of America can be scared into voting for Romney based on threats to Medicare, but they'll be doing it based on disinformation.



I'm glad someone brought this up. It's just taking money that would have otherwise gone to the already-bloated insurance companies and putting it back into providing care. But how dare the president redistribute money in any form or manner that benefits the general public!



TRENCHLORD said:


> I can agree with that. I was just wanting to keep it in the factual realm here instead of making off the wall indictments of America.
> It is a trend worth addressing in proper context.



So he clearly made a mistake in saying that the US is #1 in child poverty, because obviously we don't rank below Algeria. But that doesn't change the fact that over 23% of American children are classified as "extremely poor," per the definition of poverty. So I hardly see how this is no longer in the "factual realm".

It's obvious that Trenchlord can longer sustain any kind of arguments based on facts and has to resort to swaying the topic in any odd direction he can find in order to keep committing to the idea that he's right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong. And since I already know what argument you're going to piss out next, the answer is no, bringing up child poverty wasn't swaying off topic because Treeunit212 was giving it as an example that most people in the US couldn't even afford basic healthcare.

Additionally, since conservatives constantly question the cries for progressive taxation and wealth redistribution, here's a few graphs to show how well the US is currently doing in relation to other countries who have a much more even wealth distribution. I have several more of these but I'm sure you don't care to see them. You'd probably rather question the fact that the countries are DEVELOPED and SELECTED for the purposes of this study.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> Treeunit 212 said "the United States is now number 1 in child poverty".
> Maybe you came on late and didn't catch that post?



TreeUnit was wrong.
Now that that's out of the way:
You want an "apples to apples" comparison and are complaining that we aren't comparing our_ developed _country with _undeveloped_ countries like Ethiopia, that isn't apples to apples. We are second to last in developed countries, *potentially* third to last if you include China, who I am actually looking for numbers on at the moment, I'm personally not comfortable calling that a win.

I'm also not sure how bad relatively speaking "the left" is making child poverty numbers out to be that makes 23.1% seem good by comparison.

Also if you look at the link I posted we actually do have a 2.8% larger poverty gap than Romania.

The point you made about electricity is a complete non-sequitur.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's the New York Times for jesus sakes . They are as credible as Fox News right?
> The Obama team is doing everything they can now to explain away that $716,000,000,000 power grab. I'm not suprised at all of their "explainations".




Okay, now lets clarify something here your ALMIGHTY network, which you tout in almost all political conversations, is in fact flawed and you're admitting it.


----------



## Valennic

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's the New York Times for jesus sakes . They are as credible as Fox News right?
> The Obama team is doing everything they can now to explain away that $716,000,000,000 power grab. I'm not suprised at all of their "explainations".


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's the New York Times for jesus sakes . They are as credible as Fox News right?
> The Obama team is doing everything they can now to explain away that $716,000,000,000 power grab. I'm not suprised at all of their "explainations".




"Those can't be facts! If they're facts, then how do you explain that Obama is a nazi communist? DUH!"

Jesus.


----------



## YngwieJ

Adam Of Angels said:


> "Those can't be facts! If they're facts, then how do you explain that Obama is a nazi communist? DUH!"
> 
> Jesus.



So much for wanting unbiased facts, eh? It's funny that nearly every news outlet will tell you the same thing regarding the Medicare debacle, but FOX news is apparently the only fair and unbiased network in the world. 
FactCheck.org : A Campaign Full of Mediscare


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Adam Of Angels said:


> Obama is a nazi communist? DUH!"


 
Well I wouldn't go quite that far.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I was putting words in your mouth, bub, and using exaggeration to paraphrase your response. My point is: What good is a debate if, when given a rebuttal, your response is just "well, that's obviously not true, because the source is a liar"?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Adam Of Angels said:


> I was putting words in your mouth, bub, and using exaggeration to paraphrase your response. My point is: What good is a debate if, when given a rebuttal, your response is just "well, that's obviously not true, because the source is a liar"?


 
Well duh bub . I think i get that much haha.
As for source credibility, I'm not seeing that Fox News contributor opinions are any less credible than New York times editorial interpetations of prefostered studies. That's of course IMO.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well duh bub . I think i get that much haha.
> As for source credibility, I'm not seeing that Fox News contributor opinions are any less credible than New York times editorial interpetations of prefostered studies. That's of course IMO.


So where is your cutoff point for even considering the study, since the credibility of the source apparently doesn't factor in?
Edit: I'm assuming you don't _actually_ hold Fox News and the New York Times on equal footing, in terms of credibility otherwise you would either disregard both, or consider both.


----------



## Valennic

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well duh bub . I think i get that much haha.
> As for source credibility, I'm not seeing that Fox News contributor opinions are any less credible than New York times editorial interpetations of prefostered studies. That's of course IMO.



You refuse to accept anything they're giving you because the sources aren't up to your expectations.

Do you have any idea how much sense that does NOT make?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Necris said:


> So where is your cutoff point for even considering the study?


 
That specific study was actually right up front concerning it's credibility.
It was credible because it stated right up front that it was a measure of "selected developed countries", not every country. That's totaly two different things, for which they were up front about, but were painfully misinterpeted.
So I'm citing this study as 100% credible if interpeted correctly in context.


----------



## Valennic

TRENCHLORD said:


> That specific study was actually right up front concerning it's credibility.
> It was credible because it stated right up front that it was a measure of "selected developed countries", not every country. That's totaly two different things, for which they were up front about, but were painfully misinterpeted.
> So I'm citing this study as 100% credible if interpeted correctly in context.



Why should every country have to be on there? Why are you so HELLBENT on saying that that list is only good for those countries? It's been proven we're not at the bottom. Whoopty do. What good does that do us?

And as far as Obama's "power grab" goes. You won't even consider the possibility that you're wrong. You're just running around in circles picking pieces of arguments to respond to, and you pick the most inane and useless sections too. Respond to the whole thing or not at all. No one here is going to change your mind obviously, yet you supply no facts of your own to support your own beliefs. 

We wouldn't be so quick to dismiss you as biased as hell and nothing but opinionated if you would provide some facts to back your statements. And no. Fox news is NOT a credible source, as they are VERY clearly a biased news source.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Valennic said:


> Why should every country have to be on there? Why are you so HELLBENT on saying that that list is only good for those countries? It's been proven we're not at the bottom. Whoopty do. What good does that do us?


 
I'm not sure why people want to keep debating that one point.
I certainly don't. 

So it's actually that U.S. ranks low among the globe's richest counties right?

O.K. then, I'd be glad to move on.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's the New York Times for jesus sakes . They are as credible as Fox News right?
> The Obama team is doing everything they can now to explain away that $716,000,000,000 power grab. I'm not suprised at all of their "explainations".



You're equating the most prestigious newspaper in the country, and particularly a Nobel Prize-winning economist who writes for them, with Fox News? I'm disappointed, Trench. You can do better than that. By *explaining* how the analysis that I linked is actually wrong, for example, instead of just assuming that it must be because it came from the NYT.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> No, he stated clearly that America was dead last in the world when it comes to child poverty.
> 
> Then, he showed a graph displaying our ranking among selected (hand selected I'm quite sure) countries.
> And, to top it off, this graph only selected countries out of developed nations to which compare.
> 
> Apples to apples guys, that's all I'm saying.



Fine. The US is now number one in child poverty AMONG DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, and that's pathetic. We can do, and should be doing, better than that.

Better?


----------



## Konfyouzd

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah, lets work real hard to be like Cuba , and get our budget lined out just like Greece.



Lil hyperbolic, no?


----------



## YngwieJ

celticelk said:


> You're equating the most prestigious newspaper in the country, and particularly a Nobel Prize-winning economist who writes for them, with Fox News? I'm disappointed, Trench. You can do better than that. By *explaining* how the analysis that I linked is actually wrong, for example, instead of just assuming that it must be because it came from the NYT.



Who cares if he has credentials, he works for the NYT so he must be a lazy liberal who just wants government handouts. 

As for that Newsweek cover, Paul Krugman ridiculed the author, Niall Ferguson, for all the untruthful statements and misleading graphs in his story. Brad DeLong, Economics Professor at UC Berkley, also criticized Ferguson for his non-factual cover story and Newsweek even confirmed that they did not fact-check Ferguson's story. The Atlantic also did a report on the story and laid out the facts.

Paul Krugman Bashes Niall Ferguson's Newsweek Cover Story As 'Unethical' [UPDATE]
A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic

But I guess the Huffington Post and The Atlantic are also not credible sources.


----------



## Konfyouzd

TRENCHLORD said:


> Most of us don't pay anything by the time our refunds and earned income credits come back to us.
> The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What - Forbes



..... please... I've seen the numbers. The government keeps ALOT of my money. I'm not mad about it. I see it as paying rent to stay here more or less, but to pretend that it's *nothing* is crazy.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> The top 1% of earners in this country pay 36.7% of all federally collected income tax, even though their earnings only account for 16.9% of the country's total cumulative income.
> Most of us don't pay anything by the time our refunds and earned income credits come back to us.
> The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What - Forbes



And in counterpoint, from A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic:

It is true that 46 percent of households did not pay _federal income tax_ in 2011. It is not true that they pay no taxes. Federal income taxes account barely account for half of federal taxes, and much less of total taxes, if you count the state and local level. Many of those other taxes can be regressive. If you take all taxes into account, our system is barely progressive at all.



But why do almost half of all households pay no federal income tax? Because they don't have much money to tax. Here's the breakdown from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Half of these households are simply too poor -- they make under $20,000 -- to have any liability. Another quarter are retirees on tax-exempt Social Security benefits. The remaining households have no liability because of tax expenditures like the earned-income tax credit or the child credit.​
So the households that are paying no income tax because of tax expenditures that are NOT due to being elderly is a lot less than your blithe estimate of "half"; in fact, when you run the numbers from the TPC analysis that O'Brien links in his article, it turns out to be 12.9% (46.4% of units are nontaxable; 49.8% of those units are nontaxable due to tax expenditure provisions; 56% of that subset are nontaxable due to non-elderly benefits; 0.464 x 0.498 x 0.56 = 0.129). And don't forget, that's still only accounting for federal income tax. The poor spend a substantially greater percentage of their income than the rich, for example, so consumption taxes like sales tax affect them disproportionately. (This tendency to spend a greater proportion of their income is also a large reason why tax relief to the poor is more stimulative than tax relief to the rich, FYI.)


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm not the one who brought up child poverty, and then pulled out a graph that only ranks "selected developed countries", as a tool to try to show the United States failing to take care of it;s children.



But you are the one trying to discredit a graph for not including the poorest countries on earth. That's not the sampling pool I suggested, nor would it be an accurate depiction of wealth distribution.

My inability to be completely clear on what I am claiming to be true ONCE is a problem to you. I'd have to spend the next five days looking over your posts counting the number of times you've been unclear or vague in your points.

Among countries _at the same level of development_, America is first in childhood poverty. I guess Fox News forgot to mention that one.

If you really wanted to discredit my statistic, you'd look at the date. This is from 2009. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Poor people don't create jobs. Business owners do create jobs.





I'm sorry, what? There are FAR more poor than there are rich, and they spend every cent they earn because they must in order to survive. Think about what you just said. Why do you think fast food exists? Walmart?! For fucks sake. The entire aim of countless industries is to be as cheap as possible so the poor can squander what little money they have on their product, and they do. They do because it's the only way they can cling to the slightest moment of happiness and are able to forget for a moment how little they really have.

Go Capitalism.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> Go Capitalism.


 
Capitolism is exactly what gave us the economic strength to defeat Hitler, spread peace and democracy, and win the cold war.

Capitolism is what gave us the strength to win the space race and lead the world in industrial innovation and new technologies.

Capitolism was the vehicle we rode to being the world leader in foriegn investments, global expansion, and upward economic mobility opportunities for all races, genders, and nationalities alike.

Hell yeah, go capitolism!!!!


----------



## flint757

There wasn't anything to win involving the cold war as it wasn't a war at all. There was just a lot of tension between the USSR and the US (still is really).

WWII and the space race were all government/military so capitalism has little to do with that other than us profiteering off making gear for our allies which was matter of us having more resources to do so and our lack of involvement through most of WWII (more hands to do it).

Capitalism has done some good like a few of the things you mentioned, but it is far from perfect and needs fixing. It's not like countries with socialist policies are no longer capitalists just like being a capitalist nation doesn't mean you are a democracy. We can add policies that better our people without outright getting rid of capitalism.

I'd hardly say we spread peace dude. We pick more fights than we finish.


----------



## The Somberlain

Also, about 85% of the German army was arrayed on the Eastern Front and the only reason for the D Day invasion was mainly to not let all of continental Europe fall into Soviet hands.

Oh, and the USSR was State Capitalism, not true Communism.


----------



## tacotiklah

Just wanna point out first that the word is CAPIT*A*LISM. With an A. If you're gonna tout and promote something, at least know how to spell it. If not, then at least do what I do and fake it by googling it as it generally searches for the correct version of the word.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Capitolism is exactly what gave us the economic strength to defeat Hitler, spread peace and democracy, and win the cold war.


Nope, all economic systems became military based. Companies that were building cars and fridges were mandated to switch over to producing military hardware. Not exactly what I would call capitalism.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Capitolism is what gave us the strength to win the space race and lead the world in industrial innovation and new technologies.


Yes and no. Again, this came down to pressure from the government to "win" the space race. Many technologies that came out of this did in fact inspire some entrepreneurs to develop products and create market for them, but at the time this was all funded by the government and not by a capitalist system.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Capitolism was the vehicle we rode to being the world leader in foriegn investments, global expansion, and upward economic mobility opportunities for all races, genders, and nationalities alike.


Pure capitalism does not cater to race, gender and nationality equality. It caters to whether or not you can turn a buck. If it's more profitable to discriminate against people, then companies in a pure capitalist system will gladly do so or risk loss of a market.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Hell yeah, go capitolism!!!!



On the whole I can agree with this, but Capitalism must be regulated and tamed. 





flint757 said:


> I'd hardly say we spread peace dude. We pick more fights than we finish.



 I think the reason for this is we developed a pretty big ego after WWII. We figured we were invincible and with our huge nuclear arsenal, starting a mcshitfight with us was tantamount to suicide. The fact of the matter is, we started a policy of of combating anything that was anti-democracy as a way to stick it to the USSR. This lead to us developing the habit of sticking our noses into the affairs of other countries and we tried to justify it by saying that WE'RE the good guys, so it's okay. Over time, we've become hyper aggressive to other countries that we don't agree with and people are resentful of us for it.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

^ I'm just celebrating capitolism, not trying to win the spelling bi. lol


----------



## tacotiklah

TRENCHLORD said:


> ^ I'm just celebrating capitolism, not trying to win the spelling bi. lol





capitol - definition of capitol by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

verses

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Education is such an undervalued commodity in the world.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> capitol - definition of capitol by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> verses
> 
> Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Education is such an undervalued commodity in the world.


 
 Great thanks.

The point is still though, with capitolism there should be a luv affair.


----------



## flint757

What are those pictures trying to say exactly with socialism if a man points a gun at my head I keep the money and with capitalism I give it to him? Even still it doesn't seem to prove anything relevant.

I appreciate your dedication to sarcasm with the misspell.


----------



## Mprinsje

TRENCHLORD said:


> Great thanks.
> 
> The point is still though, with capitolism there should be a luv affair.



well, if you think like that, you have a very wrong idea of socialism.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


>



So under capitalism, you have all the money *and* you're pointing a gun at my head, while under socialism you're pointing a gun at my head but I still have some money? I'll take "socialism" for $100, Alex.

On a more serious note, Trench, if this is the best argument you can muster in defense of capitalism, I have some serious concerns about the amount of thought you've put into your other arguments. Knee-jerk "go team!" tribalism might feel satisfying, but it's really a pathetic use of all those intellectual resources that evolution worked so hard to give you.


----------



## The Somberlain

If anyone wants a great read on the effects of postindustrial capitalism on identity and the individual psyche, I would highly recommend Guy Debord's _Society of the Spectacle_

"The spectacle, grasped in its totality, is both the result and the project of the existing mode of production. It is not a supplement to the real world, an additional decoration. It is the heart of thee unrealism of the real society. In all its specific forms, as information or propaganda, as advertisement or direct entertainment consumption, the spectacle is the present model of socially dominant life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choice already made in production and its corollary consumption. The spectacle's form and content are identically the total justification to the existing system's conditions and goals. The spectacle is also the permanent presence of this justification, since it occupies the main part of the time lived outside of modern production." -Chapter 1, paragraph 6 

"The world at once present and absent which the spectacle makes visible is the world of the commodity dominating all that is lived. The world of the commodity is thus shown for what it is, because its movement is identical to the estrangement of men among themselves and in relation to their global product." Chapter 2, 37

A little food for thought...


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> Capitolism is what gave us the strength to win the space race and lead the world in industrial innovation and new technologies.



This is neither here nor there but in regards to the space race we lost both the race to put an object into orbit and a person into orbit.
The first object in sent into space was Russian, Sputnik, and so was the first person, Yuri Gagarin. We just happened to put the first person on the moon which the Russian government _claimed_ was never a goal of theirs at the time to begin with.


----------



## flint757

Russian's and the US (along with a few other countries) work pretty closely together these days when involving space as well. We aren't really competing and honestly there wasn't really a need to "compete" beyond paranoia.

What irritates me (slight personal derail) is the idea that peace is not possible without the military. Most of the world is quite civilized and quite content in the sense they aren't trying to expand like the old days. If we weren't in the middle east right now for instance the US would not be in any danger (or the rest of the world for that matter). 9/11 being the exception (although I'd call that an isolated group not an outright war) we have been in a lot of wars and most of them if we weren't involved the US itself would not have been in any danger. The only reason (as someone mentioned earlier) we get involved/got involved in foreign battles is to screw Russia and China it seems.


----------



## Semichastny

flint757 said:


> Russian's and the US (along with a few other countries) work pretty closely together these days when involving space as well. We aren't really competing and honestly there wasn't really a need to "compete" beyond paranoia.
> 
> What irritates me (slight personal derail) is the idea that peace is not possible without the military. Most of the world is quite civilized and quite content in the sense they aren't trying to expand like the old days. If we weren't in the middle east right now for instance the US would not be in any danger (or the rest of the world for that matter). 9/11 being the exception (although I'd call that an isolated group not an outright war) we have been in a lot of wars and most of them if we weren't involved the US itself would not have been in any danger. The only reason (as someone mentioned earlier) we get involved/got involved in foreign battles is to screw Russia and China it seems.



As long as a majority of the USA blindly supports the military and anything it does there is no question our republic will fail.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Necris said:


> This is neither here nor there but in regards to the space race we lost both the race to put an object into orbit and a person into orbit.
> The first object in sent into space was Russian, Sputnik, and so was the first person, Yuri Gagarin. We just happened to put the first person on the moon which the Russian government _claimed_ was never a goal of theirs at the time to begin with.


 
Yes, we initially were losing, but I'd have to disagree with your conclusion as to the outcome.
I think we won it by a lunar mile, then continued to reign supreme until Obama shut the shuttle.

Also, much of what we now know about the cosmos and it's workings are the result of Hubble, which as far as I know didn't have much to do with the russians.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yes, we initially were losing, but I'd have to disagree with your conclusion as to the outcome.
> I think we won it by a lunar mile, then continued to reign supreme until Obama shut the shuttle.
> 
> Also, much of what we now know about the cosmos and it's workings are the result of Hubble, which as far as I know didn't have much to do with the russians.



His point is there is no winner. Also, the knowledge is open sourced so one persons gain is everyone's involving space at least.

Yeah that pesky Mars mission (and the funds added to the mars program for future endeavors) was a total failure. What was Obama thinking.  

You know I can understand someone having personal belief differences with a candidate and even financial approaches, but you seem to outwardly look for reasons to call Obama a failure even when it isn't justified. The space shuttle was old and the idea is to involve the private sector something republicans WANTED mind you. Space programs are still doing great. A lot of the worlds best telescopes are on american soil, the mars mission was an amazing success as previously mentioned. The mars program is getting more funding thanks to said success (in tune with the paid for results that capitalistic mindset would approve of). As for science projects it is Congress making it difficult as the republicans try and trim the budget by making school loans disappear, science program cuts, healthcare cuts, social projects, etc.. In fact given your attitude normally I'd think you'd be all for Obama making fucking cuts since that is ALL republicans ever do. 

More on topic Ryan seems quite arrogant when he gives speeches. The middle of his speech was about religious related bullshit tonight too (annoys the hell out of me personally). Even my mother said (a devout republican) that she won't vote republican because of Ryan (she doesn't like Mittens all that much either).


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yes, we initially were losing, but I'd have to disagree with your conclusion as to the outcome.
> I think we won it by a lunar mile, then continued to reign supreme until Obama shut the shuttle.
> 
> Also, much of what we now know about the cosmos and it's workings are the result of Hubble, which as far as I know didn't have much to do with the russians.



I guess more to get to the point that I forgot to actually get to in my original post, assuming you wouldn't describe the Russian "victories" in the space race as victories of communism or failures of capitalism I'm not sure why you would then turn around and describe the moon landing as a victory of capitalism.
Also it's not as though shutting down the Shuttle Program killed NASA. Things like the Ares Rocket (which is to be used for Mars exploration) and unmanned spacecraft are still in development and funding for NASA has actually been increased.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> More on topic Ryan seems quite arrogant when he gives speeches. The middle of his speech was about religious related bullshit tonight too (annoys the hell out of me personally). Even my mother said (a devout republican) that she won't vote republican because of Ryan (she doesn't like Mittens all that much either).


 
Really? 
I genuinely thought they were all slam dunks tonight, although I'd have to agree with you in a way about Ryan's attitude. I enjoyed it, but it was clear that he was playing the attack dog role tonight so that Romney can play the focused on the future role tommorow.

The ladies' message was particularly important to swaying some minority voters and demonstrating that the new republican crew is all about minority advancement and upward economic mobility opportunities for all Americans.

Having a gal like Condi, and a female governess of hispanic decent raving about the opportunities that exist in a free market smaller government society will surely inspire at least some improvements in minority vote totals overall.

I'm just waiting for Colin Powell to flip back to the right side of things.
Expect that any day now, or possibly no endorsement at all of the Obama administration which he endorsed in 2008.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> Really?
> I genuinely thought they were all slam dunks tonight, although I'd have to agree with you in a way about Ryan's attitude. I enjoyed it, but it was clear that he was playing the attack dog role tonight so that Romney can play the focused on the future role tommorow.
> 
> The ladies' message was particularly important to swaying some minority voters and demonstrating that the new republican crew is all about minority advancement and upward economic mobility opportunities for all Americans.
> 
> Having a gal like Condi, and a female governess of hispanic decent raving about the opportunities that exist in a free market smaller government society will surely inspire at least some improvements in minority vote totals overall.
> 
> I'm just waiting for Colin Powell to flip back to the right side of things.
> Expect that any day now, or possibly no endorsement at all of the Obama administration which he endorsed in 2008.



Indeed I'm sure it did help to an extent with some minority votes. Is there any reason beyond just hoping that you think he will stop endorsing Obama?

Well it wasn't his message as he, and the rest of them, have been saying the same thing for awhile now. It is just how he says it and the way he looks when he says it. Basically, as my mom put it, he looks like he is lying and that he is most definitely reading a speech (that is excusable I suppose given his lack of practice with public speeches). My biggest gripe is that not everything he said was entirely truthful which is wrong. There are perfectly legitimate reasons someone can choose to vote Republican that fibbing is just unnecessary.

I honestly don't see the point of the Republican or Democratic conventions. Most people have already picked their team.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> Is there any reason beyond just hoping that you think he will stop endorsing Obama?
> 
> I honestly don't see the point of the Republican or Democratic conventions. Most people have already picked their team.


 
No, just hoping. He (Powell) has a track record of jumping ship (politically speaking only) when his team is about to go down .

I agree, the conventions are just for wankery. It's like the political version of the whammy. (plenty of dive bombs and pinched squeels)


----------



## synrgy

Paul Ryan Address: Convention Speech Built On Demonstrably Misleading Assertions



> Ryan then noted that Obama, while campaigning for president, promised that a GM plant in Wisconsin would not shut down. "That plant didnt last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And thats how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight," Ryan said.
> 
> Except Obama didn't promise that. And the plant closed in December 2008 -- while George W. Bush was president.





> Ryan, for his part, slammed the president for not supporting a deficit commission report without mentioning that he himself had voted against it, helping to kill it.





> He also made a cornerstone of his argument the claim that Obama "funneled" $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare. But he didn't mention that his own budget plan relies on those very same savings.



As Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said so eloquently: Were not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.


----------



## flint757

Paul Ryan

An article not in favor of republicans on fox. Who would have thought. 

His speech created jobs. They have to hire a team of fact checkers to sort that mess.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Fox has many contributers that are very anti-republican, they just don't get to host the editorial shows lol.

One thing I noticed though, is that the article references Ryan's budget plan and not Romney's budget plan. Ryan has already said many times that it will be Romney's plans that they adhere to, not his own.
I'm not claiming there will be huge differences, but surely there will be some differences.

I'm really not even sure how I feel about the abortion issue.
Which is why I never sign the petitions that get forwarded me all the time.
On one hand it seems unjust to not protect the unborn who are of course the defensless.
On the other hand I don't know where the line should be drawn.
The left have supported abortion rights without any regaurd to the life of victim/fetus, which just seems wrong to me.

One thing I do know is not to ask Akin for his thoughts on the matter.


----------



## flint757

The issue is all we have are words and Ryan is a hard line conservative while Romney flips more than a fish out of water. So the only consistent view point is Ryan's making it relevant especially when he is playing as if he has the higher ground when he too wants to mess with Medicare. It is more the matter of him being a hypocrite then anything else.

As for abortion Romney seems to disagree with his party, but I'm not going to get into that. What they've done (if intentional that is) is quite clever as they've shifted the goal post in the debates. The discussion isn't abortion should be legal anymore, but legal in the case of rape. In them saying terrible things about rape they've made us defend rape case abortions when these same people want access for all. If you look at statistics people don't just go get abortions as a first line of defense of birth control because if they did these women would have roughly 3 a year. As for harming a child that really depends on one's definition of conception and what not.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm really not even sure how I feel about the abortion issue.
> Which is why I never sign the petitions that get forwarded me all the time.
> On one hand it seems unjust to not protect the unborn who are of course the defensless.
> On the other hand I don't know where the line should be drawn.
> The left have supported abortion rights without any regaurd to the life of victim/fetus, which just seems wrong to me.


 This idea that "We must Protect he Unborn" that has become a Republican rallying cry has always struck me as at least a little bit deceptive since this term "the unborn" is a massive grey area. 

I'm fairly sure that under their own personal definition of what constitutes an unborn human being most people regardless of their political leanings would say "Yes, we should protect the unborn.". 
*
This is probably going to get me lots of angry PM's*:
The cut-off point for abortion I'm personally fine with barring unusual circumstances is 4 months. ~90% of abortions are preformed before 3 months long before the embryo/fetus shows signs of conciousness/sentience. 

5 months in it is generally outlawed by state laws and medical regulations to perform an abortion except under exceptionally rare circumstances.

5 3/4 - 6 months in is when I personally would consider the fetus a human being.


----------



## flint757

This is neither here nor there, but according to the catholic church abortion is okay as long as the embryo does not resemble a human yet. That was there stance a long time ago and at the time evidence was shown that the embryo looked like a child. Later on when that was proven false, that only after a certain time does the embryo resemble a human, they never changed their stance back. Hence their current stance.

What I can say is calling someone who is against abortion pro life is a misnomenclature to say the least. If you're pro death penalty, for animal castration, putting animals to sleep, hunting, etc. you are not pro life. I think anti-abortion is more appropriate. The funny thing is there isn't a philosophical argument that argues in favor for the pro life position. However, in philosophy there is no argument for 100% access either. In terms of rape, danger to health and loss of quality of life most rational arguments are in favor of abortion being a valid choice. However, if it will not harm you are the quality of you/ the child it does not propose any arguments in support of that. The thing is most abortions happen for the prior not the latter and to restrict to only these circumstance adds so much red tape that you could not be able to have an abortion by the time you're legally allowed to pursue it. I think this is why people on the pro choice side just end up wanting the removal of all the red tape. 

An abortion is risky and most women do not come to that decision lightly.


----------



## synrgy

This is mostly off topic, and I apologize for that, but I can't help myself.

I really kinda hate it when any version of Christianity - or The Bible specifically - comes up in any abortion related conversation. Much like the topic of homosexuality, those who use the Bible as their basis for condemnation are being _extremely_ selective.

According to the Bible:

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.


The Bible -- Exodus 21:22-23 said:


> If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.



The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.


The Bible -- Leviticus 27:6 said:


> And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.



Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.


The Bible -- Numbers 3:15-16 said:


> Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD.



God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.


The Bible -- Numbers 31:15-17 said:


> And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.


(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)



The Bible -- Hosea 9:14 said:


> Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.





The Bible -- Hosea 9:16 said:


> Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.





The Bible -- Hosea 13:16 said:


> Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.



God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.


The Bible -- 2 Samuel 12:14 said:


> Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.



God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.


The Bible -- Numbers 5:21-21 said:


> The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
> And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.



God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.


The Bible -- Genesis 38:24 said:


> Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.


----------



## flint757

It isn't really off topic as abortion is a staple topic for political campaigns and it seems despite the strong financial issues the republican party is taking it upon themselves to make abortion, gun rights, marriage, etc. just as high of a priority this year or at least that is how it seems.

But for the sake of the OT, it seems he only picked Ryan to appear more conservative and to be more approachable to the middle class. The only reason I think this will bite him in the ass is conservatives will vote republican pretty much no matter what (the whole anyone, but Obama mindset). So he should have tried appealing to the moderates instead which make up the majority of voters.

Also, does anyone bother checking speeches for validity? Or do they just think we are too dumb to notice?


----------



## vampiregenocide

I kinda wish I hadn't come to this thread now. All I'll say is that you'd have a bloody hard time convincing me that the current Republican party have anything positive to bring to America. I know I'm on the other side of an ocean, but it effects us. America is a tank, and some real mental people are arguing over who gets to drive it. That scares me.


----------



## YngwieJ

vampiregenocide said:


> I kinda wish I hadn't come to this thread now. All I'll say is that you'd have a bloody hard time convincing me that the current Republican party have anything positive to bring to America. I know I'm on the other side of an ocean, but it effects us. America is a tank, and some real mental people are arguing over who gets to drive it. That scares me.



A tank is a bit of an understatement. The US has the nuclear capability of destroying every major city in the world 10 times over. I'm scared too.


----------



## Semichastny

YngwieJ said:


> A tank is a bit of an understatement. The US has the nuclear capability of destroying every major city in the world 10 times over. I'm scared too.



Don't be, as long as your country is obedient and will roll over and sit on command you have nothing to worry about!


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Semichastny said:


> Don't be, as long as your country is obedient and will roll over and sit on command you have nothing to worry about!


 
Well someone has to be the boss , might as well be us.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Anybody care to acknowledge the numerous innacuracies/lies shared by Paul Ryan during the Republican Convention?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well someone has to be the boss , might as well be us.




Actually, somebody doesn't have to be boss


----------



## flint757

Adam Of Angels said:


> Anybody care to acknowledge the numerous innacuracies/lies shared by Paul Ryan during the Republican Convention?



I posted an article about it as well as someone else on this thread a few posts back.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Actually, somebody doesn't have to be boss



Agreed. 

The good news is no matter who gets into office, to cut costs on war, both sides are intending to do things more with the UN instead of solo.


----------



## vampiregenocide

YngwieJ said:


> A tank is a bit of an understatement. The US has the nuclear capability of destroying every major city in the world 10 times over. I'm scared too.



Aye, but it's not so much military capability that is worrying. An act of nuclear warfare on that scale would come back on the U.S tenfold. Nukes are a double edged sword. It's the economic power that is so scary. The U.S holds such a power in the world economy, that it can influence things far more than any country should be able to.




TRENCHLORD said:


> Well someone has to be the boss , might as well be us.



Yeah, you guys have done a cracking job so far.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Adam Of Angels said:


> Actually, somebody doesn't have to be boss


 
So niave.
Didn't you listen to anything Condi said at the convention .

Someone WILL always be the boss. One way or another.
I'd much rather a great civil and just nation like the U.S.A. lead the way instead of letting tyrants like Ahmadinefuck rise higher and higher.

or maybe we should sit on our asses and let commy red China take over the reins
I'm sure they will keep the interest of the entire world closely at heart.


----------



## Jakke

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'd much rather a great civil and just nation like the U.S.A. lead the way





Well.. That's one way of putting it..




TRENCHLORD said:


> or maybe we should sit on our asses and let commy red China take over the reins



China has not been communist for many, many years.


----------



## The Uncreator

On the issue of abortion, the bottom line is that the government has no right to control your body, absolutely none. Whether you agree or not, its not your child (not that I define a zygote as a child etc. etc.) nor your body, so its not your place to enact a law that tells someone what to do with there bodies. 

I agree at a certain point, abortion should be no option (we cant have abortions at 7 months or anything crazy) but if a woman finds out she is say, 3 weeks pregnant, its her decision on whether she keeps the fetus or not, not the governments.

My two insignificant pennies


----------



## Jakke

^My personal stance is: If you don't like abortions, don't get one. But you are not the moral arbitror, and have no right to restrict other people's rights to their bodies.


----------



## AxeHappy

Personally I'm okay with like 40th trimester abortions. 

Okay, not serious, but when it comes to abortions/Birth Control everybody should just fuck off. 

Although, I do think that man should have some kind of say if it's their child. Unsure how exactly that could or should work, so it's really more of a philosophical concept at this point.



I've also always found it funny when anti-abortion people throw eggs at people. I know eggs aren't fertilised and whatnot, but it still tickles my funny button.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> So niave.
> Didn't you listen to anything Condi said at the convention .
> 
> Someone WILL always be the boss. One way or another.
> I'd much rather a great civil and just nation like the U.S.A. lead the way instead of letting tyrants like Ahmadinefuck rise higher and higher.
> 
> or maybe we should sit on our asses and let commy red China take over the reins
> I'm sure they will keep the interest of the entire world closely at heart.


----------



## tacotiklah

Mmm..... more "'Murrica, Fuck Yeah!!!" in here. The US is a country like any other with it's own ideas and ways of doing things. Outside of a few glaringly bad exceptions, I on the whole like that I was born/raised here and for now enjoy living here. 

But I will never get why people think that the US is like some caped crusading country in tight-fitting (but totally not gay) tights that is the right hand of God or something. It's sensationalist crap that blinds people to the fact that while it's a good system on the whole, it's still has major flaws. 

More on topic:
Seems Paul Ryan is keeping up well with the Republican's need to lie and warp reality. That or Obama is a goddamn amazing time traveler:
Paul Ryan Links Obama Policies to GM Plant Closed Under George W. Bush - ABC News


----------



## AxeHappy

Because the US, as a whole, has the worst living conditions of any of the 1st world countries. I could go on in detail...but I think most rational people understand the failing of the US.

Now...this still puts it in the Top 20+ countries of the world, but on the whole, the US is at pretty much the bottom of all the 1st world countries. It has very little (there is some stuff still for sure) to be proud about, in a modern sense, compared to other 1st world countries.


----------



## lurgar

Paul Ryan is coming across more and more like a pathological liar:

Paul Ryan exaggerates his marathon time

I mean, it's such an insignificant thing to lie about. The fact that he completed a marathon is a big accomplishment by itself, but misrepresenting your time by such a huge margin is something else. 

I have a feeling this will be sticking with him for quite some time because it's something simple people can point out to show that he lies. Apparently the running community has already latched onto it and is pressed peeved at him as marathon times are sacred or something. I dunno, I can barely finish a 5k.


----------



## flint757

He is definitely a pathological liar. I have to assume he writes his own speeches because I can't see a party (in the computer/information age) allowing so many lies in any speech. One, that is accidental at best, should be the most that is acceptable.

I hope Obama wins if only so that all the idiots crying apocalypse can be so openly mocked for the idiocy and obviously exaggerative opinions to sway people.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

No other politician lies with the gross frequency of Obama.

Unfortunately for the American people, his gross lies are about things far more important than his running achievements (which was clearly a mistake and NOT a lie).

The lies of Obama, read them and weep for the good people lol.
LIST OF OBAMA LIES 2012 - UPDATED - OBAMA LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES


----------



## TemjinStrife

I see Ryan and Romney on this list far more often than I see Obama (not that he's not on there, lol) 

PolitiFact | Statements we say are Pants on Fire!


----------



## flint757

On just the front page of politifacts almost all of them are Repub lies. (One Obama it seems)

On the other sheet most of those are either minor gaffs or mistakes and some of them were things that weren't true, but plausible nonetheless (the you didn't build that is a snippit of not only a sentence, but an entire speech hardly a hard facts page overall. Politifacts is quite a bit more honest). As an example about abortion, Obama said Romney would get rid of it and while Romney doesn't feel that way his party does making it not a huge leap to say the least. Nonetheless I concede that facts have been fudged on all sides.

It doesn't matter the fact that any politician is allowed to lie without serious repercussions is just sad...


----------



## wannabguitarist

Randyrhoads123 said:


> Paul Ryan on the Issues
> 
> This guy is completely anti-progress in anything. *He is the manifestation of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, only focusing on the individual no matter the cost to society.*



I'm not going to bother with anything else in this thread, but if that's what you believe Ayn Rand's philosophy is you haven't read Atlas Shrugged (or any of her work). 

Ryan and a lot of the current GOP likes to quote Rand or list her as an influence but nothing the GOP does falls inline with objectivism. Hell, if I remember correctly Rand was an atheist


----------



## flint757

Well he said Ryan not the GOP. That being said I don't know her work. Ryan had said himself that aside from her personal philosophy (after he found out she was an atheist) that she greatly influences him economically.


----------



## lurgar

The odd thing about putting Rand's lack of religious views aside is that her whole outlook was that she felt Christianity as a whole was too altruistic. I don't think it's possible to separate her atheist viewpoints from her economic ones because of how they tie in together.

Also, she collected social security and medicare at the end of her life after she rallied so hard against that kind of "socialism." While it's not a complete picture of her (read about how she cheated on her husband in a WTF fashion), it is a good picture of the nature of objectivism.


----------



## flint757

Well that is no different than someone who is anti-welfare then loses their job and collects unemployment or thinks doctors shouldn't be allowed to get sued and then get a towel left in them after a surgery (leading to a nasty lawsuit). etc. etc.

Hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> and then get a towel left in them after a surgery (leading to a nasty lawsuit). etc. etc.


 
Or worse yet, a condom with sauce .


edit; and no, I'm not speaking from experience


----------



## Jakke

Just on the general Romney, a good point:


----------



## flint757

It just goes back to Republicans making the case ALL the time that taxes are punishment not a civic duty. Even if they don't outright say that, there actions certainly are making the case.

Mind you these are politicians saying this who get their wage from said tax dollars and decide where this money goes in the first place.

On another note I'd like to know who I'm supposed to blame for the success and failures of our country because in one argument the president has no control and in another it is completely their fault. Same with congress. Clinton did a lot (especially when it came to bringing the 2 parties together), but you'll still see people who are staunch republicans claim it was the Republican controlled congress not the president. People always change the picture to suit their interest. Even then it is moot as the government is in simplest terms one entity which means all parts come into play. To pretend any one group or individual is completely responsible is idiotic.

On another another note I wish Bill Clinton could run again.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> LIST OF OBAMA LIES 2012 - UPDATED - OBAMA LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES



I just noticed they had "Obama says he is a Christian" and his oath of office in with the lies. The first is of course not a lie, and I can't help but feel ashamed that in this country some voters believe that the superstitions you subscribe to are a determining factor into your ability to lead, and in the second I'm just not seeing a lie, anywhere. 
*"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
*


----------



## flint757

Some people (without any legitimate backing) think he has messed with the constitution beyond his legal limit (untrue otherwise there would have been an impeachment trial, some people are so gullible). Never mind the countless times Republicans over the past 100 years whom have tried to put religious amendments into the constitution (check out wiki about proposed amendments), that isn't meddling in the slightest. Or the patriot act initiated by Bush either. 

That being said the constitution is able to be amended because it is meant to change so even if a president did meddle with it (only possible with congress backing and Supreme Court backing) it is how the document is supposed to function. The idea was that over time things would change and there needed to be flexibility to adapt to the times. Unless you'd like to tell minorities and women why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. (Women's right to vote 19th amendment, 1920, not so long ago is it)


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Mittens actually gave a slighty higher % to charity than Obama last year, which of course amounted to well over ten times as much in hard cash.
That makes them both very good givers.

When it comes to taxpayer's money, theBama has been even more charitable.

Instead of using the peoples cash to handpick the most politically opportunistic beneficaries to recieve our cash, why doesn't he refund the money back to those who earned it so that they may benefit from there own hard work?

I seem to remember getting stimulas checks when Bush was the man, where as Obama always wants to decide who gets the $ himself.
Of course his decisions have nothing to do with who he thinks will spend more to help him re-elected.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> Mittens actually gave a slighty higher % to charity than Obama last year, which of course amounted to well over ten times as much in hard cash.
> That makes them both very good givers.
> 
> When it comes to taxpayer's money, theBama has been even more charitable.
> 
> Instead of using the peoples cash to handpick the most politically opportunistic beneficaries to recieve our cash, why doesn't he refund the money back to those who earned it so that they may benefit from there own hard work?
> 
> I seem to remember getting stimulas checks when Bush was the man, where as Obama always wants to decide who gets the $ himself.
> Of course his decisions have nothing to do with who he thinks will spend more to help him re-elected.



Irrelevant to the now, but if Romney wins your taxes will go up. The tax plan they have proposed has been fact checked so it isn't just Democratic slander, they will legitimately go up. So even though you may be getting nothing extra at the moment you are paying less in taxes than if Romney wins.

Bushes plan was not sustainable he increased the budget and lowered taxes. The math doesn't work.


----------



## Waelstrum

TRENCHLORD said:


> Mittens actually gave a slighty higher % to charity than Obama last year, which of course amounted to well over ten times as much in hard cash.
> That makes them both very good givers.
> 
> When it comes to taxpayer's money, theBama has been even more charitable.
> 
> Instead of using the peoples cash to handpick the most politically opportunistic beneficaries to recieve our cash, why doesn't he refund the money back to those who earned it so that they may benefit from there own hard work?
> 
> I seem to remember getting stimulas checks when Bush was the man, where as Obama always wants to decide who gets the $ himself.
> Of course his decisions have nothing to do with who he thinks will spend more to help him re-elected.



Isn't most of Romney's "charity" donated to the Mormon Church? If so, I don't really think that counts. The way I see it: if a church has a charitable wing, then that section should be tax deductible, and that's fine, but it otherwise should be treated as a business and/or lobby group, because that's what most of them are. In particular, I remember that the Mormons put a lot of money into anti marriage equality campaigning when that California prop 8 business was going on (which I'm sure is not the limit of that church's meddling with the state.)


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Waelstrum said:


> Isn't most of Romney's "charity" donated to the Mormon Church? If so, I don't really think that counts. The way I see it: if a church has a charitable wing, then that section should be tax deductible, and that's fine, but it otherwise should be treated as a business and/or lobby group, because that's what most of them are. In particular, I remember that the Mormons put a lot of money into anti marriage equality campaigning when that California prop 8 business was going on (which I'm sure is not the limit of that church's meddling with the state.)


 
If he's a devout mormon then it makes perfect sense to donate to those in which you trust and believe in.
Freedom of religeon makes donating to his church organization equal to donating to that crazy Jerrimiah Wright's church I'd think.

Anyways, almost $3,000,000/year to charities that do wonderously humane work is a great thing is it not?

But I guess he shouldn't get credit for that since he makes big money.
That's O.K. though because he doesn't seem like he wishes for getting credit for his good deeds.


----------



## Semichastny

Austerity failed in Europe and East Asia, but it will work for us! Reality doesn't stand a chance against the GOP.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> Instead of using the peoples cash to handpick the most politically opportunistic beneficaries to recieve our cash, why doesn't he refund the money back to those who earned it so that they may benefit from there own hard work?
> 
> I seem to remember getting stimulas checks when Bush was the man, where as Obama always wants to decide who gets the $ himself.
> Of course his decisions have nothing to do with who he thinks will spend more to help him re-elected.



Put simply - in deference to your comprehension level, Trench - letting the government spend your tax money does more to stimulate the economy than giving refund checks to taxpayers. Here's why:

If you give refunds to taxpayers, a substantial portion of the money goes into savings or to pay down their personal debt (credit cards, etc). Studies on taxpayer behavior demonstrate this to be true. Some of it will be spent on goods and services that create jobs, yes, but not all of it, especially since the refund is being given to people who pay income tax, which presumes that the recipients are already employed and probably able to meet all or at least most of their regular bills.

If the government spends tax money to provide infrastructure, or enact social programs, or do pretty much anything that government does, then it is spending that money to either employ people, or to buy goods, the production (and shipping, etc.) of which will employ people. This is also known as "creating jobs." These employed people will then take their paychecks and spend them on goods and services, further stimulating the economy. Yes, some of those employed people will save part of their newfound income, or use it to pay down debt, but (a) presuming that these people were unemployed and unable to effectively pay their bills previously, the percentage of money sequestered in this fashion will necessarily be lower than if you'd just given the money as a refund to *already-employed* taxpayers, and (b) that sequestration will only occur *after* the money has already been used once to create jobs via direct purchase of goods and services. In addition, having more people employed will actually *reduce* government expenditures in safety-net programs, which rose dramatically in 2008 for the simple reason that suddenly there were many more out-of-work people who needed those programs. Putting more people back to work reduces the need for unemployment and related program expenditures, which offsets some of the cost of the stimulus.

The technical term for this phenomenon, which you'll see bandied about on economic and political blogs discussing the pros and cons of stimulus, is "multiplier." Government spending has a higher multiplier than cutting tax rates or giving direct refunds to taxpayers.


----------



## vampiregenocide

TRENCHLORD said:


> So niave.
> Didn't you listen to anything Condi said at the convention .
> 
> Someone WILL always be the boss. One way or another.
> I'd much rather a great civil and just nation like the U.S.A. lead the way instead of letting tyrants like Ahmadinefuck rise higher and higher.
> 
> or maybe we should sit on our asses and let commy red China take over the reins
> I'm sure they will keep the interest of the entire world closely at heart.



There is a reason why most of the world hates America. It is because America has too much power, and uses it poorly. Not to mention, for a country so proud of it's democracy, it certainly isn't the most 'modern' country both politically and socially. There are a few countries in Europe that would do a far better job.


----------



## Guitarwizard

^ +1

I also don't see why some people say it is Obamas fault that the american economy crashed. Without knowing the numbers: Wasn't it more likely just Wall Street and Iraq that led to spending more than the government ever had? I sometimes get the feeling that people forget that, and now blame it all on the medcare.. (which I see as something absolutely essential for any halfway-socially oriented economy.)


----------



## tacotiklah

^Uh oh. You brought logic and reasoning to this thread. BAN HIM!!!! 

Yeah everyone is so up in arms about the cost of healthcare and how the hell we're ever gonna pay for it. Yet you mention slashing that swollen defense budget and you'll have every republican up in arms because they can't have that tricked out assault rifle that shoots around corners, blows up all civilian houses between the gun and the target, and gives random blowjobs and will have to make do with the already decent equipment we already have. Nope, if we can't give our men and women in uniform the tools to kill every last human being on earth, then that's government money wasted. Or you know, we can just give them the tools they need to actually DEFEND the country (defend being the operative word here. Not go out and conquer country after country under the false guise of defense) and the savings from not overdoing it on defense can be used to improve things like infrastructure (which would create so many high paying jobs), fund research on alternative fuels which remove our dependence on foreign oil (when we're not fighting with other countries for resources, we improve the securities of our borders. We also don't have to take shit from anybody because we live in fear they may shut off our fuel reserves. Plus even more jobs are created), and we can also invest in passing laws and other enactments to provide equal employment laws in all 50 states so that all people can go to work without fear of discrimination and wrongful termination. That generates more tax dollars. You know, tax dollars that can help pay for that healthcare. Stop this false war on drugs so that you can turn the already large marijuana industry into a profitable, taxable enterprise that once again, helps fund things like universal healthcare. 

I'm a businesswoman and as such, I see funding pointless wars without end as (ignoring the fact that I'm a human being first and as such hate seeing wanton death and destruction outside the realm of online gaming) a complete waste of money that could be better spent on actually fixing this goddamn country as opposed to international dick measuring and international pissing contests.


----------



## Necris

^
When it comes to any question of cuts to funding for the military republicans seem to conveniently ignore the fact that we already have the most technologically advanced military in the world. Even if we halved our 2012 military spending from $711 Billion to $355.5 Billion we would still out spend the next 4 highest spending countries (China, Russia, The UK and France) who combined spend ~$341 Billion.
If we don't have the most technologically advanced military, or at the very least a military that is more than capable of defending our country after having such absurd amounts of money being thrown at it year after year there is a glaring problem that needs to be addressed.

But maybe I just hate the troops and want America to be taken over by (insert boogeyman here).


----------



## celticelk

+1 to the above few posts. It's also odd that the Republicans seem to suffer from a very selective form of Keynesianism ("weaponized Keynesianism" is Krugman's term): government spending never creates jobs, except when the spending is related to the military, since they argue that cutting military spending will have a significant negative effect on the economy due to all the jobs lost in the defense industry.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Necris said:


> ^
> When it comes to any question of cuts to funding for the military republicans seem to conveniently ignore the fact that we already have the most technologically advanced military in the world. Even if we halved our 2012 military spending from $711 Billion to $355.5 Billion we would still out spend the next 4 highest spending countries (China, Russia, The UK and France) who combined spend ~$341 Billion.
> If we don't have the most technologically advanced military, or at the very least a military that is more than capable of defending our country after having such absurd amounts of money being thrown at it year after year there is a glaring problem that needs to be addressed.
> 
> But maybe I just hate the troops and want America to be taken over by (insert boogeyman here).



Practicality takes a backseat to badassery in 'Merica.


----------



## CannibalKiller

If this has already been mentioned sorry but it needs to be understood.
When a Mormon joins the church, they have to pledge they will use whatever God gives them to benefit the Mormon church. Therefore, if a Mormon becomes president, he will use that power FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORMON CHURCH.
I doubt many Republicans would like that. 'Murica!


----------



## Jakke

CannibalKiller said:


> If this has already been mentioned sorry but it needs to be understood.
> When a Mormon joins the church, they have to pledge they will use whatever God gives them to benefit the Mormon church. Therefore, if a Mormon becomes president, he will use that power FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORMON CHURCH.
> I doubt many Republicans would like that. 'Murica!



Very true. It's amazing how much of the religious right shunned him for being a mormon in the beginning of the primaries, but now that is conveniently forgotten.

Also, inb4 "angry atheists LOL"


----------



## tacotiklah

CannibalKiller said:


> If this has already been mentioned sorry but it needs to be understood.
> When a Mormon joins the church, they have to pledge they will use whatever God gives them to benefit the Mormon church. Therefore, if a Mormon becomes president, he will use that power FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORMON CHURCH.
> I doubt many Republicans would like that. 'Murica!


 
This in would in effect make the country a theocracy given that whatever the mormon church demanded, Romney would have to bow to. If that thought doesn't scare the shit out of you, I don't know what will.


----------



## CannibalKiller

ghstofperdition said:


> This in would in effect make the country a theocracy given that whatever the mormon church demanded, Romney would have to bow to. If that thought doesn't scare the shit out of you, I don't know what will.



Exactly. Also, to anyone who shits on Obama, just remember he's been dealing with the fallout of 8 years of GWB.


----------



## Waelstrum

ghstofperdition said:


> This in would in effect make the country a theocracy given that whatever the mormon church demanded, Romney would have to bow to. If that thought doesn't scare the shit out of you, I don't know what will.



I think that's where Romney is preferable to other Mormons (and perhaps most religious people). He's demonstrated that there is nothing he believes that he won't flip-flop on for political gain.


----------



## Guitarwizard

ghstofperdition said:


> ^Uh oh. You brought logic and reasoning to this thread. BAN HIM!!!! [..............] measuring and international pissing contests.



+1
I would invest in your presidential candidacy with every cent I had!














....if you would in return grant me full citizenship and a government-job as a quality inspector for the federal marijuana industry, and free lifetime supply of alcohol and pornography.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

ghstofperdition said:


> you'll have every republican up in arms because they can't have that tricked out assault rifle that shoots around corners, *blows up all civilian houses between the gun and the target*, and gives random blowjobs and will have to make do with the already decent equipment we already have. Nope, if we can't give our men and women in uniform *the tools to kill every last human being on earth*, then that's government money wasted.


 

Off topic, but I'd like to point out that as time has passed and more money has been spent on improving military technology, the number of civilians killed in the armed conflicts we've been involved with has dropped _significantly_. Improving weaponry doesn't just mean increasing their killing potential, it also means improving their accuracy and efficiency. Compare the stats for civilians killed in the War in Iraq with those in Vietnam, Korea and the World Wars, and you'll find a sizeable difference. 

Are civilians still killed? Yes, and that _sucks_. However, believe it or not, loss of civilian life _is_ something military commanders do have to consider before doing... well, pretty much anything. That's why they'll drop a single smart bomb that costs millions of dollars to take out one building while leaving its neighbors untouched, rather than carpet bomb the neighborhood, old-school.

THAT SAID, as has been pointed out, we could drastically cut military spending and _still_ have the world's most powerful military by a fairly wide margin. I'm ex-military myself and can admit that, and think it would probably be in the best interests of the country. I just get a little worked up about some things, like insinuations that the military goes around blowing things up with wreckless abandon and killing everything in sight .


----------



## Varcolac

CannibalKiller said:


> If this has already been mentioned sorry but it needs to be understood.
> When a Mormon joins the church, they have to pledge they will use whatever God gives them to benefit the Mormon church. Therefore, if a Mormon becomes president, he will use that power FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORMON CHURCH.
> I doubt many Republicans would like that. 'Murica!



I'm always a little suspicious of sentiments such as these. As I recall, similar things were said about JFK and Catholicism. Adherence to a religion does not mean that you will put it above everything else, or that you can't be a good person to people not of that religion. 

I think Romney would be awful to people, but it's not because he's a Mormon.


----------



## CannibalKiller

Varcolac said:


> I'm always a little suspicious of sentiments such as these. As I recall, similar things were said about JFK and Catholicism. Adherence to a religion does not mean that you will put it above everything else, or that you can't be a good person to people not of that religion.
> 
> I think Romney would be awful to people, but it's not because he's a Mormon.



My mother was a Mormon for a while, so I know it's true.


----------



## Guitarwizard

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Off topic, but I'd like to point out that as time has passed and more money has been spent on improving military technology, the number of civilians killed in the armed conflicts we've been involved with has dropped _significantly_. Improving weaponry doesn't just mean increasing their killing potential, it also means improving their accuracy and efficiency. Compare the stats for civilians killed in the War in Iraq with those in Vietnam, Korea and the World Wars, and you'll find a sizeable difference.



Whoop - the wars just got smaller, and so did the numbers civillian victims.
But have you ever looked at the civillian death-stats *in relation to the number of killed soldiers?*


----------



## CannibalKiller

More importantly, why the fuck does the US have to invade countries just to control them? I feel for the people who think Vietnam was an honourable war.


----------



## CannibalKiller

No disrespect to any vets on this forum.


----------



## tacotiklah

Guitarwizard said:


> +1
> I would invest in your presidential candidacy with every cent I had!
> ....if you would in return grant me full citizenship and a government-job as a quality inspector for the federal marijuana industry, and free lifetime supply of alcohol and pornography.



While I appreciate the sentiments (and I know that you're j/k), this actually is how the political system in America is done and a good example of why it's rotten to the core. (hence why you won't be seeing a certain shredding, metalhead tranny plopping her fat ass behind the oval office anytime soon. I prefer to do some actual good in the world)

But I digress, the mormon church is all for funding a Mormon presidential candidate PROVIDED said candidate then scratches the back of the mormon church. Seems unlikely? Okay, well then how about certain fellows like the Koch brothers decide to contribute a VAST amount of money to the candidacies of several key Republicans, in the hope they work to deregulate corporate regulations and keep citizens united going. Hey I remember reading about that. 

Yeah the "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" is the at the root of our political system and is running rampant and often unchecked. The system then goes from being a democratic system to one where the vote goes to the highest bidder. Not exactly what I'd wanna base a system of government on. 

More on-topic:
Seems Ryan is still incapable of truth telling:
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Ryan says incomes went down nationally under Obama but went up in Massachusetts when Romney was governor

I want to compare Romney and Ryan to Bush and Cheney, but something tells me they will end up even worse if elected. 




Grand Moff Tim said:


> Off topic, but I'd like to point out that as time has passed and more money has been spent on improving military technology, the number of civilians killed in the armed conflicts we've been involved with has dropped _significantly_. Improving weaponry doesn't just mean increasing their killing potential, it also means improving their accuracy and efficiency. Compare the stats for civilians killed in the War in Iraq with those in Vietnam, Korea and the World Wars, and you'll find a sizeable difference.
> 
> Are civilians still killed? Yes, and that _sucks_. However, believe it or not, loss of civilian life _is_ something military commanders do have to consider before doing... well, pretty much anything. That's why they'll drop a single smart bomb that costs millions of dollars to take out one building while leaving its neighbors untouched, rather than carpet bomb the neighborhood, old-school.
> 
> THAT SAID, as has been pointed out, we could drastically cut military spending and _still_ have the world's most powerful military by a fairly wide margin. I'm ex-military myself and can admit that, and think it would probably be in the best interests of the country. I just get a little worked up about some things, like insinuations that the military goes around blowing things up with wreckless abandon and killing everything in sight .




Nah, I don't blame the soldiers. I blame overzealous commanders and the old men that sit behind a desk and order brave men and women to their death. A good soldier follows orders. It's the orders themselves that I have a problem with at times. I find it ironic as fuck whenever I hear military blast the black sabbath song War Pigs though. 

That said, I know some of our military peeps want those special designed weapons with the kung fu grip and all that, but we ALL gotta take a hit if the government is in debt the way it is. If they wanna have a gripe about it, blame those fat cats in business suits that tried to sink our economy. Direct the anger at the appropriate source and all that. Yeah I want our peeps in uniform to have the tools to do the job, but I feel that an appropriate management of resources is an essential life skill to teach as well. Do you WANT or NEED to serve steaks every night in the mess hall. (I'm not saying they do, and I would love to buy all the troops a steak dinner if I could afford it. I'm merely trying to give a hypothetical example) If need, is there a way to get USO groups or other organizations to donate some as a way to save costs? The question is that we need more business saavy people to keep that swollen budget under wraps. I know there are some in the military with a disdain for "corporate pukes", but frankly business people/accountants/etc. are a necessary evil to keep that budget balanced.

I'm convinced we can do the same job, but in a more efficient, cost effective manner than we have been.


----------



## Waelstrum

ghstofperdition said:


> ...shredding, metalhead tranny plopping her fat ass behind the oval office...



Life would be more fun, wouldn't it?


----------



## Guitarwizard

ghstofperdition, that's not an american problem. You don't get very influential without ever greasing one's palm, no matter where you live. It's a fault of capitalism and democray, and I'm afraid no one really figured out how to fix it so far. And that comes from the mouth of an economics student, haha.

We had a vote last year in our country, that just came to my mind. It proposed that every party has to declare their allocations, and all the names, companies, churches, and so on.
....we voted NO by 64%.


----------



## tacotiklah

Guitarwizard said:


> ghstofperdition, that's not an american problem. You don't get very influential without ever greasing one's palm, no matter where you live. It's a fault of capitalism and democray, and I'm afraid no one really figured out how to fix it so far. And that comes from the mouth of an economics student, haha.
> 
> We had a vote last year in our country, that just came to my mind. It proposed that every party has to declare their allocations, and all the names, companies, churches, and so on.
> ....we voted NO by 64%.



Well I know nothing about how politics work outside the states and I do my best to keep from putting my foot in my mouth on that. I suppose I could enlighten myself on them more, but I'm a busy girl. 




Waelstrum said:


> Life would be more fun, wouldn't it?



Well now that you mention it, that white house would look rather pink when I'm done. I'd probably insist on pushing for alternative energy sources for the white house, including solar panels. (although I recall hearing a rumor this has been done already)
The amount of electricity that place generates could power a fuckton of homes and save neighbors some money. Right there I'd be doing fellow Americans a favor. Hell, this is something everybody should be doing anyways. 


So I'd be living in a white house, make my opponents blush pink, and paint the town red; all while going green and fighting yellow-bellied corporate fucks. Taste my rainbow bitches!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Guitarwizard said:


> Whoop - the wars just got smaller, and so did the numbers civillian victims.
> But have you ever looked at the civillian death-stats *in relation to the number of killed soldiers?*


 

I hadn't until you mentioned that, no, but I just did. Here we go, then:

World War 2: 

1939 - 1945 (6 years)

Military casualties: 22 million - 25 million.

Civilian casualties: 40 million - 52 million (13-20 million from disease and famine).

Total: 62 million - 77 million

The Iraq War:

2003 - 2011 (8 years)

Military casualties (including Coalition, Iraqi, and insurgent deaths): 61,624.

Civilian Casualties: 126,266 (documented, some estimates are lower, some are higher).

Total: 187,890.

And just for fun, since wer're talking scope here...

The Dresden Bombings:

13 - 15 Feb 1945 (3 days)

Total loss of life: 20,100 - 25,000.


Okay. Looks like taking the _lowest_ estimates for WW2, 22 million military and 40 million civilian casualties, the casualties can be split at about 35% military and 65% civilian. Taking the Iraq War stats, 61,24 military and 126,266 civilian, the casualties are around 33% military and 67% civilian. 

You were saying?

It doesn't look like there's been a huge jump in the numbers skewed towards a higher percentage of civilian deaths to me, but I'm willing to admit I haven't exactly done any exhaustive research on the subject. What I do see, however, is a pretty drastic drop in the loss of life between a war that lasted for 6 years and a war that lasted for 8.

But Grand Moff Tim, you might say, WW2 was the whole WORLD, and the Iraq War is just in Iraq. That's why I threw in the little tidbit about the Dresden Bombings, which showed that using the old "dumb bomb" carpet-bombing techniques of previous wars, one-tenth the number of total casualties from the Iraq War's eight year total died in _three days _in *one city alone*. That's one-tenth the number of casualties in one_-thousandth_ the number of days (though people might want to double check my math, lol).

I'd say that makes it pretty obvious that the improvements in wartime technology and tactics have drastically reduced the number of casualties, both military _and_ civilian, while still keeping the percentages of military vs civilian deaths at around the same numbers. Again, it sucks that there are any civilian deaths _at all_, but if you were implying things have somehow gotten worse in that regard, you seem to be mistaken.

All _WAAAAAAAAAAY_ off topic, I know, but hell. I have nothing else to do right now .

On topic: Again, I think we'd do well to seriously reduce our military spending, and would still likely have the strongest military in the world afterward.


----------



## CrushingAnvil

Off topic, but you know how Foo Fighters played 'My Hero' at the DNC? 

They should have played 'The Pretender' at the Republican convention and smashed all their shit afterward


----------



## CrushingAnvil

CannibalKiller said:


> No disrespect to any vets on this forum.



Because heaps of 65-85 year olds are on here


----------



## Konfyouzd

CannibalKiller said:


> More importantly, why the fuck does the US have to invade countries just to control them? I feel for the people who think Vietnam was an honourable war.



I agree. I know a lot of my fellow Americans may not agree, but I feel we overstep our boundaries a lot in this regard. It seems like whenever we see things we don't agree with in the world we just run over there with guns and bombs and tell them how they should be doing things. That's [violent] institutionalized ethnocentrism, isn't it? Definitions have never been my strong suit.

It's okay to step in to help a friend; I see it this way on pretty much all levels. But sometimes I feel like we have ulterior motives. I don't make the decisions so I wouldn't know for sure, but some of the propoganda we're forced to endure when we're off "wrangling foreigners" just smells a bit too much like fertilizer to me.


----------



## Guitarwizard

Grand Moff Tim, thanks for the research, firstly. 

There is no doubt that with modern weaponry, military operations can be done in a more aimed and "cleaner" way. But I was looking at a slightly longer period of time (I must add though, that you counted in all the holocaust victims in the WWII stats. They weren't exactly civilian casualties that were killed "on the way", since it was the clear intent to kill them, and that would've happened with every kind of war machinery... If you take away those 6 million, it looks different again).
But if you look at formation battles from the late middle ages to the 18th century, where you woult meet up at a field somewhere and crush eachothers heads, there probably weren't many civilians killed. It is the way wars are held out today though, that things can take place at any given location like a city,
and the enemy mostly isn't clearly distinguishable from a civilian (look at iraq).

And even today, money isn't only spent on the nice'n'clean kind of weaponry:
In 2010, the US held over 2200 ready-to-use nuclear warheads, together with a huge arsenal of MOABs, cluster bombs and all the other dirty stuff.

To get back to the topic though, American military expenses are in fact astronommicaly high: According to the German Wikipedia article, the US expenses in the year of 2006 sum up to *one half of the global military expenses of 900 billion Euros.* With first-grade math you could assume that the US therefore would be capable of having a war against the rest of the world combined. It is also 4.06% of the american GDP - of every $10 worth of goods produced, 40 cents go into the military. For a country that is geographically convenient to defend (what doesn't keep the US away of holding 761 military bases throughout all other continents) this is just more than pointless.

As much I try with all my strength, I can NEVER imagine how these kind of expenses can be justified to a population that is suffering from recession, bad/absent social institutions and possible tax increase. But, aparently,
some people do.

On a sidenote: It don't see anyway how the defense of freedom and democracy is in anyway dependable or linked to blowing up shitholes in the middle east. Nevertheless, when listening to G.W. Bush it seemed like there is a constant threat to the US, which could only be dealt with if there was a war going on at all times, somewhere on the other side of the planet.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Konfyouzd said:


> I agree. I know a lot of my fellow Americans may not agree, but I feel we overstep our boundaries a lot in this regard. It seems like whenever we see things we don't agree with in the world we just run over there with guns and bombs and tell them how they should be doing things. That's [violent] institutionalized ethnocentrism, isn't it? Definitions have never been my strong suit.
> 
> It's okay to step in to help a friend; I see it this way on pretty much all levels. But sometimes I feel like we have ulterior motives. I don't make the decisions so I wouldn't know for sure, but some of the propoganda we're forced to endure when we're off "wrangling foreigners" just smells a bit too much like fertilizer to me.



More often than not the U.S only invades these countries to protect it's own interests, or to remove any VIPs that might have too much dirt on the U.S and have gotten too big for their boots. More often than not is you end up toppling whoever was the focus of your campaign, and leaving the place for some other nutjob to fill the power vacuum. And then a couple of decades down the line, you end up in the same situation you were in before. I mean Britain does the same thing. We got close with Gaddafi, traded with him etc as did the U.S, but then we didn't hesitate to turn our backs on him when the opportunity arose to watch him fall. And then it just so happened to turn out the U.S tortured people for Gaddafi and all sorts of other dirty secrets are rising up. There is no wish to spread democracy, it's just a selfish crusade for power and resources, and the foreign friends that get us there are expendable.

But yeah, off topic.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Guitarwizard said:


> On a sidenote: It don't see anyway how the defense of freedom and democracy is in anyway dependable or linked to blowing up shitholes in the middle east. Nevertheless, when listening to G.W. Bush it seemed like there is a constant threat to the US, which could only be dealt with if there was a war going on at all times, somewhere on the other side of the planet.



Fearmongering: Persuasion 101.


----------



## flint757

Konfyouzd said:


> Fearmongering: Persuasion 101.



It's also one of those things where the "risk" to try another method is "too high" and therefore people are afraid to endorse any other school of thought.

Personally I just think war is beyond unnecessary, most weapons held by "the enemy" cannot reach the US and we'd see them coming a mile away. If Romney wins (maybe Obama too) they intend to setup a short missile defense system in Israel which again is just wrong. Because it is not a "christian" nation it is getting screwed for no good reason. The majority of nations that dislike us have too much to lose to start a fight and the ones that don't, don't have the means.

As for the DNC convention, haven't finished the last 1 1/2hrs of last night, I've really enjoyed it thus far.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Israeli Missile Crisis. Sounds familiar...

Those who do not learn from the past are what?


----------



## tacotiklah

Konfyouzd said:


> *Those who do not learn from the past are what?*



Republicans.


----------



## ddtonfire

^ He made a funny! 

Also,







See? Romney's paying for our site to stay online!


----------



## Treeunit212

ddtonfire said:


> ^ He made a funny!
> 
> Also,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? Romney's paying for our site to stay online!



I'm not surprised, considering that he's got over a billion dollars to throw into every ad location you could possibly imagine.


----------



## Varcolac

ddtonfire said:


> ^ He made a funny!
> 
> Also,
> 
> http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g98/ddtonfire/SSSponsor.png[IMG]
> 
> See? Romney's paying for our site to stay online![/QUOTE]
> 
> I thought he didn't believe in handouts. He's paying for a bunch of lank-haired greasy guitar-playing hippies' website to stay online. Sounds like a flip-flopping Nazi communist to me. Also I haven't seen his birth certificate, and his grandpa was a Mexican. Have you ever seen Mitt Romney deny that he's a socialist immigrant? No. Curious...
> 
> I am the anti-TRENCHLORD.


----------



## tacotiklah

ddtonfire said:


> ^ *SHE* made a funny!



Fixed for accuracy.


----------



## Treeunit212

Varcolac said:


> I thought he didn't believe in handouts. He's paying for a bunch of lank-haired greasy guitar-playing hippies' website to stay online. Sounds like a flip-flopping Nazi communist to me. Also I haven't seen his birth certificate, and his grandpa was a Mexican. Have you ever seen Mitt Romney deny that he's a socialist immigrant? No. Curious...
> 
> I am the anti-TRENCHLORD.





It's funny because you're demonstrating how minuscule and meaningless all of these things are compared to the actual ability to govern especially when you use logical fallacies to equate candidates with radical ideologies in order to distract us from the real extremes of the accusing party.

Priceless.


----------



## Varcolac

Treeunit212 said:


> It's funny because you're demonstrating how minuscule and meaningless all of these things are compared to the actual ability to govern especially when you use logical fallacies to equate candidates with radical ideologies in order to distract us from the real extremes of the accusing party.
> 
> Priceless.



That'sthejoke.gif 

I know, right?


----------



## Necris

I think in the last couple of days the Romney campaign officially entered the territory I have dubbed "stupid" with Paul Ryan slamming Obama for defense spending cuts and then trying to deny that he voted for the Budget Control act; which included defense spending cuts and was voted in favor of by Republicans, and then two seconds later admitting that he voted in favor of the Budget Control Act but claiming that it didn't contain anything about Defense Spending cuts.

The problem with Paul Ryans claim of course being that you can go look at the bill yourself and see that it absolutely did:


> &#8216;&#8216;SEC. 251A. ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET GOAL.
> &#8216;&#8216;Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 is enacted by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced, as follows:
> &#8216;&#8216;(A) For fiscal year 2013&#8212; &#8216;&#8216;(i) for the security category, $546,000,000,000 in budget authority; and &#8216;&#8216;(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $501,000,000,000 in budget authority. ​


Then you have Romney trying to prop up a halfway decent defense for his tax plan by citing a group of economic studies which were made based_ entirely on assumptions_ of what Romney may cut; something which has to be done because _he still hasn't offered any specifics yet_.

Sure; back in August an analysis of Romneys tax plan done by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center showed that *even assuming the most unrealistically favorable conditions* his plan doesn't work mathematically and will result in a tax increase on the Middle Class; but let's forget about that. 
The Romney campaign's first reply to the findings being that the study was &#8220;just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.&#8221; despite the fact that the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron who was on George W. Bush's Economic council. Then realizing that their shit wasn't sticking to the wall how they'd like released a second statement that &#8220;The study ignores the positive benefits to economic growth from both the corporate tax plan and the deficit reduction called for in the Romney plan."; conveniently ignoring the fact that since he hasn't actually offered any specifics on how he will cut the Corporate tax rate from 35% to 28% and balance the Budget at the exact same time he has made it literally impossible to actually calculate any "positive benefits" that may arise as a result of the plan.

Also, more flip-flopping from Romney this time on health care coverage for those with pre-existing condtions: 
Before his interview on Meet the Press his position was this:
&#8220;Governor Romney supports reforms to protect those with pre-existing conditions from being denied access to a health plan while they have continuous coverage.&#8221;

Continuous coverage of course meaning that if for example you develop cancer while insured you're still covered but if you lose coverage at any point for any reason such as losing the ability to pay for your insurance; even if it is only for a short period of time, you can be denied coverage when you're able to pay again because you now have a pre-existing condition. 

During the interview on Meet the Press he stated that he wanted to keep the &#8220;good parts of healthcare reform&#8221; and he specifically stated that he wanted to eliminate pre-existing conditions because that&#8217;s one of the &#8220;good parts&#8221; included in healthcare reform; although the 2010 health care law bars discrimination against those who apply for insurance with pre-existing conditions not just those who are already insured and have continuous coverage. A few hours later, his campaign scrambled to release a "clarification" of what he had meant; stating that he had meant to say he supported pre-existing conditions with "continuous coverage" and that his position hadn't changed at all from his original position.


To steal a phrase from TRENCHLORD's good buddy Sean Hannity, these people are doubling down on stupidity.


----------



## Jakke

Nate Silver predicts an 80% chance that Obama will win the election. That is if he is correct of course, which he usually is. 

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com


----------



## Guitarwizard

I just stumpled upon this. Sorry for quoting such an old post:



TRENCHLORD said:


> or maybe we should sit on our asses and let commy red China take over the reins
> I'm sure they will keep the interest of the entire world closely at heart.



"Commy red China" will take over the world on it's own, if 'MURICA doesn't stop selling bonds worth trillions of dollars to them.

_Oh, and thank YOU America, to keep the interest of the entire world closely at heart. We are deeply grateful for all the joys you have brought upon us.

Sincerely
The rest of the World

PS: Besides the irony, I actually like pornography. Thanks for that._


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Guitarwizard said:


> I just stumpled upon this. Sorry for quoting such an old post:
> 
> 
> 
> "Commy red China" will take over the world on it's own, if 'MURICA doesn't stop selling bonds worth trillions of dollars to them.
> 
> _Oh, and thank YOU America, to keep the interest of the entire world closely at heart. We are deeply grateful for all the joys you have brought upon us._
> 
> _Sincerely_
> _The rest of the World_
> 
> _PS: Besides the irony, I actually like pornography. Thanks for that._


 
You are very welcome. I'm sure our fathers and grandfathers who prevented your native tongue from now being german would graciously except your thanks as well. 

Personally I don't think it's our job to police the world at all.
I also do think we should be all over the world, but not to help others, to support our own best interest. 

Peace through strength, which is what I've (and Reagan, so I'm in great company on this) always believed, doesn't mean peace for everone IMO, it means peace for us.

I wish peace for everyone around the globe, but that's not our responsibility, that's the responsibilty of every nation for itself.

The last few days prove once again (even though most of you just won't admit it, or will just blindly deny it) that any percieved weakness will only serve to embolden the enemy.

Obama is percieved around the world as weak, and as an appeaser (which I've been saying since his 2004 campaign against Allan "the great" Keys.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> You are very welcome. I'm sure our fathers and grandfathers who prevented your native tongue from now being german would graciously except your thanks as well.
> 
> Personally I don't think it's our job to police the world at all.
> I also do think we should be all over the world, but not to help others, to support our own best interest.
> 
> Peace through strength, which is what I've (and Reagan, so I'm in great company on this) always believed, doesn't mean peace for everone IMO, it means peace for us.
> 
> I wish peace for everyone around the globe, but that's not our responsibility, that's the responsibilty of every nation for itself.
> 
> The last few days prove once again (even though most of you just won't admit it, or will just blindly deny it) that any percieved weakness will only serve to embolden the enemy.
> 
> Obama is percieved around the world as weak, and as an appeaser (which I've been saying since his 2004 campaign against Allan "the great" Keys.



Obama, I can almost 100% back has nothing to do with a bunch of thugs breaching the embassy and killing innocent people. They would have done it no matter the circumstances as they were angry and manipulated. Poor people or people in a bad situation can be easily manipulated with the right motivators.

I can assure you the hand on the trigger attitude Romney has had (to combat his poor foreign record, even Rep's think what he said was either too soon or dumb) involving this incident does not bode well with me if he ends up winning. We DO NOT need someone that trigger happy in control of such a large arsenal of weapons and a clear distaste for the world outside the US. The thing is, patience and clear decision making is what is necessary, if we are reactionary we make poor choices. Any decision or comments can make this better or worse so choosing actions/words wisely is paramount to a potential good (or at least better) outcome.

The most hilarious thing was his condemning of the embassy's statements (when under duress and to top it off their statement was on point and accurate) and accusing Obama of being the person who said it when embassy's make all final decisions on site.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> You are very welcome*. I'm sure our fathers and grandfathers who prevented your native tongue from now being german would graciously except your thanks as well.*



 German is the most widely spoken language in Switzerland and is one of it's official languages.



> The last few days prove once again (even though most of you just won't admit it, or will just blindly deny it) that any percieved weakness will only serve to embolden the enemy.
> 
> Obama is percieved around the world as weak, and as an appeaser (which I've been saying since his 2004 campaign against Allan "the great" Keys.


Let's overlook the fact that under Bush there were 12 attacks on U.S. Diplomatic facilities 6 in his first term 6 in his second; which is a higher number than any other president in history, compared to 2 under Obama.

Also the condemnation of the video by the Embassy "We condemn the continued efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" was made while the protesters were organizing, long before the facility was actually breached or anyone was killed.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Necris said:


> German is the most widely spoken language in Switzerland and is one of it's official languages.


 
Point still stands up fine though. German would be the only language spoken there if we hadn't intervened in WWII.
Who cares what language is spoken or not. 
The point still stands that he was bitching and whining about american intervention when we are the only reason his nation is soveriegn today.
Might thank the Russians, British, French and all involved in the effort for helping as well why you are at it.

Bush was unwaivering and unappoligetic in his statements and actions, but still far too weak IMO.

As for the preemptive statement made by the embassy in an attempt to discourage the eventual breech;
The Obama should have issued warnings to all that we were on the way, and that if the host government can't secure the embassy we will strike at will to protect our turf. No ifs ands or buts about it.

And why do we even have embassies in countries that contain signifigant extremist factions, without manning and equiping those embassies as we would a firebase in a war zone?


----------



## CannibalKiller

TRENCHLORD said:


> Point still stands up fine though. German would be the only language spoken there if we hadn't intervened in WWII..



Not to start an internet fight but all the Americans did in WW2 was intervene at the last minute and kill innocent Japanese people.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

CannibalKiller said:


> Not to start an internet fight but all the Americans did in WW2 was intervene at the last minute and kill innocent Japanese people.


 
Given that that's obviously not true, why preface it with "not to start an internet fight?" That's clearly your intention.


----------



## CannibalKiller

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Given that that's obviously not true, why preface it with "not to start an internet fight?" That's clearly your intention.



I could've put forward my argument in a better way but I didn't perceive him to do that. I wasn't trying to start a fight, more playing devil's advocate to see if he could put his point across better.


----------



## AxeHappy

TRENCHLORD said:


> Point still stands up fine though. German would be the only language spoken there if we hadn't intervened in WWII.



No it doesn't. And that's not true at all. 

Read a history text book printed somewhere outside the US.


----------



## CannibalKiller

AxeHappy said:


> Not it doesn't. And that's not true at all.
> 
> Read a history text book printed somewhere outside the US.



Exactly.


----------



## Konfyouzd




----------



## TRENCHLORD

AxeHappy said:


> Not it doesn't. And that's not true at all.
> 
> Read a history text book printed somewhere outside the US.


 
So Europe was doing just fine before the D-day invasion?
The blatent anti-americanism from that sort of statement is shocking .


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> So Europe was doing just fine before the D-day invasion?
> The blatent anti-americanism from that sort of statement is shocking .




"Are you saying that America ISN'T Jesus the Savior in country form? Are you saying America isn't the best damn place to live ever in the history of the world?! Well you can go back to whatever pussy, freedom hating country you came from!"


----------



## Jakke

TRENCHLORD said:


> So Europe was doing just fine before the D-day invasion?



The Reich was going to fall regardless. I would say that claiming that D-day "saved" Europe is pretty ignorant, and I do recommend you to read a book not apparently saturated in american exceptionalism (this is not writing off american education, but rather suggesting a less biased source).

I hope you are aware of the state of France at the end of the war. After the allies gave France some breathing-room from the Reich, they weren't really idle. The allies' plan was to divide France into zones after the war, just like in Germany. Then why didn't they? 
-Because France was too damn powerful, they had rebuilt their defensive forces during a flaming war, and the rest of the allies did not dare to mess with them. There is no reason France could not have defeated the the germans together with the english sans americans

It was appreciated though, since the american help saved lives.



Adam Of Angels said:


> "Are you saying that America ISN'T Jesus the Savior in country form? Are you saying America isn't the best damn place to live ever in the history of the world?!"



Well, I am at least chocked!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

AxeHappy said:


> Not it doesn't. And that's not true at all.
> 
> Read a history text book printed somewhere outside the US.


 
I don't generally agree with TRENCH's stances on politics, and I'm certainly not agreeing with him here, but I'd like to point out that the fault for his views on WW2 doesn't rest with his having read from a history book that was written in the US. I was raised in the US and learned from American-written history books, same as he was, and I didn't come to the same conclusions he did. Try not to be so quick to dismiss everything that comes from America just because the media has the world convinced we're all a bunch of biased asses with blinders on.


----------



## Jakke

^But Tiiimmm! You have the bad taste to actually look at more sides of an issue rather than just fixing your opinions!


----------



## AxeHappy

Not everything, just your public education system.

And healthcare.

And legal system.

And well...lots of stuff. But not everything.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

AxeHappy said:


> Not everything, just your public education system.
> 
> And healthcare.
> 
> And legal system.
> 
> And well...lots of stuff. But not everything.


 
I came from our public education system and I like to think I turned out alright, though I'm willing to concede that things may have changed a great deal since I graduated 13 years ago (Jesus fuck, has it really been thirteen fucking years?!?).

Yeah, I'm with the rest of the civilized world in thinking our healthcare system is a joke. A terrible, unfunny joke.

We don't really have a nationalized legal system. There are federal laws, sure, but most legal issues are handled at the state level. Reading about a legal case one doesn't agree with and then bemoaning the state of the "American" legal system is usually misguided.

I know I can often come off as sounding like Captain America's personal cheerleader here, so I hope nobody thinks I have no complaints about America. I know we're far from perfect and have ALOT of things we need to change, but I think we get more negative a rap than we deserve as a whole because people focus only on the negative issues that get media exposure, and, frankly, because it's cool to rag on the big guy / popular kid.

I need more beer...


----------



## AxeHappy

Haha, yeah, you do come off that way sometimes, but I think I probably should have put a winky face or some such thing in that last post.


----------



## Jakke

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I know I can often come off as sounding like Captain America's personal cheerleader here, so I hope nobody thinks I have no complaints about America. I know we're far from perfect and have ALOT of things we need to change, but I think we get more negative a rap than we deserve as a whole because people focus only on the negative issues that get media exposure, and, frankly, because it's cool to rag on the big guy / popular kid.



Agreed, the US provoke a lot of emotion, and all criticism does not come from a rational place.

We do not see you as the great Satan in the west though, if that is any comfort


----------



## synrgy

Just like anywhere else in the World (sans _maybe_ North Korea?), there are plenty of well educated, pragmatic adults here. Pretending we're _all_ overweight, uneducated, redneck, assault-rifle-carrying, flag-waving nationalists who _love_ our government is just as far off the mark as us pretending you're _all_ white, French-loving, poutine-eating, maple-syrup-chugging, hockey-playing, tax-loving socialists who _love_ Her Majesty the Queen. (..And puncuate every sentence with "eh?")

Just saying.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

synrgy said:


> Pretending we're _all_ overweight, uneducated, redneck, assault-rifle-carrying, flag-waving nationalists who _love_ our government is just as far off the mark as us pretending you're _all_ white, French-loving, poutine-eating, maple-syrup-chugging, hockey-playing, tax-loving socialists who _love_ Her Majesty the Queen.


 

Or as Conan put it on a trip to Toronto a while ago, they're all "Ice skating Mounties with back-bacon hockey sticks who live in beer can igloos and listen to Rush" .


----------



## Jakke

Grand Moff Tim said:


> "Ice skating Mounties with back-bacon hockey sticks who live in beer can igloos and listen to Rush" .



That on the other hand does not sound too bad

Too bad I'm not Canadian, I'll have to settle with death metal and ABBA..


----------



## AxeHappy

I hate back-bacon. With a fiery passion.


----------



## synrgy

I love back bacon. My fiance (who happens to be Canadian) makes a MEAN breakfast sammich with homemade bread, back bacon sliced and pan fried in maple syrup and butter, a fried egg, and freshly sliced cheese-off-the-block.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> You are very welcome. I'm sure our fathers and grandfathers who prevented your native tongue from now being german would graciously except your thanks as well.
> 
> Personally I don't think it's our job to police the world at all.
> I also do think we should be all over the world, but not to help others, to support our own best interest.
> 
> Peace through strength, which is what I've (and Reagan, so I'm in great company on this) always believed, doesn't mean peace for everone IMO, it means peace for us.
> 
> I wish peace for everyone around the globe, but that's not our responsibility, that's the responsibilty of every nation for itself.
> 
> The last few days prove once again (even though most of you just won't admit it, or will just blindly deny it) that any percieved weakness will only serve to embolden the enemy.
> 
> Obama is percieved around the world as weak, and as an appeaser (which I've been saying since his 2004 campaign against Allan "the great" Keys.



Your inflated, oversimplified views of international relations are so saturated in a false sense of American Exceptionalism that you're being corrected by not one, not two, but three sevenstring members from outside the United States. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

"Peace through strength" is an embarrassing notion when you realize that we (for the most part) got our asses handed to us in Afghanistan just as bad as the Russians did in the 80's. Peace through strength means absolutely nothing when your hero George W. Bush started the new millennium off with the greatest example of group think in his administration since the Carter Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld calling shots while Rove was left out to dry for giving a little thought into their plan).

What your geopolitical fantasy is alluding to is a time when the rest of the world was in a pile of rubble because, after WWII, the U.S. and Russia were the only counties left standing. That is de-facto peace through strength, not because we ruled the world with our sheer might, but because no one other than Russia had a military left (and look how quickly that became a problem). Yes, that can be attributed to our late joining of the war and the, but realize this; the rest of the world would still be in ruin or rebuilding if it weren't for our huge efforts to rebuild Japan, or our supply drops beyond Russian-controlled Berlin, or any other of the countless things we did to aide the same countries we decimated just years before.

Now think about how the world would look if those countries were still piles of rubble. Think about how crucial international trade is to every major economy in the world. This one might be a bit harder for you, but realize that our Imperialist tendencies of the Gilded age to now were NEVER rooted in a desire for global dominance, they were rooted in a desire to build markets. You really think every other country in the world has thousands of miles of oceans to protect it like America has? Look at a fucking map dude. Stability is key. Teddy Roosevelt knew that, and so did Truman.

Now when you attribute the cause of the Libyan Embassy attack to Obama's internationally perceived weakness, you're wrong in so many ways I can't possibly address them all here. But I'll still try. 

Dismissing the likely evidence that these men were ultimately directed by a larger anti-american group, their violence was sparked by *decades* of Western oppression through the Cold War, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. I believe the term you used was peace through strength  . That peace has a cost, and the cost is an entire region of the world with the perception that the West is trying to destroy their culture, heritage, and religion one country at a time. That state of desperation is what makes these people willing to follow any anti-american group that gives them direction. If you think they did this because they looked at the west and said "Oh yeah. This is _totally_ going to cause some actual damage", you're simply wrong.

You want to say Obama is weak? There are now _five_ Navy Destroyers on the coast of the country, up from three, just waiting for shit to escalate. Obama doesn't fuck around. Ask Bin Laden.

Religiously speaking, here's what happened.

The Muslim world is reacting to a shitty, and I mean *shitty* ass short movie about how the Prophet Muhammad is a violent degenerate asshole. Seriously, has anyone seen clips of it? It's worse than watching an interview of Charlie Sheen talking about his Tiger's blood.

So, in response, a bunch of Muslims decided to act like violent degenerate assholes. That's right. They're _killing people_ over a movie. A HORRIBLE movie. And it has set off an international crisis. 



This is because of *RELIGION*, not Obama's largely successful Foreign Policy. If a crazy person does something crazy over something stupid, _you blame the crazy person_.

Sorry for the book everyone.


----------



## Guitarwizard

Wow, I didn't mean to start this huge mudwrestling and WW2-talk with my comment. (Why does this event have to come up all the time anyways?) And I must adress to the European folks, too: this "you americans didn't help anything but my frenchbritishrussian-something-place was the win!"-talk is as stupid and nationalistic as mr romney and bush combined.

However, dear trenchlord, I should have known that WW2 was the logical awnser to my letter of ironic thankfulness. No doubt, the US did play a big role in the liberation of Europe. That doesn't make a difference, since the following US military operations didn't take place in Europe, and, first of all, they most definitely weren't an act of kindness and gratitude. As in WWI, there was open business with UK. As with every other military intervention of every country, there's always an advantage, you don't just go to war to help a friend. Or do the people of Somalia, Korea, Vietnam and wherever else need to be as thankful for Uncle Sam crippling their children, raping their wives and poisoning their fields as we Europeans for being saved from the Germans?

Rant over. Amd since this is completely OT anyway, I shall now have some beers and let the Americans choose their president on their own.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Just for the record, the building that was attacked in Libya was not an embassy, but a consulate. These work sort of like embassies, however they are a little smaller and more of a step down, dealing with smaller scale issues. For this reason, they are less heavily defended compared to embassies. 

Regarding the peace through strength thing, how exactly has that ever proved to work? America has been integral to the destabilisation of the Middle East, yet continuously defends itself with the aim of spreading democracy to countries that do not want it. You've caused more terrorism than you have stopped in your crusade against terror, and so saying 'strength equals peace' is like saying 'water equals dry'.

The only way America will have a hand in creating peace is realising it's place in the world, getting with the times and sorting out it's international relations big time. And to be honest, by the time that happens China or Japan will be holding all the cards and America will no longer be the big player.


----------



## bluediamond

After the libya attack, mitt romney said "middle east need US leadership". LOL I hope US voters are smart enough to see where he's going with foreign policy. WW3 might not be so far away if he wins.


----------



## Treeunit212

bluediamond said:


> After the libya attack, mitt romney said "middle east need US leadership". LOL I hope US voters are smart enough to see where he's going with foreign policy. WW3 might not be so far away if he wins.



He also said that he didn't mention the troops in his nomination speech because "When you give a speech, you don't go through a laundry list. _*You talk about the things you think are important."*_


----------



## CannibalKiller

If Mitt Romney becomes President the world will end in 2012.


----------



## flint757

That's the only upside, this event will be resolved or too old by the time the next term starts that if by some chance he wins he can't start WWIII. I'm sure he would be very disappointed.


----------



## CannibalKiller

I honestly have lost faith in humanity. I would rather watch the world burn than see one of the most powerful countries in the world become a theocracy. Romney+Swagfags=Apocalypse


----------



## Adam Of Angels

^You tend to get a lot of negative feedback


----------



## CannibalKiller

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^You tend to get a lot of negative feedback


Yeah, I'm unpopular.


----------



## Treeunit212

CannibalKiller said:


> Yeah, I'm unpopular.



So is Mitt Romney.


----------



## Necris

Paul Ryan: Congress will handle the details of Romney&#8217;s tax plan | The Raw Story

Oh, how I love the liability Paul Ryan is becoming to the Romney campaign. He's an inconvenient source of transparency for them, with every interview your view of the unsure footing they're actually standing on becomes more clear, no matter how adept they are at obfuscation and misleading rhetoric you can always count and Paul Ryan to blunder in and fuck it all up.

What he says: "We have to be able to work with Congress on those details, on how to fill it in... We want to do this in front, in the public, through congressional hearings with Congress so that we can get to the best conclusion with a public participation. That&#8217;s the process that works the best to ultimate success gets this done."

What any rational person would hear: "We don't actually know how we're going to achieve our goals and don't have any real plan going in, just trust that I've done this before and remember how much you hate Obamacare."


----------



## Varcolac

So eh... 'bout that RomneyShambles round 2 that's going on. 

Romney thinks that 47% of Americans are freeloaders. It's not his job to care about those people.

BBC News - Mitt Romney secret video reveals views on Obama voters

Romney also thinks that Palestinians don't want peace, and the two-state solution is horseshit.

BBC News - Mitt Romney secret video reveals views on Middle East

Presi-fucking-dential. 

Grand Moff Tim said that I might have been wrong when I said that Mitt couldn't possibly look less presidential after trying to use the death of a US diplomatic mission as a political football. Tim, you were right. At this point I don't even know where the bottom of the barrel is, but we're certainly heading there with Mitt.

One more hilariously counter-factual statement from that talk: 

Son of multi-millionaire former governor of Michigan, educated at Cranbrook and Harvard: "I wasn't born with a silver spoon."


----------



## petereanima

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^You tend to get a lot of negative feedback



I just turned him green. 

Dude may express himself a bit rough, but at least the opposition here is listening and he stimualtes the discussion. The "perma-red on the front door", some others have deserved that much more imho.


----------



## CannibalKiller

petereanima said:


> I just turned him green.
> 
> Dude may express himself a bit rough, but at least the opposition here is listening and he stimualtes the discussion. The "perma-red on the front door", some others have deserved that much more imho.



THANKYOU!


----------



## Treeunit212

Necris said:


> Paul Ryan: Congress will handle the details of Romneys tax plan | The Raw Story
> 
> Oh, how I love the liability Paul Ryan is becoming to the Romney campaign. He's an inconvenient source of transparency for them, with every interview your view of the unsure footing they're actually standing on becomes more clear, no matter how adept they are at obfuscation and misleading rhetoric you can always count and Paul Ryan to blunder in and fuck it all up.
> 
> What he says: "We have to be able to work with Congress on those details, on how to fill it in... We want to do this in front, in the public, through congressional hearings with Congress so that we can get to the best conclusion with a public participation. Thats the process that works the best to ultimate success gets this done."
> 
> What any rational person would hear: "We don't actually know how we're going to achieve our goals and don't have any real plan going in, just trust that I've done this before and remember how much you hate Obamacare."



The thing that gives me hope in regard to Ryan is that despite the immediate benefit of Tea Party bump in support the Romney camp desperately needed, I have witnessed more and more people on both sides come out in support of The Affordable Care Act.

I've been following a particular conservative anti-Obama propagandist Facebook page for about a year now (mostly in order to be the intellectually trolling anomaly in the comments section), and I've seen a substantial shift in the comments from "FREEDOM AMERICA BAD GOVMENT" to "This group is populist reactionary bullshit", especially when pertaining to the effect the Affordable Care Act will have on small businesses. It's not just "this is obviously a half truth and misleading" anymore, it's "this is blatantly factually false, and here's why". That's common everyday citizens correcting the claims off bare knowledge. 

That alone gives me so much hope...


----------



## flint757

Well even at the DNC there was a group of Republicans who have switched to the Democratic party simply because the tea party is bananas and have corrupted the Republicans values and core policy ideals. Honestly, other than the religious aspect, they are like the libertarian party as far as my observations go (shrink government, cut taxes, no exceptions, etc.). Like I said the only real difference is the social aspect which seems way more influenced by personal beliefs than freedom (upper hand for libertarians there). The tea party seems to rely on lies and exaggerations to prove their point (or at least that has been my direct observation).

My dad is a hardcore republican and even he thinks Mitt is going to lose. He also thinks Mitt was a terrible pick for the nomination too (but still subscribes to the anyone, but Obama mentality sadly).


----------



## CharliePark

Not from America, but I personally wouldn't vote for someone who posthumously converted and baptised his atheist father in law. I feel like his religious madness would somehow have an impact on supposedly 'secular' decisions.


----------



## vampiregenocide

CharliePark said:


> Not from America, but I personally wouldn't vote for someone who *posthumously converted and baptised his atheist father in law*. I feel like his religious madness would somehow have an impact on supposedly 'secular' decisions.



Erm...whut?


----------



## Jakke

^Yes, the Romneys Converted Mitt's Dead Atheist Father-in-Law to Mormonism


----------



## flint757

That is so ridiculous it sounds like a lie, but it seems like that has become the norm as of late (things being so ridiculous and yet still true).


----------



## Mordacain

Jakke said:


> ^Yes, the Romneys Converted Mitt's Dead Atheist Father-in-Law to Mormonism



Yea, when I read about that (months ago at this point) I decided I would have to come up with a revenge system against mormon coming along trying to covert my dead-atheist ass.

I'm still working on it...

Makes me sad that there probably isn't an afterlife. I'd love to see some Atheist Zombie coming back just to get revenge...actually, that sounds like a premise for an awesome B movie.


----------



## flint757

^^^That would be awesome actually.


----------



## Jakke

Mordacain said:


> Yea, when I read about that (months ago at this point) I decided I would have to come up with a revenge system against mormon coming along trying to covert my dead-atheist ass.
> 
> I'm still working on it...
> 
> Makes me sad that there probably isn't an afterlife. I'd love to see some Atheist Zombie coming back just to get revenge...actually, that sounds like a premise for an awesome B movie.



All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay

As the mormons have, as most religious groups, problems with gay people, fight the fabulous fight brah


----------



## Razzy

Jakke said:


> All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay
> 
> As the mormons have, as most religious groups, have problems with gay people, fight the fabulous fight brah



haha, you beat me to it.


----------



## Treeunit212

Jakke said:


> All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay
> 
> As the mormons have, as most religious groups, problems with gay people, fight the fabulous fight brah



They must have read this, because shit is just falling apart at the Romney residence...


----------



## Treeunit212

Okay, forgive the double post, but this is a brutal rip on Romney as a candidate, and even as a human being.



In case you guy's haven't noticed, I agree with a lot of things this guy says. 

I'd also like to extend his final question to this forum.

I challenge any Republican to tell me why Romney is a good candidate for president. Tell me why he's a PASSABLE candidate, even.

Here's the stipulation; do it without saying anything about Obama.

*Cough* TRENCHLORD *Cough*


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Romney sounds very serious about lifting as many sensless and unaffective regulations (I'm mostly reffering to EPA overstepping and unreasonably long buracratic process) in order to get businesses large and small off and growing again.

I hear so many people address banking regulations, but when you talk to small business owners they are almost all getting choked to death with over-regulation and government induced complications (AHCA cough cough).
Agree with them or not, but small business accounts for the largest demographic of our tax base, so whatever is good for small business and it's confidence is good for increasing the total revenue collected.

Also, I think (hoping of course), that Romney will burn these terrorist at the stake on live TV and send a message. (I'm being figurative here)
I'm quite certain he will not let our embassies and consalates go virtually ungaurded as others have.
He has claimed he will get tougher and less generous with China and our other world competitors.
He's at least had a job in real life lol.


----------



## Mordacain

TRENCHLORD said:


> Romney sounds very serious about lifting as many sensless and unaffective regulations (I'm mostly reffering to EPA overstepping and unreasonably long buracratic process) in order to get businesses large and small off and growing again.
> 
> I hear so many people address banking regulations, but when you talk to small business owners they are almost all getting choked to death with over-regulation and government induced complications (AHCA cough cough).
> Agree with them or not, but small business accounts for the largest demographic of our tax base, so whatever is good for small business and it's confidence is good for increasing the total revenue collected.



Given that one of Romney's primary sources of income was overseeing the off-shoring of countless American jobs and gutting businesses like scrap, I seriously doubt his competence at carrying out a "Re-structuring" of America.

There's also the fact that de-regulation has historically always preceded further economic collapse that makes me worry about the whole Romney/Ryan proposed budget.

That's not even getting into the impact of further reducing Tax Cuts on the those top 96% of earners in this country. Or the fact that the numbers in his budget literally just don't add up...at all.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Treeunit212 said:


> I'd also like to extend his final question to this forum.
> 
> I challenge any Republican to tell me why Romney is a good candidate for president. Tell me why he's a PASSABLE candidate, even.
> 
> *Here's the stipulation; do it without saying anything about Obama.*
> 
> *Cough* TRENCHLORD *Cough*


 


TRENCHLORD said:


> Romney sounds very serious about lifting as many sensless and unaffective regulations (I'm mostly reffering to EPA overstepping and unreasonably long buracratic process) in order to get businesses large and small off and growing again.
> 
> I hear so many people address banking regulations, but when you talk to small business owners they are almost all getting choked to death with over-regulation and government induced complications (AHCA cough cough).
> Agree with them or not, but small business accounts for the largest demographic of our tax base, so whatever is good for small business and it's confidence is good for increasing the total revenue collected.
> 
> Also, I think (hoping of course), that Romney will burn these terrorist at the stake on live TV and send a message. (I'm being figurative here)
> *I'm quite certain he will not let our embassies and consalates go virtually ungaurded as others have.*
> He has claimed he will get tougher and less generous with China and our other world competitors.
> *He's at least had a job in real life lol*.


 
Oh, you were so close!


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Mordacain said:


> There's also the fact that de-regulation has historically always preceded further economic collapse that makes me worry about the whole Romney/Ryan proposed budget.


 
Like I said, I was reffering to the government getting off small business ass more than anything.
You are talking about banking regulation, which believe it or not I mostly agree with you guys on that.

Soooooooo much of the revenue is wasted in government programs that do nothing in the long run, not to mention corruption and flat out giving the money away to foriegn nations that show no respect for it.

We don't need to increase taxes if we grow the tax base.
That's what Reagan conservatism is all about, getting big brother off our asses and putting him on these punk terrorist to make them suffer.
That's exactly what brought us out of the ills of the Carter callamity (another quasi-socialist who wanted and tried petting his way into global friendships only to get shit on and exploited.
Luckily we had Reagan to help dig us out, I'm not sure if Romney can get it done in this political climate, but I'm quite certain his record will be far more possitive than that of Obama's.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Oh, you were so close!


 
I didn't say Obama . (I followed the rules)
Anyways I was also reffering to Bush also who let guys out of detainement who are now showing up in involment in the current Libyain crisis.

That's right, breaking news now has the Libyian assult being confirmmed as a pre-medditated attack which was organized by terrorist that Bushy let out at the end of his watch.


----------



## flint757

I agree the government as a whole needs a face lift, but I don't think things need to just go away either. Affordable Healthcare act needs some (not a lot) editing and things like EPA, welfare, medicare, medicaid, some regulations etc. do need reform. My issue is the Republican party wants to just get rid of the EPA (and many other regulations) just in general which I think is a disaster of a mistake as the only thing companies care about is an extra dollar.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> I agree the government as a whole needs a face lift, but I don't think things need to just go away either. Affordable Healthcare act needs some (not a lot) editing and things like EPA, welfare, medicare, medicaid, some regulations etc. do need reform. My issue is the Republican party wants to just get rid of the EPA (and many other regulations) just in general which I think is a disaster of a mistake as the only thing companies care about is an extra dollar.


 
Yeah it would be unholy chaos with no oversight at all, it's just that like all buracracies they tend to grow and grow like a monster hungry to feed itself.
I don't think most Republicans want envioremental lawlessness, just a serious downsizing and reconstruction.


----------



## Mordacain

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah it would be unholy chaos with no oversight at all, it's just that like all buracracies they tend to grow and grow like a monster hungry to feed itself.
> I don't think most Republicans want envioremental lawlessness, just a serious downsizing and reconstruction.



Yea, just like I don't agree with having wasteful spending or bureaucratic loopholes either and honestly I would prefer smaller government.

That being said, the money that we know of for wasteful spending numbers in the hundreds of millions per year. I know that sounds like a lot, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions we spend on defense, and the hundreds of billions in tax revenue lost since the top tax was lowered to such meager levels (currently at 35%). 

If the top nominal tax rate was increased to just 45% (or even if we increased Capitol Gains taxes to standard income levels) this country would be out of debt in a matter of a decade or so. All of the best year's in this country's history (from an economic standpoint) the top tax was between 60-75%.


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah it would be unholy chaos with no oversight at all, it's just that like all buracracies they tend to grow and grow like a monster hungry to feed itself.
> I don't think most Republicans want envioremental lawlessness, just a serious downsizing and reconstruction.



That is their general philosophy, but I have heard on more than one occasion people advocating the outright removal of the EPA. Those people also don't seem to believe in global warming or having trees around to create oxygen. 

Or how about China's smog problem from coal pollution...


----------



## TRENCHLORD

We do need to be working for cleaner energy, but we also must demand China and others to play on a level field if they want our business (I know we depend on their's as well).
We can pretend that by leading the way on the enviormental front that other nations will follow, but they won't if not more forcefully compelled.
ATM we can't afford to handicap ourselves so severely compared to other first-world nations.
We need to mine all the coal we can and harvest all the energy possible to move forward into growth again.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> I didn't say Obama . (I followed the rules)



No, you didn't follow the rules. It's obvious you made another baseless shot at Obama's Foreign Policy.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Anyways I was also reffering to Bush also who let guys out of detainement who are now showing up in involment in the current Libyain crisis.
> 
> That's right, breaking news now has the Libyian assult being confirmmed as a pre-medditated attack which was organized by terrorist that Bushy let out at the end of his watch.



You know what? You'd be anti-american too if you spent years being tortured without due process of law.



TRENCHLORD said:


> We do need to be working for cleaner energy, but we also must demand China and others to play on a level field if they want our business (I know we depend on their's as well).
> We can pretend that by leading the way on the enviormental front that other nations will follow, but they won't if not more forcefully compelled.
> ATM we can't afford to handicap ourselves so severely compared to other first-world nations.



Wait, what? You think that other nations are refusing to be "handicapped" by environmental regulation like we are starting to? European countries have been investing in environmental jobs and initiatives for a LONG time now, and they've benefited greatly from it. Not only that, but you just said that we need to force other countries to do their fair share of environmental protection at gunpoint in the same sentence..? >.<



TRENCHLORD said:


> Romney sounds very serious about lifting as many sensless and unaffective regulations (I'm mostly reffering to EPA overstepping and unreasonably long buracratic process) in order to get businesses large and small off and growing again.
> 
> I hear so many people address banking regulations, but when you talk to small business owners they are almost all getting choked to death with over-regulation and government induced complications (AHCA cough cough).
> Agree with them or not, but small business accounts for the largest demographic of our tax base, so whatever is good for small business and it's confidence is good for increasing the total revenue collected.
> 
> Also, I think (hoping of course), that Romney will burn these terrorist at the stake on live TV and send a message. (I'm being figurative here)
> I'm quite certain he will not let our embassies and consalates go virtually ungaurded as others have.
> He has claimed he will get tougher and less generous with China and our other world competitors.
> He's at least had a job in real life lol.



Trench, I work for both a small business and a small corporation. Neither give a single fuck about government regulation, and the location I work at with the small franchise _has been having trouble hiring people since mid summer._ Furthermore, the small business has _expanded_ since Obama's multiple tax credits.

What is Romney's record as a Governor? Well first off, he was a moderate liberal in practice compared to the current GOP because Massachusetts is a Liberal state. He also left the state 47th in job creation. If anything, you should be looking at his record and arguing that more moderate, liberal policies _like the individual mandate he pioneered_ didn't work for the state. Arguing that Romney's experience as an ultra conservative at Bain Capital _that didn't take a single risk_ is somehow presidential is simply insane. Presidents take risks, they don't weasel out of every real decision and position in any way they can like Romney does. He's a coward, plain and simple.

Obama's job for the last four years has been president of the fucking United States. That's a more real job than master liquidator of companies.

Burn the Terrorists at the stake? Are you rooting for fucking WWIII? 

That message would be that the United States is exactly the global force of oppression and hate they perceive us as being. Do you know why terrorists use suicide bombings as a weapon, and developed countries' groups don't? Possibly because they realized that individuals that believe so strongly in their cause that they no longer fear death are completely unpredictable, but mainly because *that is the only form of retaliation they have.* 

Once again, *China is not an actual threat to the US,* either economically or militarily. Do you know what our GDP is compared to theirs? 7 trillion to almost 15. China's per capita GDP is 7,000. Ours is 48,000. They rely on exports for a lot of that, and when they eventually cease spending billions to devalue their currency to boost their exports, that will change. Not only do we rely on each other for trade, but their culture simply does not and has never in the history of time pushed it's agenda or traditions onto other parts of the world. As for our own overwhelming sense of baseless exceptionalism you so enthusiastically demonstrate, we're in the lead with flying colors. 

Your claim about small businesses is false as well. The large majority of Government revenue comes from the State and Local levels, not Federal taxes, and certainly not from corporate or business taxes.







Sorry I seem to be always targeting you bud, but you're an enjoyable person to rebuke.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Sorry Treeunit, but you come off as an America hater.

How can you say my claims to Obam's foriegn policy debacle in regaurd to the embassy disasters are "baseless",
when the results/outcome prove that he left them hanging out to dry.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Sorry Treeunit, but you come off as an America hater.





I just rebuked your fear of China with the fact that we still have the most expansive economy on the planet, without contest. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> How can you say my claims to Obam's foriegn policy debacle in regaurd to the embassy disasters are "baseless",
> when the results/outcome prove that he left them hanging out to dry.



I don't even know what you're referring to anymore.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> I don't even know what you're referring to anymore.


 
Dead Americans who were left to serve without adequate security in nations with known radical elements who are out to kill Americans.

Just like Obama, you seem to not want to be honest about the failure.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> I just rebuked your fear of China with the fact that we still have the most expansive economy on the planet, without contest.


 
So let me get this right, you think just because we are still ahead of China economically that we shouldn't be in competition mode?
That sounds like a strategy of eventual defeat, which is what it seems like you are after.
Take it from the Donald.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEPiMe01N2k


----------



## flint757

The embassies and the countries they are located in make final calls/limitations on most things. The embassy can pretty much do whatever it wants and there are a bunch of them as well all over the world.

It is easy to presume that nothing violent was going to happen, until it did. (hindsight 20/20) Once it did I doubt there was enough time for anyone to stop it.

If I'm not mistaken it was the local government that said no live ammunition, but I could be wrong.


----------



## MstrH

It was a consulate not an Army base!!! Presidents don't determine security arrangements for embassies or consulates. We don't live in a dictatorship.

Presidents and Congress people spend their time figuring out how to sabotage the "other" party.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

MstrH said:


> It was a consulate not an Army base!!! Presidents don't determine security arrangements for embassies or consulates. We don't live in a dictatorship.
> 
> Presidents and Congress people spend their time figuring out how to sabotage the "other" party.


 
The president absolutely has the authority to send security forces to gaurd an American outpost anywhere. If a host nation wouldn't allow that then what are we doing working with them anyways.?

Seeing though it was the 9/11 anniversary and these guys were in recently unstable countries with a known extremist element, I can't see any way that even the naivest of administrations wouldn't assume there to be the accelarated likelyhood of demonstrations/protest/looting and general thuggery.

How many years now have we heard that we should expect the possibility/probability of 9/11 anniversary events by radical islamist groups looking to celebrate and follow up on that date?

It should have been expected and considered a signifigant possibility being that the Libyian and Egyption governments have both been recently unstablized.
They knew/know full well that al qaeda has guys in ALL of those countries looking to cause trouble with US.


This is a major case of; "HELLOOOOOOO, Obama, you can come off the golf course and do some leading once and a while lol. Wake up and smell the coffee.


AND more breaking news;
Weren't we just talking only an hour or two ago about the overhorny EPA screwing good people out of work and money? Yes we were. Here's 1200 more jobs gone.
http://www.imcitizen.net/obama-and-epa-strangle-another-company/


----------



## flint757

Well the fact that we have people all over the world, Islam is present all over the world, 9/11 has an anniversary every year and people haven't done anything (not even on the 10 year anniversary, so irrelevant as intel overall I think, but I could be wrong I'm too lazy ATM to research) and is it really unreasonable that a country wouldn't want someone accidentally getting hurt by a very biased group of people with large guns. If we had an important ruler from another country on our soil would we allow them to bring a military force for protection? 

The governments there are not on the same team with the terrorist and are for the most part on our side, the only reason for them not allowing it (if I was even correct before on that assumption) is so no one innocent got hurt. Yes something bad did happen, but hindsight is 20/20. Things have been rocky for a long time with the middle eastern culture, if someone wants to commit a violent act all they have to do is wait as I'm sure there are more than a few windows of opportunity daily. 

The consulate was trying to ease the tension. It didn't work obviously, but I don't think anyone suspected a terrorist backing in such a place (if that is even true). I mean if we are being realistic nobody ridiculously important got hurt/killed so who could have predicted the events that occurred. 

Respect through authority only works as long as you maintain authority. Our current goal (as far as I can tell) is to gain the respect via trust, cooperation and allowing the world some breathing room. If we gain the respect through this avenue it is long term respect instead of someone just waiting at the back door until you turn the alarm off.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> Romney sounds very serious about lifting as many sensless and unaffective regulations (I'm mostly reffering to EPA overstepping and unreasonably long buracratic process) in order to get businesses large and small off and growing again.
> 
> I hear so many people address banking regulations, but when you talk to small business owners they are almost all getting choked to death with over-regulation and government induced complications (AHCA cough cough).
> Agree with them or not, but small business accounts for the largest demographic of our tax base, so whatever is good for small business and it's confidence is good for increasing the total revenue collected.
> 
> Also, I think (hoping of course), that Romney will burn these terrorist at the stake on live TV and send a message. (I'm being figurative here)
> I'm quite certain he will not let our embassies and consalates go virtually ungaurded as others have.
> He has claimed he will get tougher and less generous with China and our other world competitors.
> He's at least had a job in real life lol.



Anecdotes are not data, Trench. And the *data* indicate two things: first, business owners complain about taxes and regulation regardless of who's running the country. Second, in the *current* downturn, taxes and regulation are taking a severe back seat to "lack of demand" as the primary reason that businesses are not expanding. You don't hire more employees if people aren't buying your product or service. In situations like this, you need the government to act as the employer of last resort and put Americans to work on government-run projects, so that they can afford to buy those goods and services and get the small businesses back into growth mode. Unfortunately, we are heading in the opposite direction: government employment is down since the beginning of the crisis, largely in state and local governments that provide the bulk of government services to the American people. I can't see Romney doing anything to productively address this issue, since his entire jobs plan appears to be "cut taxes."


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Dead Americans who were left to serve without adequate security in nations with known radical elements who are out to kill Americans.
> 
> Just like Obama, you seem to not want to be honest about the failure.



Where have I heard that before?










TRENCHLORD said:


> So let me get this right, you think just because we are still ahead of China economically that we shouldn't be in competition mode?
> That sounds like a strategy of eventual defeat, which is what it seems like you are after.
> Take it from the Donald.




...We ARE in competition mode. That's what free trade is. Why is your only argument that I am obviously an anti-American American citizen that can't recognize failure and threat, even though I've been studying these countries and regions for two years now?

Donald Trump is the greatest buffoon in America. He's our Capitalist version of Kim Jon Ill. Why would anyone ask Trump anything other than to kill himself.

The reason we don't make things anymore is because _we are a post-industrialized nation._ They are a hundred years behind, but because they are developing in the 21st century, it will happen faster. You can't change that. If China's labor force wasn't building our Iphones and Ipads and designer bags, we wouldn't be able to afford them.

Guess what else: Working in those factories is an _improvement_ over their dirt poor lives in the countryside, and their children will likely be grateful to the American factories that gave their parents the chance to pay for their college tuition.

Take it from this _actual_ scholar, whom completely changed my view of China's factory conditions.


----------



## synrgy

TRENCHLORD said:


> you can come off the golf course




 
Also, http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/:



> Calls to several Presidential libraries reveal that President Obamas predecessor, George W. Bush, was on vacation more  1,020 days  than any U.S. President since Herbert Hoover and possibly more than any other President in history.



Proving - yet again - that you're a massive hypocrite and/or have the memory span of a goldfish.


----------



## MstrH

TRENCHLORD said:


> The president absolutely has the authority to send security forces to gaurd an American outpost anywhere. If a host nation wouldn't allow that then what are we doing working with them anyways.?
> 
> Seeing though it was the 9/11 anniversary and these guys were in recently unstable countries with a known extremist element, I can't see any way that even the naivest of administrations wouldn't assume there to be the accelarated likelyhood of demonstrations/protest/looting and general thuggery.
> 
> How many years now have we heard that we should expect the possibility/probability of 9/11 anniversary events by radical islamist groups looking to celebrate and follow up on that date?
> 
> It should have been expected and considered a signifigant possibility being that the Libyian and Egyption governments have both been recently unstablized.
> They knew/know full well that al qaeda has guys in ALL of those countries looking to cause trouble with US.
> 
> 
> This is a major case of; "HELLOOOOOOO, Obama, you can come off the golf course and do some leading once and a while lol. Wake up and smell the coffee.
> 
> 
> AND more breaking news;
> Weren't we just talking only an hour or two ago about the overhorny EPA screwing good people out of work and money? Yes we were. Here's 1200 more jobs gone.
> Obama And EPA Strangle Another Company » I. M. Citizen




Any president has the authority to send black helicopters to Trenchlord's house too!  

A president _rarely_ ever gets involved on that small level stuff. 

A president instead spends all of his time on the big macro stuff. Like how to take guns away from god fearing US citizens. Or how to eviscerate American business and ingenuity and sell it to the aliens the feds made contact with in Roswell. And, most especially, how to send jack-booted UN thugs into the streets of US cities to enslave Americans in a vicious cycle of poor education and rabid consumerism. (Oh, wait, no that's actually WalMart!) 

p.s. Kudos for the "overhorny" adjective! I wish I would've come up with that.  Seriously.


----------



## Konfyouzd

synrgy said:


> Proving - yet again - that you're a massive hypocrite and/or have the memory span of a goldfish.



You know you fucked up when Carl's posts sound anything remotely close to a personal attack...


----------



## CannibalKiller

flint757 said:


> Well the fact that we have people all over the world, Islam is present all over the world, 9/11 has an anniversary every year and people haven't done anything (not even on the 10 year anniversary, so irrelevant as intel overall I think, but I could be wrong I'm too lazy ATM to research) and is it really unreasonable that a country wouldn't want someone accidentally getting hurt by a very biased group of people with large guns. If we had an important ruler from another country on our soil would we allow them to bring a military force for protection?
> 
> The governments there are not on the same team with the terrorist and are for the most part on our side, the only reason for them not allowing it (if I was even correct before on that assumption) is so no one innocent got hurt. Yes something bad did happen, but hindsight is 20/20. Things have been rocky for a long time with the middle eastern culture, if someone wants to commit a violent act all they have to do is wait as I'm sure there are more than a few windows of opportunity daily.
> 
> The consulate was trying to ease the tension. It didn't work obviously, but I don't think anyone suspected a terrorist backing in such a place (if that is even true). I mean if we are being realistic nobody ridiculously important got hurt/killed so who could have predicted the events that occurred.
> 
> Respect through authority only works as long as you maintain authority. Our current goal (as far as I can tell) is to gain the respect via trust, cooperation and allowing the world some breathing room. If we gain the respect through this avenue it is long term respect instead of someone just waiting at the back door until you turn the alarm off.



While I agree with you to a certain extent, Bin Laden was planning a 10th anniversary attack. But the US decided they would kill him without trial.


----------



## Konfyouzd

That's a good thing, no? And that happened under whose watch?


----------



## CannibalKiller

Konfyouzd said:


> That's a good thing, no? And that happened under whose watch?



While it's good they stopped more attacks, and Obama actually did something (unlike Bush), no matter what you do not kill someone without trial. That is a nono.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Depends on the circumstances of the engagement surely. It's tricky to safely capture terrorists when most would rather die than get captured, and will take you with them.


----------



## Randy

If the latest account of the siege on Bin Laden is true, they shot him when they saw his head sticking out the door of his bedroom.


----------



## CannibalKiller

All I'm saying is it wouldn't of been hard to shoot him in the leg and put him on trial.


----------



## MstrH

CannibalKiller said:


> All I'm saying is it wouldn't of been hard to shoot him in the leg and put him on trial.



OCCASIONALLY, there are people who are better off dead. Bin Laden was a charter member of that club......


----------



## Jakke

CannibalKiller said:


> All I'm saying is it wouldn't of been hard to shoot him in the leg and put him on trial.



The problem is that the prison holding him would instantly be priority target for every Mujahedin (not to mention all the kidnappings and murders to get him released). Putting him on trial would have been preferable, but you also have to ask yourself if it was possible to do so.


----------



## flint757

CannibalKiller said:


> While I agree with you to a certain extent, Bin Laden was planning a 10th anniversary attack. But the US decided they would kill him without trial.



Well I'm not well versed on what actually happened during the attack, but as far as the reports I had heard he wasn't very active at that point. The assassination was more of a pat on our backs than anything. What I heard could very well be wrong, but I don't care enough to dig much deeper honestly.


----------



## Necris

synrgy said:


> Also, http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calls to several Presidential libraries reveal that President Obama&#8217;s predecessor, George W. Bush, was on vacation more &#8212; 1,020 days &#8212; than any U.S. President since Herbert Hoover and possibly more than any other President in history.
> 
> 
> 
> Proving - yet again - that you're a massive hypocrite and/or have the memory span of a goldfish.
Click to expand...

1,020 days of vacation over the course of 2 terms. Potentially the most of any President in history. 
8 years is 2920 days, 1,020 days of vacation means he was on vacation for ~34% of his time as president. 

12 attacks on U.S. Diplomatic facilities abroad occured during those two terms, the most under any President which resulted in 60 deaths*, 6 attacks in his first term, 6 in his second, 30 deaths per term. 
That's 1 attack for every 85 days of vacation and an average of 5 deaths per attack, 1 death for every ~49 days of his presidency.

Let's see how Obama is doing by comparison:
78 days of vacation from 2009 to 2011, lets assume just for fun that this year he has doubled it to a total of 156 days of vacation (keeping with the actual average his total would be 104). Bush currently has the longest single vacation taken by any president in the last 36 years at 5 weeks. If Obama wins a second term he will have to take nearly 2 and a half years of vacation to match Bush.

2 attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Facilities during his first term resulting in 26 deaths, compared to Bushes 6 in his first term resulting in exactly 30 deaths. Death wise, they're on pace with each other.

*The deaths I'm listing for both are not all American Deaths.


Trench can tow the party line all he wants (he certainly doesn't need my permission), I just hope that he is aware that easily researchable facts will hang his arguments from it.


----------



## vampiregenocide

CannibalKiller said:


> All I'm saying is it wouldn't of been hard to shoot him in the leg and put him on trial.



The standard procedure when dealing with terrorists is that if you shoot, you shoot to kill. There's no telling if they have an explosive device on them and so if you do decide to shoot, then you have to kill them before they can activate it. Leaving them alive puts other lives in jeopardy. You can never be sure these guys aren't rigged without going up to them and checking them, something equally risky. This is why the Brazilian man who was shot in the UK a few years back was shot multiple times. Officers chose to fire and had to commit to the kill in case he had explosives. 

Capturing terrorists isn't easy, it's an extremely dicey situation and if they thought it was safer to go for a straight kill at the time, then I could perfectly understand that in such a hostile situation.

That being said, it's off topic.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

synrgy said:


> - yet again - that you're a massive hypocrite and/or have the memory span of a goldfish.


 
Well I'm not for any president spending much time at all on the golf course.
They are the ones who applied for the job, so they shouldn't even be taking that much personal time for anything.

You obviously didn't read back on the last thread page where I said it was BUSHY who let out the guy/guys from gitmo who are now believed to be the planners/orchastraters of the embassy/consalate attacks.

I'm only blamming Obama for having his head up his ass , not for releasing the bad guys so they can have another crack at us.

I think you are the much more "massive hypocrite" for expecting me to hold both sides accountable (which I do, and had already stated such yesterday), while you are not ever going to hold Obama accountable for anything, and if you did you wouldn't even admit it IMO.


----------



## synrgy

I'm no fan-boy. I've waxed about many things I perceive as mistakes Obama has made during his term to-date, in many a thread during my almost 4 years on this forum. If you weren't around yet, or missed all of those threads, well.. Let's just say I won't lose sleep if you choose to believe otherwise. 

After spending the past year or two reading your posts, the only thing I would ever _expect_ from you is to divert and/or equivocate when your ideas are met with insurmountable facts. I think most of us have even come to enjoy how predictable that trait of yours is. You know.. Kind of like turning a thread about Paul Ryan into a thread about Barack Obama.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well I'm not for any president spending much time at all on the golf course.
> They are the ones who applied for the job, so they shouldn't even be taking that much personal time for anything.
> 
> You obviously didn't read back on the last thread page where I said it was BUSHY who let out the guy/guys from gitmo who are now believed to be the planners/orchastraters of the embassy/consalate attacks.
> 
> I'm only blamming Obama for having his head up his ass , not for releasing the bad guys so they can have another crack at us.
> 
> I think you are the much more "massive hypocrite" for expecting me to hold both sides accountable (which I do, and had already stated such yesterday), while you are not ever going to hold Obama accountable for anything, and if you did you wouldn't even admit it IMO.



Dude, come on. This thread isn't about Obama, it's about Romney. I asked you to explain why Romney is a good candidate without alluding to a slant against Obama. You failed, and are continuing to fail as everyone else has to fall off topic in order to rebuke your baseless claims.

The reason I know you get all of your political discussion from Fox News is because you think everything that goes wrong is somehow Obama's fault.

This week, they attempted to push the discussion away from Romney's oh so long ago fundraiser remarks he made last may May by digging up a speech Obama made _in the year 1998._


----------



## Mordacain

TRENCHLORD said:


> AND more breaking news;
> Weren't we just talking only an hour or two ago about the overhorny EPA screwing good people out of work and money? Yes we were. Here's 1200 more jobs gone.
> Obama And EPA Strangle Another Company » I. M. Citizen



Trench, I come from West Virginia. I can tell you from firsthand experience that there is a good reason coal mines get shut down by the EPA. Desperate people tend to do desperate things, like work in a mine when they know they will get blacklung and die in their 50's.

The ecological damage caused just in WVa alone by strip mining is incalculable. It's not like we have infinite resources to exploit, once the are mined then they are gone. What's worse is that the habitat of countless local flora and fauna is destroyed in the process. Unfortunately, when you do that, you also eventually destroy your own habitat.

The problem is people are too short-sighted to give a shit about the damage they cause to their children or grand-children when they can't see it firsthand. That's why the EPA and environmental groups exist, to stop people from fucking themselves (and the rest of the world) through ignorance.


----------



## flint757

Look at China's smog for why coal mining is just a terrible idea. They are at the top of the list for polluters and it is because they burn and mine a lot of coal (dirty).

We really need to move away from fossil fuels as is. It is quite ridiculous that we rely so heavily on something that is not only expensive to process and bad for the environment, but majority located in war zones/non-friendly territory.


----------



## Razzy

Treeunit212 said:


> Dude, come on. This thread isn't about Obama, it's about Romney. I asked you to explain why Romney is a good candidate without alluding to a slant against Obama. You failed, and are continuing to fail as everyone else has to fall off topic in order to rebuke your baseless claims.
> 
> The reason I know you get all of your political discussion from Fox News is because you think everything that goes wrong is somehow Obama's fault.
> 
> This week, they attempted to push the discussion away from Romney's oh so long ago fundraiser remarks he made last may May by digging up a speech Obama made _in the year 1998._



To quote Jon Stewart: "That's 14 Mays ago!"


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> Dude, come on. This thread isn't about Obama, it's about Romney. I asked you to explain why Romney is a good candidate without alluding to a slant against Obama. You failed, and are continuing to fail as everyone else has to fall off topic in order to rebuke your baseless claims.


 
I did not fail . I gave you several reasons without mentioning Obama.
You just don't personaly like the reasons because they are the antithisis of YOUR beliefs/views.

And as for "everyone has to go off topic to rebuke your baseless claims", I say,
Why? Can't you except that other people have opinions that differ from your's?
If you feel the need to attempt to rebuke all my "baseless claims" that is fine, but I'd hardly say it's a "has to" thing.
Maybe you take this internet discusion thing too seriously?
Does it always have to be a debate?
I've always assumed it was a discussion as much as a debate.
It becomes a debate when people disagree, and then try to prove one another wrong. 

I come on here and state my view, then am bombarded with post telling me how wrong they are, of which I select certain points which were used in attempt to invalidate my points, 
and I counter rebuke them.
So I'm not sure what you expect really
Maybe you just don't like being disagreed with?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Mordacain said:


> Trench, I come from West Virginia. I can tell you from firsthand experience that there is a good reason coal mines get shut down by the EPA. Desperate people tend to do desperate things, like work in a mine when they know they will get blacklung and die in their 50's.
> 
> The ecological damage caused just in WVa alone by strip mining is incalculable. It's not like we have infinite resources to exploit, once the are mined then they are gone. What's worse is that the habitat of countless local flora and fauna is destroyed in the process. Unfortunately, when you do that, you also eventually destroy your own habitat.
> 
> The problem is people are too short-sighted to give a shit about the damage they cause to their children or grand-children when they can't see it firsthand. That's why the EPA and environmental groups exist, to stop people from fucking themselves (and the rest of the world) through ignorance.


 
Definitely great points.

Getting black lung in a person's 50s is very shitty, but many guys are willing to sacrifice that in order to provide an honest unassisted living for their families.
And just look at how many of those same guys are already commiting slow suicide by smoking habits anyways.
Also,
Don't they have much better respirator masks (I do understand how hot they are to wear, trust me lol) now to help prevent/slow down that?

As far as local enviorement, it's a reletively small region of the country, but it sucks if it's in your backyard 4sure.

As far as air pollution from burning it, haven't they made strides in burning it cleaner?
Even if not, what are the emmisions of those same harmful gasses that are a problem in coal energy,, what are they from natural sources like volcanoes, natural fires, geysers, decomposition of organic matters, ect.,.?
I've read them to be far greater from natural sources that are out of our control, but there is much conflicting data 4sure.

Nevertheless, we do need to use technology to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, although like most things there are often unforeseen conflicting compromises (in other words, alternative energy sources might eventually have their own negative effects).

I'm certain now isn't the time for job cutting though.
We should make a national goal of being once again in the surpluss so we can begin to invest more into future energy technologies.
I think the best way to get to that spot is to rebuild an economy that is lush and stable on the world stage.
Which, is why I'm voting for Romney. (although it won't likely make any difference in Illinios lol)


----------



## Mordacain

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm certain now isn't the time for job cutting though.
> We should make a national goal of being once again in the surpluss so we can begin to invest more into future energy technologies.



I just wish we had that much time. Given the most current research, it looks like the main north ice formation will have split in the next four years. If that happens, we are all fucked as the permafrost will then be able to thaw, releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere, further accelerating the warming effect.

Seriously, there is every indication that will happen before we elect another president.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Mordacain said:


> I just wish we had that much time. Given the most current research, it looks like the main north ice formation will have split in the next four years. If that happens, we are all fucked as the permafrost will then be able to thaw, releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere, further accelerating the warming effect.
> 
> Seriously, there is every indication that will happen before we elect another president.


 
Doesn't that kind of stuff happen on it's own though periodically, even sometimes in very rapid increments?
Remember, just because it's melting at a pace unseen in the last so many thousand years, that doesn't really say much considering the even more extreme flucuations that have occured periodically over the earths lifespan.

We have definetly contributed to some degree, although to what degree we don't even know.
I've seen so many documentaries on enviormental change and our possible influences on it, and there's still so much conflicting data relating to how much effect we've really had on the enviorement over the past couple centuries.
It's interesting and scary, and if we've or nature has pushed it too hard in that direction, then I don't even think we could slow the momentum at this point, at least not to a signifigant degree.
We might eventually have to give up a major chunk of the human global population in order to feed the masses.


----------



## flint757

Yeah we burn clean coal in the states, that's why I added the word dirty to the China comment.

It is an improvement for sure, but still IMO unnecessary.

I'm not going to say clean energy doesn't have consequences as it does. Nuclear leaves behind dangerous waste, batteries in all devices will fill up landfills, the initial cost environmentally to make an electric car is pretty high, etc.

We have contributed and I agree the extent of that is unknown. Cows pollute just as much as we do supposedly. 

Irrelevant to the extent we contribute or nature contributes I just don't understand why we rely so heavily on a finite energy source where most of it is located in conflict zones. Rational people would start looking for other sustainable solutions IMO. I do know why and it is because our economy is largely oil so they have zero incentive to get rid of it (still illogical though). The one thing you can always count on a politician to do is cover their ass.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> And as for "everyone has to go off topic to rebuke your baseless claims", I say,
> Why? Can't you except that other people have opinions that differ from your's?





> You: Grey is better than Purple.
> Me: No it isn't, here is why I think that...


That is a difference of opinion. Unfortunately that's not where discussions with you generally go; they generally go here: 


> You: The existence of the color Purple causes forest fires and that is why Grey is better.
> Me: That's ridiculous, here's why....
> You: Anti-american communist!


into the realm of claims with no factual backing (baseless claims); you do attempt to back them with plenty of ad hominem attacks though. Unfortunately your desire to reduce what actually happens in discussions with you to mere differences of opinion that some people are getting too worked up over doesn't make it so.
It is generally a positive thing when claims like the latter are rebuked, hence why some of us actually take the time to show you where your viewpoints and reality diverge. Unfortunately when that happens you then take the easy way out and choose to fall back on your usual tactics of covering your ears while spewing ad hominems.




> If you feel the need to attempt to rebuke all my "baseless claims" that is fine, but I'd hardly say it's a "has to" thing.
> Maybe you take this internet discusion thing too seriously?
> Does it always have to be a debate?
> I've always assumed it was a discussion as much as a debate.
> It becomes a debate when people disagree, and then try to prove one another wrong.
> 
> I come on here and state my view, then am bombarded with post telling me how wrong they are


You seem to have no real interest in discussion despite being on a discussion forum, in actuality you seem to want to be able to put forward assertions, have them go unquestioned and then be able to claim a victory and pat yourself on the back. Tumblr, blogspot, wordpress and plenty of other sites would allow you to do that (provided you turned off the ability for others to comment). Unfortunately you've decided to attempt to do this in the politics and current events section of a discussion forum, a section where facts are relied upon more than in another section like "General Music discussion" or "Seven String Guitars".


> Maybe you just don't like being disagreed with?


Seems to apply to you.

Also Flint, I'd just like to point out that there is no such thing as "clean coal", it is a fictional entity pushed entirely through an extensive marketing campaign and exists solely in that marketing campaign.
In fact as far as I'm aware despite the massive marketing campaign and lots of lip service it wasn't until 2009 that the first Carbon Capture and Storage system (the systems that are supposed to assist in making it "cleaner") was added to an existing facility in the US and according to the economist article there are a total of merely 8 such systems currently operating in the entire world. Of course these systems do absolutely nothing to mitigate the environmental damage that results from actually mining the coal, they just lessen the damage caused by burning it to an uncertain degree.

The Myth of Clean Coal by Richard Conniff : Yale Environment 360
http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/09/20/dodging-the-carbon-emissions-question.html
http://www.economist.com/node/21554501


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> I did not fail . I gave you several reasons without mentioning Obama.
> You just don't personaly like the reasons because they are the antithisis of YOUR beliefs/views.







TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm quite certain he will not let our embassies and consalates go virtually ungaurded as others *(Obama)* have.
> He has claimed he will get tougher and less generous with China and our other world competitors.
> He's at least had a job in real life *(Obvious comparison to Obama)* lol.



Just because you didn't mention Obama's name directly doesn't make your argument void of any mention of him. Anyone can see that and you're not fooling anyone but yourself.



TRENCHLORD said:


> And as for "everyone has to go off topic to rebuke your baseless claims", I say,
> Why? Can't you except that other people have opinions that differ from your's?



I would, except that yours are based in more nonsense than the Holy Bible.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Maybe you take this internet discusion thing too seriously?



*And you don't take it seriously enough.*



TRENCHLORD said:


> Maybe you just don't like being disagreed with?



No. That's you, my friend.

I take time out of my day to talk to people about politics, both in person and on this forum, because it is one of the most important things to me in life. I get genuinely offended when people like you who have no respect for an honest discussion based in facts and evidence think it's okay to say things like Obama was born in Kenya and this Middle East crisis has been a complete and total failure _without providing a shred of real evidence and ignoring facts that counter your perceived reality._

So how did you respond to my corrections and opinions?



TRENCHLORD said:


> Sorry Treeunit, but you come off as an America hater.



Wow. I am an American hater for disagreeing with you and providing facts to back it up. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Can't you except that other people have opinions that differ from your's?



I can. *You clearly can't.*

Take your hypocrisy somewhere else. I don't have time for it anymore.


----------



## Mordacain

TRENCHLORD said:


> Doesn't that kind of stuff happen on it's own though periodically, even sometimes in very rapid increments?
> Remember, just because it's melting at a pace unseen in the last so many thousand years, that doesn't really say much considering the even more extreme flucuations that have occured periodically over the earths lifespan.



There is nothing I blame Fox News for more than the propagation of the idea that what we are experiencing is natural. 

Shifts of temperature are normal sure, but to nowhere near the degree or at the speed we've seen since the industrial revolution began. 

For instance, the methane stored in the permafrost in northern Alaska has been there since before the last ice age. Incidentally which, there is now evidence supporting that the last ice age, which was previously thought to be an example of "natural temperature shift" was actually caused by a large meteor impact.

Let me put it this way: there is far more evidence supporting that man has been the primary cause of current climate change (between a mix of methane caused by increased cattle raising and CO2 & sulfur from vehicle and power generation exhaust) than there is for natural shifts ever occurring of this magnitude.


----------



## flint757

Necris said:


> Also Flint, I'd just like to point out that there is no such thing as "clean coal", it is a fictional entity pushed entirely through an extensive marketing campaign and exists solely in that marketing campaign.
> In fact as far as I'm aware despite the massive marketing campaign and lots of lip service it wasn't until 2009 that the first Carbon Capture and Storage system (the systems that are supposed to assist in making it "cleaner") was added to an existing facility in the US and according to the economist article there are a total of merely 8 such systems currently operating in the entire world. Of course these systems do absolutely nothing to mitigate the environmental damage that results from actually mining the coal, they just lessen the damage caused by burning it to an uncertain degree.
> 
> The Myth of Clean Coal by Richard Conniff : Yale Environment 360
> http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/09/20/dodging-the-carbon-emissions-question.html
> http://www.economist.com/node/21554501



Yeah I was doubtful, myself, when I had heard that honestly. Coal is a really dirty fuel to begin with so even if it was "cleaner" it still isn't like solar power, wind power, etc. I'm not the least bit surprised that it is just marketing like most companies "clean" initiatives.


----------



## Varcolac

Back on topic, or at least the title of the thread...

So, this choice for Romney just got booed by a room full of senior citizens. Personally, I think he was a great choice for Romney. Just like Abbot was for Costello, Laurel was for Hardy, and Palin was for McCain.

Paul Ryan Booed At AARP (VIDEO)


In other news, Mitt released his (partial) tax records from last year. Turns out he paid 14.1%. On an income of 13.7 million. But it's OK! He gave loads of money to his own church.* Uh, no, wait, I mean, his own Super PAC. Uh, no, wait, I mean, charity! Does this put him in the 47%, the 53%, or the 1%? The Romney campaign was supposed to "reboot" itself this week, and go from attacking Obama's record to touting Romney's policies. So far it's been on the defensive the entire week. I cannot wait to see where this campaign goes next!

Romney paid 14.1% effective tax rate in 2011


*Wasn't Mitt a bishop in the Mormon church? Can you actually get tax reductions on giving to a charitable organisation that you're practically an employee of? Shady, if you ask me...


*EDIT!:*

It looks like Mitt actually had his accountants make him pay more tax (only claiming deductions on 2.25 million of the 4+ million he gave to charity) in the last year so he'd hit his "no less than 13%" comment to the press earlier in the year. Money isn't even a thing to Mitt. He's got so much of it that he can _choose_ how much tax he pays for the sake of political expediency. Explains why he thought the middle class was 250k and up. That disconnect from the real world makes me shudder.

Also, according to Mitt, his dad wouldn't vote for him (welfare-dependent victim that he was!) and now he's not qualified to be president by his own conditions (paying more tax than he's supposed to!).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howar...-gop_b_1904564.html?icid=hp_politics_art_more

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-declares-himself-unqualified-to-be-president

Is it too late for a Herman Cain candidacy? I think he'd be doing better...


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> Take your hypocrisy somewhere else. I don't have time for it anymore.


 
 No thanks. BUT, since I';m clearly upsetting/annoying you (unintentionally mind you)

I'll stay off the politics thread for awhile.
Fair enough?


----------



## MstrH

TRENCHLORD said:


> No thanks. BUT, since I';m clearly upsetting/annoying you (unintentionally mind you)
> 
> I'll stay off the politics thread for awhile.
> Fair enough?






Trenchlord is fun!


----------



## flint757

Conversation is boring when everybody agrees.


----------



## Treeunit212

Oh gosh I must be on my man-period again. 

I have no desire to push you away from the P&CE threads, just maybe try a LITTLE harder to respect other's opinions? And by that I mean acknowledging them fully instead of continuing your lines of thought despite multiple members' corrections...



Fuck it. Just keep doing what you're doing. 

Also back on topic:


----------



## YngwieJ

I see your gifs and raise you:


----------



## Treeunit212




----------



## Waelstrum

^ This reminds me of the time my (arsehole) friend blew his nose on a fifty dollar note right after saying he couldn't lend another friend a few bob for a bus.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

I feel I owe a great debt to Mitt, thanks to him I went and found out more about Mormonism than I knew already. After researching Mormonism for a few days ("Mormon night") I learned much...

Here is a link I saved for your entertainment pleasure. It's reasonably thorough.


----------



## SuperMutant

Ok, so since around 2007 my family has been getting poorer and poorer, and i'm kind of curious why obama says hes lowering taxes for middle class when my dad says his taxes are skyrocketing and their saying that romney will make it better for small businesses yet all I hear is that hes going to raise taxes for middle class and lower them for higher class. Seriously what the FUCK gives? It seems everything these motherfuckers say are lies and if the economy stays like this were going to lose our house.. 

In 2006-mid 2007 my dad owned a full auto shop with over 12 employees and a huge building including a extra shop for storage, welding etc. In 2009 he had to sell the bigger building (which wasn't fucking easy) and now does everything in the small shop and had 2 mechanics and a secretary, now he has 1 mechanic and now he has to do most of the work himself. 

I'm only 16 and have NO knowledge whatsoever about what he does but I really want to help him so hes not so depressed, I mean today hes been saying shit like, oh nobody would care if I died and won't even eat dinner.

Anyways, can some of you smarter guys tell me whats going to happen? I mean who really is the better choice? Everyone I know is voting for romney because everything is terrible now but I think its going to get even worse if romney gets elected. Hell i'm depressed as I can't afford anything, weed, guitar gear, clothes etc and all the money we do have is apparently going to my fucking sister who has probably the most expensive car in my entire family and doesn't have to pay gas herself and my side is probably the poorest out my entire family. Hell I don't even have my PERMIT yet because no one gives a flying fuck.


----------



## flint757

Well sorry to hear about your Dad, but without knowing the exact circumstances I don't think anyone can tell you what is going on. If his profits are down and he has lost employees (so health benefits etc. would be lower) there is no logical reason why his taxes would be higher especially when profiting small businesses aren't having these problems. It could be more that his business is just slowly going under and that is it. Your dad is in the same business my dad is in except they do metal fabrication as well and they are doing fine (expanding, choices for hiring etc.) so like I said without more detail couldn't tell you why things are worse for him.

Business taxes aside (as I'm not well versed on it) Romney will increase middle class taxes and lower taxes for high bracket earners. Whereas Obama is intending on lowering the middle class taxes and either maintaining or increasing high bracket earners taxes. That is all on the personal/family level of taxes. Based on your description though your family isn't middle class so I have no idea how it will affect you directly either. How does your sis have a nice car and everyone else is struggling?

It sounds like the recession took its toll on his job as fabrication is a luxury product that people will go without during hard times. Is it a diesel shop? In any case no idea why his taxes are skyrocketing (probably exaggerating a bit), maybe he took out loans or something.


----------



## SuperMutant

flint757 said:


> Well sorry to hear about your Dad, but without knowing the exact circumstances I don't think anyone can tell you what is going on. If his profits are down and he has lost employees (so health benefits etc. would be lower) there is no logical reason why his taxes would be higher especially when profiting small businesses aren't having these problems. It could be more that his business is just slowly going under and that is it. Your dad is in the same business my dad is in except they do metal fabrication as well and they are doing fine (expanding, choices for hiring etc.) so like I said without more detail couldn't tell you why things are worse for him.
> 
> Business taxes aside (as I'm not well versed on it) Romney will increase middle class taxes and lower taxes for high bracket earners. Whereas Obama is intending on lowering the middle class taxes and either maintaining or increasing high bracket earners taxes. That is all on the personal/family level of taxes. Based on your description though your family isn't middle class so I have no idea how it will affect you directly either. How does your sis have a nice car and everyone else is struggling?
> 
> It sounds like the recession took its toll on his job as fabrication is a luxury product that people will go without during hard times. Is it a diesel shop? In any case no idea why his taxes are skyrocketing (probably exaggerating a bit), maybe he took out loans or something.


Well my dad does do metal fabricating as well, and one of his best friends took over the whole thing a while ago and i'm sure if he still profits from it anymore. He also makes/sells/transports parts to barbados. About my sister, like I said she gets all the shit my parents can afford and I simply don't... I mean thats not really a big deal for me its just the fact my dad is complaining about everything. And yea its a diesel shop, he pretty much does everything. He did say a while ago that because of how high tech the cars are today (there pretty much computers with wheels) he needs more equipment and jobs aren't as easy as they were way back. My mom is actually an insurance agent and pays for all the bills for the house, her car, etc while my dad pays for whatever car hes driving (he pretty much rents trucks from friends and hasn't actually OWNED a car for like 2 years) and pays for my sisters cars lease with help from his dad.


----------



## flint757

SuperMutant said:


> Well my dad does do metal fabricating as well, and one of his best friends took over the whole thing a while ago and i'm sure if he still profits from it anymore. He also makes/sells/transports parts to barbados. About my sister, like I said she gets all the shit my parents can afford and I simply don't... I mean thats not really a big deal for me its just the fact my dad is complaining about everything. And yea its a diesel shop, he pretty much does everything. He did say a while ago that because of how high tech the cars are today (there pretty much computers with wheels) he needs more equipment and jobs aren't as easy as they were way back. My mom is actually an insurance agent and pays for all the bills for the house, her car, etc while my dad pays for whatever car hes driving (he pretty much rents trucks from friends and hasn't actually OWNED a car for like 2 years) and pays for my sisters cars lease with help from his dad.



Yeah my Dad had to by a Snap on tester (plug it in to the truck and it pretty much tells you what is wrong or at least where the problem starts), but it cost like 10K. It definitely isn't a cheap business and it is very hard to do completely on one's own. Odd that your sister gets such preferential treatment in rough times. 

Like I said no idea about the tax situation, but if his company isn't doing well in general (employee's and overall profit) then no matter how high/low the taxes are I don't think it would make a huge difference. You're only 16 so my suggestion is to leave it up to your pop's to make this decision as he will definitely understand his circumstance better than you or I could. It does sound like he complains a lot, but not about anything in particular (taxes, cost of assets, employee's, etc.) all of which has a lot more to do with whether or not there is just business in your area and if he is getting proper exposure/doing a good enough job to retain customers. By no means do I mean that critically either.


----------



## Treeunit212

SuperMutant said:


> Ok, so since around 2007 my family has been getting poorer and poorer, and i'm kind of curious why obama says hes lowering taxes for middle class when my dad says his taxes are skyrocketing and their saying that romney will make it better for small businesses yet all I hear is that hes going to raise taxes for middle class and lower them for higher class. Seriously what the FUCK gives? It seems everything these motherfuckers say are lies and if the economy stays like this were going to lose our house..
> 
> In 2006-mid 2007 my dad owned a full auto shop with over 12 employees and a huge building including a extra shop for storage, welding etc. In 2009 he had to sell the bigger building (which wasn't fucking easy) and now does everything in the small shop and had 2 mechanics and a secretary, now he has 1 mechanic and now he has to do most of the work himself.
> 
> I'm only 16 and have NO knowledge whatsoever about what he does but I really want to help him so hes not so depressed, I mean today hes been saying shit like, oh nobody would care if I died and won't even eat dinner.
> 
> Anyways, can some of you smarter guys tell me whats going to happen? I mean who really is the better choice? Everyone I know is voting for romney because everything is terrible now but I think its going to get even worse if romney gets elected. Hell i'm depressed as I can't afford anything, weed, guitar gear, clothes etc and all the money we do have is apparently going to my fucking sister who has probably the most expensive car in my entire family and doesn't have to pay gas herself and my side is probably the poorest out my entire family. Hell I don't even have my PERMIT yet because no one gives a flying fuck.



That sounds like the same problem the whole country is dealing with right now; selfishness.

Few profit greatly at the expense of the many.


----------



## YngwieJ

Here's a site that uses the tax plans of the two candidates and allows you to input some of your information and it shows how much your taxes will change as a result of their plans.
https://www.politify.com/ 

In my experience plugging numbers in, it appears that the taxes are about the same unless you have a lot of capital gains or a high income of $150k+, in which case Romney will give you great tax breaks; or if you have dependents or children in college, in which case Obama will give you great tax breaks.


----------



## flint757

^^^In which case Obama is far better for my household.


----------



## SuperMutant

flint757 said:


> Yeah my Dad had to by a Snap on tester (plug it in to the truck and it pretty much tells you what is wrong or at least where the problem starts), but it cost like 10K. It definitely isn't a cheap business and it is very hard to do completely on one's own. Odd that your sister gets such preferential treatment in rough times.
> 
> Like I said no idea about the tax situation, but if his company isn't doing well in general (employee's and overall profit) then no matter how high/low the taxes are I don't think it would make a huge difference. You're only 16 so my suggestion is to leave it up to your pop's to make this decision as he will definitely understand his circumstance better than you or I could. It does sound like he complains a lot, but not about anything in particular (taxes, cost of assets, employee's, etc.) all of which has a lot more to do with whether or not there is just business in your area and if he is getting proper exposure/doing a good enough job to retain customers. By no means do I mean that critically either.


 I'm just hoping nothing bad happens as it seems like we have 
been in the same situation for almost 2 years yet we still can afford to keep going. Thanks for actually trying to help me by the way


----------



## flint757

SuperMutant said:


> I'm just hoping nothing bad happens as it seems like we have
> been in the same situation for almost 2 years yet we still can afford to keep going. Thanks for actually trying to help me by the way



Well as we get out of the recession businesses across all fields should theoretically get more customers, but running a business is no simple thing. It requires a lot of work and luck. the best thing he can do is try and get more exposure, as business increases he can then hire back some employee's. That seems like the larger problem he is facing honestly. Taxes are a surface problem. When a company isn't doing well typically they complain about taxes as they aren't making as much as they had hoped (and taxes means they are losing even more). I could be off base though so take all of this with a grain of salt.

If his business isn't doing well then no matter who is in office and no matter what happens tax wise it won't get better. Hopefully he can figure out a way to fix some of the problems his business is seeing or as we creep out of the recession things improve. I'm rooting for ya man.


----------



## Treeunit212

Here's an outrageous observation:

Mitt Romney gave 30% of his income to his own Mormon Church, while only paying 13% in federal income tax. That means he willingly gave more than double the amount of money to his church than he paid in federal taxes to the country he wants to be president of.

Shady.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Romney is a planetary-sized douche and is guaranteed to lose. 

[/thread]


----------



## Treeunit212

Scar Symmetry said:


> Romney is a planetary-sized douche and is guaranteed to lose.
> 
> [/thread]



...You don't live here.

You don't witness the cesspit of ignorance and cognitive dissonance that is the average American.


----------



## flint757

This race is much closer than many probably expect. Shady or not it also shows where his real loyalties lye; religion first, country distant second or third (probably further down than that). I like Obama's comment on his taxes. Yes some Dem's exaggerated about his taxes, but him even showing his taxes shows that he pays a third of what the majority of people I know do.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Treeunit212 said:


> ...You don't live here.
> 
> You don't witness the cesspit of ignorance and cognitive dissonance that is the average American.



True, but I do pay more attention to American politics than the average American. I very much doubt Romney has a chance. If he does, we're all fucked, not just you yanks.


----------



## Treeunit212

Mitt Romney every time he opens his mouth.


----------



## flint757

The Political Compass - US Presidential Election 2012

I found this to be very interesting. I mean it doesn't make me want to vote for Romney, but is true that when it comes to military and the financial side of things there isn't exactly an ocean between the 2 parties. (differences, definitely, but how big?)

Socially, there is still a difference (the article kind of trivializes these issues) and that is more than enough reason for me to vote Obama 2012. That and I think Romney has proven himself (with his minimal responsibilities ATM even) he is not a competent individual.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

This has probably been posted or mentioned before, but hell I'll post it too. It is a cool test, I fall in line with Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.


----------



## Treeunit212

I both like and dislike that site and/or political compass thing for the same reason, which is that it doesn't seem to take social stances into consideration.

I like that it merely focuses on core domestic and foreign policies, I just think they should have more of a disclaimer as to what it is they're measuring exactly.

:2cents:


----------



## Treeunit212

I both like and dislike that site and/or political compass thing for the same reason, which is that it doesn't seem to take social stances into consideration.

I like that it merely focuses on core domestic and foreign policies, I just think they should have more of a disclaimer as to what it is they're measuring exactly.

:twocents: HOW THE FUCK DO I MAKE THE TWO CENTS THING WORK AS;LFKJDSA;LFKSDJF;LKDA


----------



## Jakke

^


----------



## Treeunit212

Yay :3


----------



## YngwieJ

Treeunit212 said:


> I both like and dislike that site and/or political compass thing for the same reason, which is that it doesn't seem to take social stances into consideration.
> 
> I like that it merely focuses on core domestic and foreign policies, I just think they should have more of a disclaimer as to what it is they're measuring exactly.
> 
> :twocents: HOW THE FUCK DO I MAKE THE TWO CENTS THING WORK AS;LFKJDSA;LFKSDJF;LKDA



VoteMatch Quiz

That's why better quizzes such as this one exist that are based more on the issues rather than senseless crap and it compares your stance to other candidates from several different elections.

My only gripe with the ontheissues quiz is that some of the answer choices aren't quite clear so you do have to click on each one to find out what you're actually answering. But for each issue it gives you some insight into the history of the issue and any legislation and really gives good background information. So you can learn a lot about the issues and find out where others stand on these issues, so overall it's the best political quiz I've found out there.


----------



## flint757

YngwieJ said:


> VoteMatch Quiz
> 
> That's why better quizzes such as this one exist that are based more on the issues rather than senseless crap and it compares your stance to other candidates from several different elections.
> 
> My only gripe with the ontheissues quiz is that some of the answer choices aren't quite clear so you do have to click on each one to find out what you're actually answering. But for each issue it gives you some insight into the history of the issue and any legislation and really gives good background information. So you can learn a lot about the issues and find out where others stand on these issues, so overall it's the best political quiz I've found out there.



Apparently (probably could have bothered with reading the info though) Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and then Obama make my top 3 (and Nader apparently as well). 

Mitt is almost all the way at the bottom for me.


----------



## Necris

My top 3 in order are Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein and Ralph Nader.


----------



## YngwieJ

Necris said:


> My top 3 in order are Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein and Ralph Nader.



Yea I get the same, but if I were to actually rank them in my preference I would probably but those three in reverse order. Nader has such a huge legacy of great work that he'll always be at the top of my list regardless of what any quiz says.


----------



## flint757

Did y'all click the hyperlinks, the answers had heavy weight in a way that didn't entirely make sense. Like the difference between support and strongly support was a vast difference in most cases.

Doing it in a way that made since to me I got the 4 I mentioned previously, but doing it in line with their description I got the same as necris as well. I don't like that they ignore the no opinion ones though.


----------



## Semichastny

Necris said:


> My top 3 in order are Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein and Ralph Nader.



+1


----------



## YngwieJ

flint757 said:


> Did y'all click the hyperlinks, the answers had heavy weight in a way that didn't entirely make sense. Like the difference between support and strongly support was a vast difference in most cases.
> 
> Doing it in a way that made since to me I got the 4 I mentioned previously, but doing it in line with their description I got the same as necris as well. I don't like that they ignore the no opinion ones though.



Yea you're probably right there. 

Well the problem with any quiz is that issues are never so black and white as to just have a few obvious answers for how to handle something. Everything is much more complex than to be summed up in a vague multiple-choice quiz. With each of these, you really have to read into what each answer means, and even then, nothing can be summed up into something as simple as "strongly oppose" and "oppose."

I think any political quiz is really only good to give a general indication of your views compared to each of the candidates. From there it is up to the individual to do more research on each candidate's position and determine for yourself who holds the closest position to you.


----------



## Treeunit212

1. Rocky Anderson

2. Jill Stein

3. Hilary Clinton

4. Ralph Nader

5. Barack Obama



A much simpler quiz, for sure. My last result was Rick Santorum, thank Jesus...


----------



## flint757

let-s-end-the-47-nonpayer-nonsense

I like this article.


----------



## YngwieJ

flint757 said:


> let-s-end-the-47-nonpayer-nonsense
> 
> I like this article.



It is a pretty good article, but the idiots in the comments ruin it. Everyone continues to bitch about 50% not paying income tax, but apparently they missed the part where income tax makes up only about a quarter of the total federal and state taxes. When looked at as a whole, US taxes are very regressive and hurt the poor more than anyone else.

One thing I find funny is that the super rich who invest all their money into capital gains are included in the 47% who don't pay federal income tax. 

For a party that demands lower taxes so much, they sure as hell don't like it when the poor don't get taxed.


----------



## flint757

indeed

The comment section of any political article is rather obnoxious honestly. It really comes down to the argument of who pays the most percent wise versus actual cash.

Many people don't take into account total income after taxes either or the fact that an additional dollar loses its value when you already have several piles of money. Also, that giving money to someone with already more than enough disposable income is not going to stimulate the economy as they would spend it either way. That is in fact the luxury of being wealthy. My biggest issue is that the Republican method is to rely on 'good faith' that the wealthy will get us out of this slump. Forgive me if I trust them about as far as I could throw them.


----------



## Loomer

Well, the wealthy _did_ create this whole mess to begin with, and have so far emerged largely unscathed. Why should they care about anyone else?


----------



## flint757

Well if the Repub's get into office they will be rewarded for their poor judgment and short term ambitions.


----------



## Semichastny

flint757 said:


> Well if the Repub's get into office they will be rewarded for their poor judgment and short term ambitions.



Most likely is that they will instigate problems abroad, convince the public of some looming threat, and otherwise obfuscate their domestic failures.


----------



## YngwieJ

Semichastny said:


> Most likely is that they will instigate problems abroad, convince the public of some looming threat, and otherwise obfuscate their domestic failures.



That seems to be the usual plan. Spend a ton of money, then claim that we need to cut social services, cut welfare, cut any spending for the poor, and increase military spending to defend against the threat of muslim, kenyan, communists who are trying to become president.


----------

