Presidential race thread: Obama or Romney

[DirtySanchez]

Here are some of the major issues and where both stand on them...

ABORTION & BIRTH CONTROL
OBAMA: Supports abortion rights. Health care law requires contraceptives to be available for free for women enrolled in workplace health plans.

ROMNEY: Opposes abortion rights. Previously supported them. Says state law should guide abortion rights, and Roe v. Wade should be reversed by a future Supreme Court. Said he would end federal aid to Planned Parenthood.



DEBT
OBAMA: Fourth-straight year of trillion-dollar deficits is projected. Won approval to raise debt limit to avoid default. Calls for tackling the debt with a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. Central to Obama's plan is to let Bush-era tax cuts expire for couples making more than $250,000

ROMNEY: Defended 2008 bailout of financial institutions as a necessary step to avoid the system's collapse, opposed the auto bailout. Would cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product by end of first term, down from 23.5 percent now, with largely unspecified spending cuts. Favors constitutional balanced budget amendment.



ECONOMY
OBAMA: Term marked by high unemployment, a deep recession that began in previous administration and gradual recovery. Responded to recession with a roughly $800 billion stimulus plan. Continued implementation of Wall Street and auto industry bailouts begun under George W. Bush. Proposes tax breaks for U.S. manufacturers producing domestically or repatriating jobs from abroad, and tax penalties for U.S. companies outsourcing jobs.

ROMNEY: Lower taxes, less regulation, balanced budget, more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts. Proposes repeal of the law toughening financial-industry regulations after the meltdown in that sector, and the law tightening accounting regulations in response to corporate scandals.



EDUCATION
OBAMA: Has approved waivers freeing states from the most onerous requirements of the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law. "Race to the Top" competition has rewarded winning states with billions of dollars for pursuing education policies Obama supports.

ROMNEY: Supported the federal accountability standards of No Child Left Behind law. Has said the student testing, charter-school incentives and teacher evaluation standards of Obama's "Race to the Top" competition "make sense" although the federal government should have less control of education.



ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
OBAMA: Ordered temporary moratorium on deep-water drilling after the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico but has pushed for more oil and gas drilling overall. Achieved historic increases in fuel economy standards that will save money at the pump while raising the cost of new vehicles. Achieved first-ever regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming and on toxic mercury pollution from power plants. Spent heavily on green energy and has embraced nuclear power as a clean source. Failed to persuade a Democratic Congress to pass limits he promised on carbon emissions.

ROMNEY: Supports opening the Atlantic and Pacific outer continental shelves to drilling, as well as Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore Alaska. Wants to reduce obstacles to coal, natural gas and nuclear energy development, and accelerate drilling permits in areas where exploration has already been approved for developers with good safety records. Says green power has yet to become viable and the causes of climate change are unknown.



GAY RIGHTS
OBAMA: Once opposed federal recognition of same-sex marriage, later said his views were "evolving" and has not taken a position since. Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Supports civil unions and letting states decide about marriage. Achieved repeal of the military ban on openly gay service members.

ROMNEY: Favors constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, says policy should be set federally, not by states. "Marriage is not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state." But said he would not seek to restore a ban on openly gay service members.



HEALTH CARE
OBAMA: Achieved landmark overhaul putting U.S. on path to universal coverage if the Supreme Court upholds the heath care law and its mandate for almost everyone to obtain insurance. Under the law, insurers will be banned from denying coverage to people with pre-existing illness, tax credits will subsidize premiums, people without work-based insurance will have access to new markets, small business gets help for offering insurance and Medicaid will expand.

ROMNEY: Promises to work for repeal of the law modeled largely after his universal health care achievement in Massachusetts because he says states, not Washington, should drive policy on the uninsured. Proposes to guarantee that people who are "continuously covered" for a certain period be protected against losing insurance if they get sick, leave their job and need another policy. Would expand individual tax-advantaged medical savings accounts and let savings be used for insurance premiums as well as personal medical costs.



SOCIAL SECURITY
OBAMA: Has not proposed a comprehensive plan to address Social Security's long-term financial problems. In 2011, proposed a new measure of inflation that would reduce annual increases in Social Security benefits. The proposal would reduce the long-term financing shortfall by about 25 percent, according to the Social Security actuaries.

ROMNEY: Protect the status quo for people 55 and over but, for the next generations of retirees, raise the retirement age for full benefits by one or two years and reduce inflation increases in benefits for wealthier recipients.



TAXES
OBAMA: Wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and ensure they pay 30 percent of their income at minimum. Supports extending Bush-era tax cuts for everyone making under $200,000, or $250,000 for couples. But in 2010, agreed to a two-year extension of the lower rates for all. Health care law provides for tax on highest-value health insurance plans. Together with Congress, built a first-term record of significant tax cuts, some temporary.

ROMNEY: Drop all tax rates by 20 percent, bringing the top rate, for example, down to 28 percent from 35 percent and the lowest rate to 8 percent instead of 10 percent. Curtail deductions, credits and exemptions for the wealthiest. Eliminate capital gains tax for families making below $200,000 and cut corporate tax to 25 percent from 35 percent.

[miller-time]

i can't even believe this is a race lol. romney? seriously?

[Kobe 4 The Win]

i can't even believe this is a race lol. romney? seriously?

I'm shocked that these are the two stiffs we have to choose from. I don't like either. I'm voting for Romney. He's our only hope for reigning in spending. 4 more years of Obama is going a death sentence for the USA.

For the record Obama is going to win in a landslide.

[1987_Lakers]

i can't even believe this is a race lol. romney? seriously?

Republicans have nobody that appeals to the people. I still remember when they were trying to sell this guy to the American people...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmNM0oj79t8

[Sarcastic]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/news/economy/romney-tax-plan/?npt=NP1

[DirtySanchez]

I am leaning towards Obama because I just think Romney is....well..an idiot with some of the smaller topics.

Like saying we do not really know what is causing global warming...really? lol

That said with Obama I am happy he passed Obamacare I have a mother and Grandmother who will benefit from this. And really it's not going to cost my wife and I any more $$$.

I think he showed great leadership with the killing Obama.

And he made the right choice to help out GM.

NOW...I am not happy about the housing market under his watch. There are so many people losing their homes and the banks are taking advantage of all of them. He has done little to help this problem.

I am also not happy that he continued the Bush tax cuts...WHY????


All that said.....still leaning towards Obama.

And I disagree with Kobe 4 the win...I think Romney has a chance.

[DirtySanchez]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/news/economy/romney-tax-plan/?npt=NP1

Of course it will!!! lol

[Balla_Status]

I am leaning towards Obama because I just think Romney is....well..an idiot with some of the smaller topics.

Like saying we do not really know what is causing global warming...really? lol

That said with Obama I am happy he passed Obamacare I have a mother and Grandmother who will benefit from this. And really it's not going to cost my wife and I any more $$$.

I think he showed great leadership with the killing Obama.

And he made the right choice to help out GM.

NOW...I am not happy about the housing market under his watch. There are so many people losing their homes and the banks are taking advantage of all of them. He has done little to help this problem.

I am also not happy that he continued the Bush tax cuts...WHY????


All that said.....still leaning towards Obama.

And I disagree with Kobe 4 the win...I think Romney has a chance.

Yeah, especially when the government bought 79% more vehicles from GM. Anything to make it look like the bailout was a success.

[JtotheIzzo]

Romney is the worst choice possible for the Republicans. He has so much shit in his past and new stories will surface weekly up to the election.

This will be the biggest since Bush/Dukakis.

Obama is ripe to be plucked as well, he hasn't done a good job, Obamacare is flawed by compromise and his record is easy to take shots at. If the Republicans are incapable of pouncing on this opportunity then they really are on the way out and they will be broken up into factions, or perhaps the solid numbers Obama can keep, even in the midst of poor performance, have any real challenger scared to lose.

Obama in a landslide. Easiest bet of the year.

[KevinNYC]

How do you define landslide?

[Scholar]

I don't even think I'll bother to vote, to be honest. It'll just be a waste of my gas. My vote won't mean shit, just like the entire state of Florida's in the 2000 elections.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Republicans have nobody that appeals to the people. I still remember when they were trying to sell this guy to the American people...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmNM0oj79t8


You know whats interestin, mate? People say they want compromise in Washington, yeah? But the last two republican candidates were moderate chaps and the half that supports democrats still trashed them and voted for a far-left bloke. Some compromise.

[JaggerCommaMick]

How do you define landslide?


Obama will certainy win, and Im on record supportin his election over in the States, but the people and policies he represents are the ones that will avoid the immediate pain of necessary cuts and instead borrow and tax your country into becoming the next Greece, Spain, Italy and so forth. Obama is the president who gives an ignorant populace everything they want. Like a parent who always acquieces to the child, then the child learns no lessons and is dysfunctional as an adult. But enjoy the free candy Obama is passing out today. Ill probably be gone when it catches up to you but I can bet a pretty pence it wont be pretty.

[L.Kizzle]

i can't even believe this is a race lol. romney? seriously?
The race is race.

[Droid101]

I'm shocked that these are the two stiffs we have to choose from. I don't like either. I'm voting for Romney. He's our only hope for reigning in spending. 4 more years of Obama is going a death sentence for the USA.

For the record Obama is going to win in a landslide.
You're an idiot. He's not going to reign in anything.

He'll reign in welfare spending and increase military spending and corporate/rich person tax cuts.

[JaggerCommaMick]

You're an idiot. He's not going to reign in anything.

He'll reign in welfare spending and increase military spending and corporate/rich person tax cuts.

Would you rather corporations and rich people leave, mate? How would you afford your welfare lromises and free health care for all those bloody fatarses in your country?

[Patrick Chewing]

Anyone who thinks billionaire Governor Mitt Romney is an idiot, is well......an idiot.

[General]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Electoral Map according to polls. Once again Ohio and Florida very important. I think it will be a close race.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Anyone who thinks billionaire Governor Mitt Romney is an idiot, is well......an idiot.

Right? I mean when was the last time someone rich was stupid? Or unreliable?

[KevinNYC]

Obama will certainy win, and Im on record supportin his election over in the States, but the people and policies he represents are the ones that will avoid the immediate pain of necessary cuts and instead borrow and tax your country into becoming the next Greece, Spain, Italy and so forth. Obama is the president who gives an ignorant populace everything they want. Like a parent who always acquieces to the child, then the child learns no lessons and is dysfunctional as an adult. But enjoy the free candy Obama is passing out today. Ill probably be gone when it catches up to you but I can bet a pretty pence it wont be pretty.

Would you rather corporations and rich people leave, mate? How would you afford your welfare lromises and free health care for all those bloody fatarses in your country?

If you're going to do a gimmick account that sounds British, it should sound like someone who has lived in Britain.

[JaggerCommaMick]

If you're going to do a gimmick account that sounds British, it should sound like someone who has lived in Britain.


Dont know what your nickers are twisted about mate. If I had said Obama rules, Romney drools, would you have been just as cross with me, i doubt it. Nice to see your country is still as classy as ever. You must be one of the dreamers the president and his party has under his thumb. Lucky for them you'll probably never wake up.

Dont rightly know what you mean about an english gimmick. Although your ignorance gimmick is right on the money, mate! Bully for you!

[JaggerCommaMick]

Whichever one wants to give me more money will have my vote.


Thats Obama. In fact you echoed his party line perfect!

[KevinNYC]

Dont know what your nickers are twisted about mate. If I had said Obama rules, Romney drools, would you have been just as cross with me, i doubt it. Nice to see your country is still as classy as ever. You must be one of the dreamers the president and his party has under his thumb. Lucky for them you'll probably never wake up.

Dont rightly know what you mean about an english gimmick. Although your ignorance gimmick is right on the money, mate! Bully for you!

Perhaps someone who is (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/01/uk-manufacturing-figures-blow-to-recovery) aware of the recent performance (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/uk-britain-economy-oecd-idUKBRE86U0G320120801) of the British economy. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9425611/UK-economy-contracts-by-a-shock-0.7pc.html)

[JaggerCommaMick]

Perhaps someone who is (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/01/uk-manufacturing-figures-blow-to-recovery) aware of the recent performance (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/uk-britain-economy-oecd-idUKBRE86U0G320120801) of the British economy. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9425611/UK-economy-contracts-by-a-shock-0.7pc.html)

Mate could you edify me how the state of the British economy pertains to anything I've said or any bloke has said in this whole bloody topic? You've posted in here a couple Barack bumper sticker sloganisms followed by a couple non sequiters toward me, are you feelin ok mate?

[Scholar]

I've got my fingers crossed for 43 straight white guys again.

This post can easily be taken out of context.

[JaggerCommaMick]

This post can easily be taken out of context.


True indeed mate, its a racist comment. Its as racist as saying a hispanic is more qualified for the supreme court than a white man. Which is indeed what the broad on the SC bench said and nobody seemed to mind.

Its ok for minorities to be racist, just not white people. True equality, eh mate?

[Dictator]

Romney is an idiot.

[Draz]

Obama got this. Romney looks like the biggest snake of a guy possible to run for President.

[DirtySanchez]

Right now the polls are pretty much even

[Lakers Legend#32]

We have had rich presidents before and no one really cared. The problem with Romney is he is such a douche about his money.
I'm voting for Obama because I love America.

[gigantes]

i'm not a huge fan of obama, but the prospect of mitt romney as president is pretty much like stuffing your head down a loaded toilet bowl for four years.

unless you're rich, of course. then it would probably be fun times watching everyone around you suffer while you bullshit yourself about how great america is.

unfortunately, probably 35+% or so of american voters are ignorant religious rednecks who hate obama with a fury even as they don't have the slightest clue who he really is or what he wants to accomplish. so that all has to balanced out before you can even begin to have a legit voting process.

[bluechox2]

romney has looked like the 2nd coming of george bush jr

[JaggerCommaMick]

i'm not a huge fan of obama, but the prospect of mitt romney as president is pretty much like stuffing your head down a loaded toilet bowl for four years.

unless you're rich, of course. then it would probably be fun times watching everyone around you suffer while you bullshit yourself about how great america is.
.

Mate can you support this with any type of reasoning? Lets compare these two with a clean slate, yeah? Forget about party labels or who your favorites in Hollywood (like me) and the media pressure you to parrot for.

Explain the fundamntal differences between these two chaps if you'd be so kind. And please don't let's use the ol' 'Romney just wants the rich to get richer' and other tired and vague parrot points. Lets have you explain it with how you see them shaping policies.

Thanks chap.

[boozehound]

You know whats interestin, mate? People say they want compromise in Washington, yeah? But the last two republican candidates were moderate chaps and the half that supports democrats still trashed them and voted for a far-left bloke. Some compromise.
obama is nowhere near a far left candidate. If you put his policies into a spectrum, he basically comes out as a moderate republican prior to the newt era. McCain was not/is not an unreasonable person. he flubbed his VP nomination though. As for the other candidate, you cant possibly be talking about bush jr as a moderate? Dude has quotes about jesus telling him to go to war in the middle east.

[Dasher]

I am going to the polls in November to vote for local election issues. I live in Alabama now. My vote in the presidential election will only be ceremonial because of the disenfranchising Electoral College system.

I am mostly anti-Romney because of foreign policy concerns. Obama doesn't have a perfect foreign policy record, The State Departments actions in Rwanda/Congo, Bahrain, South Sudan, and Libya leave a lot to be desired, but I feel as if he will be better than Mitt. Mitt completely shitting on that Palestinian American Republican during the Florida debate is seared in my mind. I don't want to have another administration that has America too involved in what is happening in The West Bank.

As far as domestic concerns, I don't know how to really rate Obama. The State Insurance markets haven't been rolled out yet, so I have to give him an INC.

[JaggerCommaMick]

obama is nowhere near a far left candidate. If you put his policies into a spectrum, he basically comes out as a moderate republican prior to the newt era. McCain was not/is not an unreasonable person. he flubbed his VP nomination though. As for the other candidate, you cant possibly be talking about bush jr as a moderate? Dude has quotes about jesus telling him to go to war in the middle east.



Quite right, I was referring to McCain and this years presumptive nominee, Romney. Romney's track record is clearly social moderate. He believes healthcare is a state issue and his own governed state had it as a program I believe. Until he began a presidential run he has all but said he don't give a flyin flapjack about abortion. And whether or not he cares bout gay marriage hes never been vocal against t till his campaign. But Obama was always against until this campaign when he supports it suddenly bc he needs them at the polls.

With a race around the corner mate, everything theyll say now is party politics, for both blokes. Romney has a bloody fantastic track record in business which could help provide some clear vision for economic improvement. Hes also a social moderate, and was the governer of Massachussets! For the chaps who say 'Well Obama hasnt done a real good job but Hes way etter than Romney' I simply ask how, mates. Why is Obama so much better than economically seinsible, social moderate candidates like Mccain and Romney? Evangelicals hate thise two guys but u know what mate? The far left are the equivalent of evangelicals on the other bloody side! And they cant see the forest for the trees. How many of those chaps have we got on this here board! I wager quite a few.

and has also served as governer. He

[rufuspaul]

When Mitt was campaigning in 2008 and spouting right-wing jargon I initially thought: How did this guy get elected governor of Massachusetts (one of the most liberal states in the union)? But after hearing him go back and forth on the issues this year it's become clear that he panders to whatever group he thinks will give him an edge. He's plastic man trying to be everything to everyone and thus ending up not really pleasing anyone. Every politician does this to a degree but I don't remember such a glaring example in recent history.

Not disclosing his tax returns is troubling too, especially considering that his father was very forthcoming with his when he was governor of Michigan. I don't care how much $ he made or how he avoided paying taxes. It's the refusal to even put it out there that bothers me.

[boozehound]

When Mitt was campaigning in 2008 and spouting right-wing jargon I initially thought: How did this guy get elected governor of Massachusetts (one of the most liberal states in the union)? But after hearing him go back and forth on the issues this year it's become clear that he panders to whatever group he thinks will give him an edge. He's plastic man trying to be everything to everyone and thus ending up not really pleasing anyone. Every politician does this to a degree but I don't remember such a glaring example in recent history.

Not disclosing his tax returns is troubling too, especially considering that his father was very forthcoming with his when he was governor of Michigan. I don't care how much $ he made or how he avoided paying taxes. It's the refusal to even put it out there that bothers me.
I think george will was on to something when he said that romney not releasing them despite the high political cost means he calculates that the cost will be even higher if he does release them.

[KevinNYC]

Mate could you edify me how the state of the British economy pertains to anything I've said

You're advocating that Obama should have drastically cut spending during a near depression followed by a weak recover. Essentially you're arguing for the austerity path that Great Britain followed. GB did that their economy has contracted which means less employment and means that the hole they are trying to dig out of gets deeper. There's been no new permanent spending in the US under Obama, the deficits are entirely based on the near depression that started in 2008. Government revenues are down due to high unemployment and efforts to keep people out of poverty--unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc. Without those efforts, the economy would be even worse.

With federal tax rates the lowest in decades, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-2009-americans-paid-lowest-tax-rates-in-30-years-to-federal-government/2012/07/10/gJQAWc5bbW_story.html) you'd have to be a Fox-Watching Idiot and not a Faux-British-Rocker to think Taxes have gone up under Obama.

[QUOTE]During Obama

[Jailblazers7]

I'd have a lot more respect for Romney if he had defended himself when people attacked his record at Bain because of outsourcing.

[Ne 1]

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I refuse to choose between the lesser of two evils Obamney.

Johnson needs to poll at 15% to get in the debates.

As president he will:

-Cut spending by 43% and balance the budget
-End the war in Afghanistan and contracters in Iraq
-End many foreign military bases around the world
-Legalize marijuana, decriminalize other drugs
-Full audit and transparency of the federal reserve, get them out of the business of printing money, establish clear congressional oversight
-Block grant Medicare and Medicaid funds to the states, allowing them to innovate, find efficiencies and provide better service at lower cost
-Repeal Obamacare, as well as the failed Medicare prescription drug benefit
-Reject auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, corporate welfare, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interests rather than benefiting consumers or the economy
-Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie
-Repeal PATRIOT ACT and NDAA
-Legalize competing currency
-Abolish income tax and corporate tax, replace it with a fair tax with a 'prebate' to make spending on basic necessities tax free, creating millions of jobs overnight

As governor he:

-Was reelected and term limited
-Left office with very high approval ratings
-Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget
-Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined
-Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them

He is also:

-Pro gay marriage
-Pro choice, but signed a bill banning late term abortions and is against using taxpayer funds for abortions
-Anti torture
-Strongly opposed to any goverment control or regulation of the internet

[boozehound]

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I refuse to choose between the lesser of two evils Obamney.

Johnson needs to poll at 15% to get in the debates.

As president he will:

-Cut spending by 43% and balance the budget
-End the war in Afghanistan and contracters in Iraq
-End many foreign military bases around the world
-Legalize marijuana, decriminalize other drugs
-Full audit and transparency of the federal reserve, get them out of the business of printing money, establish clear congressional oversight
-Block grant Medicare and Medicaid funds to the states, allowing them to innovate, find efficiencies and provide better service at lower cost
-Repeal Obamacare, as well as the failed Medicare prescription drug benefit
-Reject auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, corporate welfare, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interests rather than benefiting consumers or the economy
-Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie
-Repeal PATRIOT ACT and NDAA
-Legalize competing currency
-Abolish income tax and corporate tax, replace it with a fair tax with a 'prebate' to make spending on basic necessities tax free, creating millions of jobs overnight

As governor he:

-Was reelected and term limited
-Left office with very high approval ratings
-Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget
-Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined
-Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them

He is also:

-Pro gay marriage
-Pro choice, but signed a bill banning late term abortions and is against using taxpayer funds for abortions
-Anti torture
-Strongly opposed to any goverment control or regulation of the internet
always funny to see a libertarian from New Mexico, which receives the highest amount of federal $ for each tax $ paid by residents of the state (over 2 to 1). No wonder he could balance the budget.

[Raz]

i can't even believe this is a race lol. romney? seriously?

President Romney just doesn't sound right.

[JaggerCommaMick]

When Mitt was campaigning in 2008 and spouting right-wing jargon I initially thought: How did this guy get elected governor of Massachusetts (one of the most liberal states in the union)? But after hearing him go back and forth on the issues this year it's become clear that he panders to whatever group he thinks will give him an edge. He's plastic man trying to be everything to everyone and thus ending up not really pleasing anyone. Every politician does this to a degree but I don't remember such a glaring example in recent history.

Not disclosing his tax returns is troubling too, especially considering that his father was very forthcoming with his when he was governor of Michigan. I don't care how much $ he made or how he avoided paying taxes. It's the refusal to even put it out there that bothers me.


Readily concurred on the first paragraph mate. For all his brilliance as an achiever, Romney is a very tumultuous, gaffe-a-minute communicator. Indeed like George Walker Bush, but without the "For all his brilliance as an achiever". He does indeed come off as two-faced opportunist as well. He is certainly not my ideal candidate nor most people's. Still, methinks it's only because he is ambitious to make it to the top of his pursuits. He's been the consummately successful businessman without any legitimate scandals or questions of legality surrounding him, at least thus far. In his younger days he did mission work over seas I believe. He saved a foundering Olympics as we all know. I think he is driven and passionate to make a difference and leave a legacy, it just seems that he is hard pressed to affect a 'common man' demeanor when it simply is not his natural person.

The tax returns don't bother me. I don't suspect he's hiding them due to anything scandalous, but rather to provide less ammo for those who want to somehow use his wealth as a negative indicator of his capacity as president.

It's just ludicrous though when all these Yanks act like the man is some ghastly alternative to President Obama. All the anti-war cries I heard during the previous administration seemed to evaporate when Mr. Obama came in, despite his merely transferring troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. The economy is still under performing, which the previous president took heat for, but not Mr. Obama. Indeed it was not until things became political in a heated election that Mr. Obama decided to support gay rights.

I've played a lot of shows mate, in front of a lot of audience. I can tell you most people are parrots. The blokes on this site who are like "Obama all the way, Romney is terrible!" are your typical parrots. Young and full of angst at the system. They are trained Republican haters. If Mr. Obama had run for President as a Republican four years ago they'd have tuned him out and hated him for being Republican. Even if what he said were a list of democratic talking points, they wouldn't have even given him a bloody chance. You can tell from the responses like 'gigantes' that people here aren't doing their homework, aren't thinkin about both sides, and are trained parrots takin up sides like a couple rival blokes at a football match.

[Wambo]

Both of these men are complete hypocrites and liars, not to mention Obama is a war criminal. Americans got screwed over once again :rolleyes:

[JaggerCommaMick]

You're advocating that Obama should have drastically cut spending during a near depression followed by a weak recover. Essentially you're arguing for the austerity path that Great Britain followed. GB did that their economy has contracted which means less employment and means that the hole they are trying to dig out of gets deeper. There's been no new permanent spending in the US under Obama, the deficits are entirely based on the near depression that started in 2008. Government revenues are down due to high unemployment and efforts to keep people out of poverty--unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc. Without those efforts, the economy would be even worse.


Mate if you cut spending of course things will be tougher in the short term. That's the point. You have to have priorities and make difficult decisions, that's what balancing a budget means. Because you're not relying on money you may not have tomorrow to pay yourself today. That's how you avoid debt. You take your lumps and then pick yourself up by your boot straps. Us Brits may be down now, but we're not out, and we're doing this the man's way.

Maybe the man's way doesn't appeal to you. Maybe you're just a nester who wants to run around playing nurse and taking care of everyone. Hey mate, maybe that's in your genes. Maybe your hormones are different from other men. But you can't put an entire country's future at risk with unstable propositions like keeping bad jobs afloat, just to say 'people still have jobs' mate. You're afraid to have to see people downtrodden and need to fight their way back up, even if it means making some changes to their own personal values and lifestyles. In Orwellian doublespeak terms, you are a bloody manwoman.


With federal tax rates the lowest in decades, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-2009-americans-paid-lowest-tax-rates-in-30-years-to-federal-government/2012/07/10/gJQAWc5bbW_story.html) you'd have to be a Fox-Watching Idiot and not a Faux-British-Rocker to think Taxes have gone up under Obama.



30% of the cost of the stimulus was tax cuts.

Mate, of course federal tax rates are low right now, because of the Bush era cuts. Hey mate, did you notice how Obama support extending them a few years back with the reasoning "We cant raise taxes in this economy right now." But now that we're in a political season, and his retarded bloody constituents like yourself think taxing the rich higher and higher is always the right, smart, moral, economically genius thing to do, he is playing it like "the rich need to pay more". In the middle of his term during a recession, he supported the Bush tax cuts on economic grounds. With an election three bloody months away and a populace full of dummies like you, he's done a 180 and hates the Bush tax cuts.

Congrats to you mate, you're a wonderful Yank full of fortitude, boldness, strength, vision, principle, and shrewdness.


Oh pardon me, my mistake, you've got none of those.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Hey KevinNYC, if I sign up for a credit card, and buy a whole bunch of widgets on credit for $100, then go and sell them for $50 cash, I'm really rakin it in, aren't I? What a magnificent idear! I'm not really actually payin for them when I run that plastic card, but when I sell them I get $50 bucks cash a piece!

Great economic model isn't it, mate? That's what you want for America so you can put $50 bucks cash in every man's pocket, regardless of how much money he's bloody earning or what his job is worth. You idealist hippy mate didn't I once smoke a doob with you backstage at one of my shows!

Let the market determine if a man's bloody job is still in demand and let him deal with the ramifications of it suddenly is not. Provide a short term safety net (in many states unemployment assistance lasts FOUR BLOODY YEARS! Did you know that?) and then say it's on you mate.

You're a bloody pie-in-the-sky dreamer who wants to play nurse and run to everyone's bed side strokin their hair and rubbin their bloody groin. What's worse is that you want the government to do the same. Crikey! What happens when the approach you endorse turns America into Greece? Millions of retirees entitled to social security and medicaid from an economy that can't produce it? For god's sake man, you are afraid of that big beast called reailty. You can't close your eyes forever mate. Sometimes things are going to have to be tough and some people might get swept away to sea if they don't take their own proper precautions. You are nurse betty, mate.

[Droid101]

Both of these men are complete hypocrites and liars, not to mention Obama is a war criminal. Americans got screwed over once again :rolleyes:
This is what Republicans actually believe.
:facepalm

[JaggerCommaMick]

This is what Republicans actually believe.
:facepalm


Droid101 is clearly the base of America, one of these idiots that gets caught up in the hatfield-vs-mccoy feud of republicans and democrats.

This bloke right here has demonstrated no knowledge of anything political whatsoever, but he's the typical sort of barking dog that think he'll get a head-pat of approval from his democratic compatriots like KevinNYC if he spews enough nonsense about the other 'team'.

Droid101, dumb as a brick, trying to prove his allegience to his party by being a vocal buffoon. This is what most people are on both sides. Insecure and ignorant, looking for approval by doing what they think they're supposed to be doing, fighting. It's sort of like a real war. Only a handful of guys are in the room making decisions, employing tactics, and negotiating with the other side. The rest are just on the frontline shooting weapons, without a clue as to why. Droid101, your classic frontliner. Cheers mate.

[boozehound]

Droid101 is clearly the base of America, one of these idiots that gets caught up in the hatfield-vs-mccoy feud of republicans and democrats.

This bloke right here has demonstrated no knowledge of anything political whatsoever, but he's the typical sort of barking dog that think he'll get a head-pat of approval from his democratic compatriots like KevinNYC if he spews enough nonsense about the other 'team'.

Droid101, dumb as a brick, trying to prove his allegience to his party by being a vocal buffoon. This is what most people are on both sides. Insecure and ignorant, looking for approval by doing what they think they're supposed to be doing, fighting. It's sort of like a real war. Only a handful of guys are in the room making decisions, employing tactics, and negotiating with the other side. The rest are just on the frontline shooting weapons, without a clue as to why. Droid101, your classic frontliner. Cheers mate.
boy, I wonder what poster this could be

[JaggerCommaMick]

boy, I wonder what poster this could be


http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/2bcc/1343338138-mick_jagger-1.jpg


God save the queen, mate.



http://leaveyourdailyhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/British-Flag.jpeg

[Sarcastic]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532260_373925699341787_1944288480_n.jpg

[KevinNYC]

Hey KevinNYC, if I sign up for a credit card, and buy a whole bunch of widgets on credit for $100, then go and sell them for $50 cash, I'm really rakin it in, aren't I? What a magnificent idear! I'm not really actually payin for them when I run that plastic card, but when I sell them I get $50 bucks cash a piece!

Just admit you don't understand macroeconomics and leave it at that. It would be easier.

[DukeDelonte13]

Mate can you support this with any type of reasoning? Lets compare these two with a clean slate, yeah? Forget about party labels or who your favorites in Hollywood (like me) and the media pressure you to parrot for.

Explain the fundamntal differences between these two chaps if you'd be so kind. And please don't let's use the ol' 'Romney just wants the rich to get richer' and other tired and vague parrot points. Lets have you explain it with how you see them shaping policies.

Thanks chap.


Romney --> supports deregulation and federal handouts (e.g. tax deductions and credits) to the wealthiest tax bracket and corporations. Wants to repeal the affordable healthcare act.


Why would you even consider voting for somebody who supports the same type of polices that led to the great depression, and the recent recession?

Why would you support an advocate of the "trickle down" theory when it has never worked in the history of modern civilization?

Why would you support somebody that wants to repeal Obamacare? Do you how much damn money that sh*t has save me and millions of other americans? or do you think insurance companies would be allowed to pull the plug on your healthcare whenever they want for whatever they want?

F*ck that.

[Nanners]

Since Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have no chance, I honestly I think I would prefer Romney to Obama.


The problem with Obama is that he puts all the wannabe progressives to sleep, because they think he is looking out for their interests. When George Bush passed the patriot act, all my liberal friends were outraged. When Obama passed NDAA, which is scarier than the Patriot act imo, none of them batted an eye.

Its like how Nixon is the greatest environmental president of all time. It wasnt because nixon was an environmentalist, it was because Nixon was under immense scrutiny from the progressives/left, and they scared him so badly that he had to do something to appease them. If George W Bush had been assassinating pakistanis with predator drones, the liberal establishment would have gone nuts like they did when the Patriot act was passed. The same liberals dont give a shit about Obamas drone campaign. Remember when Obama promised to close down guantanamo? It has not been shut down, this year they asked for half a billion dollars to renovate the place. Obama is a constitutional law expert, as president he has shit all over the constitution more than any other president I can remember.

In a nutshell, I dont want Obama to be president again, because he makes all the (fake) liberals become blind and complacent.

[KevinNYC]

When Obama passed NDAA, which is scarier than the Patriot act imo, none of them batted an eye.[/B]

Please explain the main purpose of the NDAA and what would have happened if Obama vetoed it. (Congress passes laws by the way, not the president.)

[Nanners]

Please explain the main purpose of the NDAA and what would have happened if Obama vetoed it. (Congress passes laws by the way, not the president.)

i dont know the main purpose, it appears that the purpose is to waste more money on "defense" while stripping away the civil liberties of americans at the same time.

NDAA was passed under obama and signed into law by him, just like the patriot act was passed under bush and signed into law by bush. dont get nit picky with grammar, you obviously know what i mean.

[Godzuki]

i dont know the main purpose, it appears that the purpose is to waste more money on "defense" while stripping away the civil liberties of americans at the same time.

NDAA was passed under obama and signed into law by him, just like the patriot act was passed under bush and signed into law by bush. dont get nit picky with grammar, you obviously know what i mean.


i don't see how you can call defense from terrorist attacks wasted money. i've always been sort of in the middle in regards to that whole issue since in order to catch terrorist acts before they happen they have to do things like wire tap and invade peoples privacies to some degree. i mean society can't put this expectation on our law enforcement to prevent those occurrences without giving them the tools to keep people safe, but too many people want/expect to have it both ways. in fact i think how they have caught some of the threats we've had is pretty amazing or lucky, more so that we haven't had another 9/11 with how many people out there hate us, and seem to be trying.

don't get me wrong i think some things go too far, but i think if people want to be safe and expect law enforcement to catch terrorists before they act, they can't expect them to do it without some invasions of privacy.

[rufuspaul]

If George W Bush had been assassinating pakistanis with predator drones, the liberal establishment would have gone nuts [/B]


This is true. All my liberal friends were gung ho on charging Bush/Cheney with war crimes but I haven't heard a peep out of any of them about the drone stikes, which kill a number of civilians btw.

[Nanners]

i don't see how you can call defense from terrorist attacks wasted money. i've always been sort of in the middle in regards to that whole issue since in order to catch terrorist acts before they happen they have to do things like wire tap and invade peoples privacies to some degree. i mean society can't put this expectation on our law enforcement to prevent those occurrences without giving them the tools to keep people safe, but too many people want/expect to have it both ways. in fact i think how they have caught some of the threats we've had is pretty amazing or lucky, more so that we haven't had another 9/11 with how many people out there hate us, and seem to be trying.

don't get me wrong i think some things go too far, but i think if people want to be safe and expect law enforcement to catch terrorists before they act, they can't expect them to do it without some invasions of privacy.

I disagree with basically everything you have written here. I disagree that NDAA does anything significant to protect us from terrorists, I disagree that we should give up our privacy and other rights to protect ourselves from terrorism, and especially I disagree that we have been "lucky" that we caught some threats.

[Godzuki]

This is true. All my liberal friends were gung ho on charging Bush/Cheney with war crimes but I haven't heard a peep out of any of them about the drone stikes, which kill a number of civilians btw.


how are those remotely the same? how are innocent casualties during times of war which happen everywhere similar at all to invading a country on a false premise, or illegally torturing enemy soldiers? :wtf:

[Godzuki]

I disagree with basically everything you have written here. I disagree that NDAA does anything significant to protect us from terrorists, I disagree that we should give up our privacy and other rights to protect ourselves from terrorism, and especially I disagree that we have been "lucky" that we caught some threats.


i'd love to see you with the responsibility or expectation to pre-crime without the leeway to do anything that isn't plain site visible....

[rufuspaul]

how are those remotely the same? how are innocent casualties during times of war which happen everywhere similar at all to invading a country on a false premise, or illegally torturing enemy soldiers? :wtf:


It's the hypocrisy of getting elected as a peace maker (and laughably winning the Nobel friggin prize) and then escalating a clandestine war.

[KevinNYC]

i dont know the main purpose, it appears that the purpose is to waste more money on "defense" while stripping away the civil liberties of americans at the same time.

NDAA was passed under obama and signed into law by him, just like the patriot act was passed under bush and signed into law by bush. dont get nit picky with grammar, you obviously know what i mean.

It's not a grammar nitpick at all. You don't understand that the National Defense Authorization Act is a yearly bill. Yes, it was passed under Obama, just like it was passed every year under Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, etc.

It's been called that since at least 1987 (http://openlibrary.org/books/OL14277065M/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _1987). It basically sets the Defense Budget for the year. That's the main purpose. Some shady shit that is probably unconstitutional got slipped in by some Republicans in Congress knowing that if Obama vetoed it, it could cause giant problems if it didn't get passed in time. Can you imagine our soldiers not getting paid for a couple of weeks and how much shit that would cause?

There were several posts on insidehoops about this and the signing statements that Obama put out when he signed the law idicated he did not support several parts of it.

[KevinNYC]

Here's a post of mine from May
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263810

Recently there was a debate on here about the loss of freedom that ocurred when Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act.

My take on it was the entire bill needed to be passed even if Congressional Republicans stuffed some unconstitutional bullshit into it. My reasoning was
A. The bill as a whole is how our military is funded and it would have been a BFD if we didn't have one signed in time.
B. The clause that folks objected to was so clearly unconstitutional that it would never stand up in court.

Well a Federal Judge (appointed by Obama) has just knocked part of that down.

Quote:
A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a part of the National Defense Authorization Act that opponents claim could subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan today ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.
The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

I believe this ruling doesn't necessary invalidate all the noxious parts of the NDAA though. The lawsuit was not about the NDAA in general, but a specific part.

Here's the thread I reference from January
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=245952&page=3

and my comment on the Obama signing statements
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6690340&postcount=35

[Godzuki]

It's the hypocrisy of getting elected as a peace maker (and laughably winning the Nobel friggin prize) and then escalating a clandestine war.


its not that black and white. there are military advisors who every President listens to and makes the best judgements from their advice, change in circumstances like the Taliban's regrowth and taking Afghanistan back over, or the rise in terrorist groups in Iraq where we sent a lot more troops over to push them back which worked. he made the right call listening to that General even if it was unpopular to his party, and the platform he ran on. if anything i give Obama credit for breaking from his party's pushes and what he said he would do while running for Prez since that had to have been a very difficult decision to send more troops in knowing his constituents were going to be pissed. then theres the politics of Obama trying to get his agenda's through the senate and congress where he's been opposed at every turn.

but thats why i hate these threads because its so convoluted between the changes in circumstances or the politics of these issues where people want to break it down into black and white, and then put it all on Obama when he's trying...

[rufuspaul]

its not that black and white.



No it's not black and white but Nanner's point is that it is in the minds of the left. Bush=bad, Obama=good. You don't ever question what Obama is doing. It's gotta be good because he's Obama.

[Nanners]

It's not a grammar nitpick at all. You don't understand that the National Defense Authorization Act is a yearly bill. Yes, it was passed under Obama, just like it was passed every year under Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, etc.

It's been called that since at least 1987 (http://openlibrary.org/books/OL14277065M/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _1987). It basically sets the Defense Budget for the year. That's the main purpose. Some shady shit that is probably unconstitutional got slipped in by some Republicans in Congress knowing that if Obama vetoed it, it could cause giant problems if it didn't get passed in time. Can you imagine our soldiers not getting paid for a couple of weeks and how much shit that would cause?

There were several posts on insidehoops about this and the signing statements that Obama put out when he signed the law idicated he did not support several parts of it.

The one in 1987 was a little different, for one thing it did not allow the government to indefinitely detain american citizens without the right to a trial. But yeah, some shit that is unconstitutional got slipped in by some shady republicans. Democrats are the good guys, republicans are the bad guys.

You are exactly the type of person I was talking about when I mentioned fake liberals in my first post: the guy who was screaming bloody murder when Bush dropped bombs in the middle east, but has no problems when Obama does the same thing. you are just a fake liberal sheep wearing blue tinted glasses.

[Godzuki]

No it's not black and white but Nanner's point is that it is in the minds of the left. Bush=bad, Obama=good. You don't ever question what Obama is doing. It's gotta be good because he's Obama.


the things the Bush Administration did were extremely arrogant in so many ways, and things weren't nearly as open to debate because they acted so close minded to any other viewpoints other than their own. they weren't even honest with the american people blatantly lying that they don't torture, and then when called out on waterboarding they tried to act like that wasn't torture to weasel their way out from blatantly lying to the country. i think its very flawed to try and parallel the two administrations since i'm 100% sure the parallels are extremely off, altho its very difficult to put into words how much worse they were in every respect than Obama's. lets just say when people try and pretend they're the same when Bush brought us into war and Obama for not having taken us out yet, its some of the most ridiculous logic i consistently read from people who want to blame Obama for something. if anything i think there are people who just really want to attack Obama for whatever they can think up, where as Bush earned those criticisms much more.

i'll just say i strongly disagree with the idea we all just love Obama and unfairly judge Bush. i think right sided people have been trying to reinvent just how bad the Bush Administration was since it ended, and its just not going to work on me. i KNOW they were awful in so many aspects, that its a travesty people look back on it now like it wasn't so bad, or remotely similar to Obama :facepalm

[boozehound]

No it's not black and white but Nanner's point is that it is in the minds of the left. Bush=bad, Obama=good. You don't ever question what Obama is doing. It's gotta be good because he's Obama.
not sure where you live (ok, I know where you live) but most progressive I know are pissed off at obama for a huge list of things he has done (and things he hasnt done). Most of the people I know who were active in his campaign (canvassing, driving voters to polls, etc.) arent even sure if they will vote for him again. He has definitely pissed off the left. Maybe that isnt reflected in mainstream media, but listen to democracy now or other progressive media and they are not at all happy with him

[kentatm]

not sure where you live (ok, I know where you live) but most progressive I know are pissed off at obama for a huge list of things he has done (and things he hasnt done). Most of the people I know who were active in his campaign (canvassing, driving voters to polls, etc.) arent even sure if they will vote for him again. He has definitely pissed off the left. Maybe that isnt reflected in mainstream media, but listen to democracy now or other progressive media and they are not at all happy with him


yea but he's better than Mitt when it comes to what they want.

[rufuspaul]

yea but he's better than Mitt when it comes to what they want.


Sadly he's better than Mitt for just about everything. I honestly don't think the Republicans will have a viable candidate until they get their heads out of the Bible and find their version of Bill Clinton.

[kentatm]

Sadly he's better than Mitt for just about everything. I honestly don't think the Republicans will have a viable candidate until they get their heads out of the Bible and find their version of Bill Clinton.


won't happen until they realize that Obama is really more of a centrist than anything.

as long as they continue to spew garbage calling him the most liberal and leftist ever they will never get their heads out.

friggin Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan wouldn't even be Republicans these days. Hell, Bush 41 would even have trouble getting elected.

[KevinNYC]

You are exactly the type of person I was talking about when I mentioned fake liberals in my first post: the guy who was screaming bloody murder when Bush dropped bombs in the middle east, but has no problems when Obama does the same thing. you are just a fake liberal sheep wearing blue tinted glasses.

Um no,

For one I'm not a one-issue voter. You need over 60 million votes to become the president. Expecting to find someone who

A. who will gain the vote of 60 million people
B. agree with me on every single position.

is just narcissism. It's a misreading of what politics is. It's the same narcissistic urge to a purist that drove the Nader voters in 2000. Instead of helping elect someone they agreed with 75% of the issues, they helped elect someone with whom they almost never agreed.

I value avoid the real world consequences of a bad election over the boost to my self-esteem by remaining pure of heart.

Also if you don't see the difference between Bush's full scale invasion of a country on premises that turned out to be false and Obama's much, much lower scale targeted attacks against a specific group, even with all the issues drone attacks raise..well, we are going to be talking past each other.

If I was to make a list of the things I was disappointed in Obama in, the NDAA wouldn't even be on it. Call me back when A. this provision is ever acted on. B. the courts uphold the action.

Also I'm a liberal in the tradition of General Marshall and George Kennan and don't have illusion about the US needed to exercise its power. I take issue when it does so stupidly.

[KevinNYC]

The Washington Post has a tool (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/) that lets you see where the candidates and the outside groups are spending their advertising money to determine where the professionals feel the election is going to be fought. A Democratic blog looked this data and noticed that the Republicans have given up on PA, they haven't spend money there in over 5 weeks and they conclude



Rather than expand, the battleground map has actually tightened. Based on where the campaigns are spending their ad dollars, the entire campaign is now Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

If that's truly the case, then Romney is in serious trouble. Add up the EVs of all the states out of play, and Obama leads 247 to 191. And given that Obama currently leads in all the remaining states except for North Carolina, Romney's path to 270 is difficult at best.

[JaggerCommaMick]

If I was to make a list of the things I was disappointed in Obama in, the NDAA wouldn't even be on it. Call me back when A. this provision is ever acted on. B. the courts uphold the action.


Mate, in all earnest, could you do this? Just so we have a better idear of exactly where you fall personally on various political issues?

Because to everyone on the outside looking in you do appear to be the president's personal shoulder parrot and a bloke who has decided to be liberal first, then figure out how he can skew the reality of every issues toward his preconceived allegiances.

If you wouldn't mind, maybe you could just tell us where you and the president have differed. Or on which issues you are not a far-left extremist.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Sadly he's better than Mitt for just about everything. I honestly don't think the Republicans will have a viable candidate until they get their heads out of the Bible and find their version of Bill Clinton.

Mate, Mitt Romney is a good candidate for president based on credentials. His credentials far exceed Barack Obama's when he first ran. Now don't get me wrong, I am a public figure and therefore support the president because he's a democrat and minority, and this will make me popular with the young crowd who I still like to shimmy my pelvis for at concerts. So I'm behind Obama 100%. Anyone who wants to feel popular, hip, included, or superior is on the Obamwagon, regardless of how little they understand issues or world affairs. Mick Jagger is no exception. Popularity is more important than principles when you're young and insecure and desperate to feel cool, or an old public figure desperate to remain relevant.

But let's not put down Mitt Romney just to prop up Obama. This is what is so sad, mate. John McCain and Mitt Romney would not have been or would not be any worse as president as Barack. But the Barack supporters are so ardent in their belief that "blue is good, red is bad, no exceptions, no compromises" that no matter who runs against Barack or any democrat, they will act like he's an absolute incompetent, and that Obama is the perfect president in every way. It's like people who don't watch sports for the enjoyment of the athletes abilities, but rather to suckle the nuts of Kobesabi, or lay their coat down in front of every step for Lebron. The blokes on this very bloody site, KevinNYC, gigantes, Miller-Time and others have demonstrated this man.

It's ok to acknowledge pros and cons in both candidates. But only if you're intelligent and reasonable, mate. We've already seen who on this site is not. Romney did 30 months of mission work overseas as a young man. He built numerous organizations up to the sky from the ground. He served as governor in a liberal state and mediated with measure and shrewdness. His personality is a huge turnoff, but is that so important? I think the actual debate about who would be a better president deserves more attention than "psshshhh, Romney? republicans? oh crikey! thats madness, i cant stand mitt romney! i dont know anything! obama all day errrrday mate! im insecure about my acne so i hate republicans because mitt romneys handsomer than i am!"

[KevinNYC]

Mate, in all earnest, could you do this?

Not for a gimmick account.

And for the record, I don't mind arguments against Obama. I just can't stand the bullshit arguments against him that are easily disprovable. Like he's taxing us to death, nonsense like that which is usually just a template of opinions that people formed 10 or more years ago and refuse to change regardless of the actual facts of what is going on in the country.

[Jailblazers7]

I'm leaning towards Obama but there are definitely things that are making it hard to cast a vote this year.

1. I don't have anything against the Affordable Care Act and overall I'm fine with it. However, I do see the argument about it being a state rights issue and would like to see this decision made at the state level. The state provide an opportunity for policy experiment and observation that isn't possible at the federal level. Also, the bill doesn't do much about the real issue of healthcare in the US which is the accelerated rate of cost increases for medical services. The Act is more about making the insurance industry "fair" than it is about controlling the long-term costs of medical services in the US.

2. Mitt's tax plan is worthless imo. The Tax Policy Center just produced a study that shows his plan will essentially increase net taxes for the majority of Americans and decrease net taxes for the wealthiest portion of the population. His plan is to close loopholes and "broaden the tax base". Sounds good in a speech but the broadening the tax base means that just means that taxes on the middle class will increase. Honestly, a flat tax on all income (including investment income) with no loopholes except for low incomes earners would be fine by me. It is pretty much the only objectively fair idea and it avoids the sticky question of "what is a person's fair share?"

3. The budget is taking up a disproportionate amount of the debate in this election. People act like Obama is spending us into an endless pit of misery but that isn't the case. As a matter of fact, government spending has actually decreased in total because of the way state and local governments have become cash strapped since the recession. People love to focus on the federal government but that isn't the only source of government spending. We are never going to pay off our debt with the type of economic growth we are looking at and one way to improve the economic outlook would be debt relief programs (not on student loans tho). Obama and the Treasury just tried to do this by offering a debt relief program for troubled homeowners that would give the FHFA $0.63 for ever dollar of debt forgiven. The program would 1) improve the financials of the FHFA, 2) reduce the number of defaults, therefore costing the taxpayers less money, and 3) reduce the debt burden on the population and help to quicken the economic recovery. However the Ed DeMarco of the FHFA decided he didn't like the idea and refused even tho it is not his job to make policy decisions. Our debt is not at an unsustainable level yet but it will be if we have a decade with next to no economic growth like Japan's lost decade.

Basically, our political situation is a ****ing mess and I don't know how I feel about anything lol.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Not for a gimmick account. .

You mean not at all because you are 100% in agreement with everything Barack Obama does. And for you, him doing it is wht makes it right, not vice versa. This is what is meant by left wing evangelicals. You are a party extemist mate, the exact type Nanners spoke of. Democrat is your religion and Obama is your god. You dot hold your own opinions nor question your own leader.

In every post you sound as if you are a paid member of his campaign staff. Of course you wont voice any disagreement. You are more loyal to party than coutry and that is sickening. Left wing mercenary. Bloody bugger.

[SourPatchKids]

The Black guy











http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/05/10/96330-herman-cain.jpg

[Nanners]

Um no,

For one I'm not a one-issue voter. You need over 60 million votes to become the president. Expecting to find someone who

A. who will gain the vote of 60 million people
B. agree with me on every single position.

is just narcissism. It's a misreading of what politics is. It's the same narcissistic urge to a purist that drove the Nader voters in 2000. Instead of helping elect someone they agreed with 75% of the issues, they helped elect someone with whom they almost never agreed.

I value avoid the real world consequences of a bad election over the boost to my self-esteem by remaining pure of heart.

Also if you don't see the difference between Bush's full scale invasion of a country on premises that turned out to be false and Obama's much, much lower scale targeted attacks against a specific group, even with all the issues drone attacks raise..well, we are going to be talking past each other.

If I was to make a list of the things I was disappointed in Obama in, the NDAA wouldn't even be on it. Call me back when A. this provision is ever acted on. B. the courts uphold the action.

Also I'm a liberal in the tradition of General Marshall and George Kennan and don't have illusion about the US needed to exercise its power. I take issue when it does so stupidly.

You are just proving my point trying to justify obamas drone campaign. Yeah obviously there are differences between bushs full scale invasion of iraq and obamas drone campaign, one difference is that bush never assassinated any american citizens. There are also many similarities, and if you are unable to see the similarities, we are going to be talking past each other.

The most tragic thing about fake liberals is that they believe that they are true liberals. They have been fooled into supporting special interests over public interests, but all the while they think they are actually doing the opposite. Bill Clinton is the perfect example of this, the guy gutted welfare, deregulated the banking industry, and signed nafta (bye bye jobs), and he is regarded as the hero to the democratic party. At least the republicans acknowledge that they put special interests over public interests.

[KevinNYC]

You are just proving my point trying to justify obamas drone campaign. Yeah of obviously there are differences between bushs full scale invasion of iraq and obamas drone campaign, one difference is that bush never assassinated any american citizens. There are also many similarities, and if you are unable to see the similarities, we are going to be talking past each other.

The most tragic thing about fake liberals is that they believe that they are true liberals. They have been fooled into supporting special interests over public interests, but all the while they think they are actually doing the opposite. Bill Clinton is the perfect example of this, the guy gutted welfare, deregulated the banking industry, and signed nafta (bye bye jobs), and he is regarded as the hero to the democratic party. At least the republicans acknowledge that they put special interests over public interests.

Remind me where I justified anything.

Two points.
One, the Democratic party is not a monolithically liberal party.

Two, for the past 30 odd years, America has been a center-right country. Tell me who the last liberal Democrat to win the presidency? It certainly wasn't Carter. Probably LBJ. At least domestically. So yes, I prefer to have Democratic presidents from time to time rather than 3 straight decades of GOP Presidents.

But your feelings are too sensitive for that. While you're imagining these candidates that A will represent your feelings totally and B are able to get the 60 million votes you need to be elected as the President of the United States, why don't you also wish that every voter gets a pony. You aren't against ponies are you?

It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from and I was old enough to vote for Clinton, it's that it's no longer my sophomore year.

[Nanners]

Remind me where I justified anything.

Two points.
One, the Democratic party is not a monolithically liberal party.

Two, for the past 30 odd years, America has been a center-right country. Tell me who the last liberal Democrat to win the presidency? It certainly wasn't Carter. Probably LBJ. At least domestically. So yes, I prefer to have Democratic presidents from time to time rather than 3 straight decades of GOP Presidents.

But your feelings are too sensitive for that. While you're imagining these candidates that A will represent your feelings totally and B are able to get the 60 million votes you need to be elected as the President of the United States, why don't you also wish that every voter gets a pony. You aren't against ponies are you?

It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from and I was old enough to vote for Clinton, it's that it's no longer my sophomore year.


You never explicitly justified anything, just like i never said the democratic party is monolithically liberal. True, there has not been a liberal democrat to become president in decades, but that doesnt mean liberals should just give in and vote for the fake liberal candidate who really only cares about special interests.

You are a fake liberal. Unlike Obama, you arent a fake liberal in the sense that you are pretending to be a liberal... you are fake because you do not realize that you have been tricked into voting for the same interests that Romney represents. People like you do a disservice to true liberals, because regardless of what is going on in the real world, people like you only only believe in accountability when there is a republican in the white house.

[KevinNYC]

State of the race. Three months to go until election day and Obama had a good July and Romney didn't. (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/obama-has-had-a-good-month.html)


After weeks of bold bluster, Republicans are quietly beginning to acknowledge that attacks on Romney's business career have hurt. Zeke Miller and McKay Coppins have a report today describing, without quotes, the belief of Romney advisers that they have had a bad stretch (they hopefully look forward to the vice-president rollout as a reset moment.) The same belief is evidenced by Romney's bringing in a veteran operative to handle its Bain message, a clear sign it believes the old strategy has not worked. Likewise, Virginia Republican researcher Mike McKenna tells the Associated Press that the anti-Bain assault "has done a lot of damage."

[KevinNYC]

You never explicitly justified anything,

Thanks for retracting that.


you are fake because you do not realize that you have been tricked into voting for the same interests that Romney represents.

I do believe there is a difference between the parties because there is and that is reflected in policy achievements. You're falling into the narcissistic trap of if I don't get everything I want, it makes no difference who gets elected.

It's called pragmatism, you'll be old enough to understand its value one day. I'm pretty clear about what politicians are and aren't.

[Nanners]

Thanks for retracting that.



I do believe there is a difference between the parties because there is and that is reflected in policy achievements. You're falling into the narcissistic trap of if I don't get everything I want, it makes no difference who gets elected.

It's called pragmatism, you'll be old enough to understand its value one day. I'm pretty clear about what politicians are and aren't.

Thanks for not retracting all the nonsense you have tried to put in my mouth, like that stupid shit about ponies

There are indeed some slight differences between the parties but they are built on the same core, ultimately both parties are putting special interests over public ones. Policy achievements can reflect party differences.... my hairy ass they do, go tell it to Bill Clinton the republican.

Maybe I am falling into a narcissistic trap, maybe I should just accept the lesser of two evils with my mouth shut. Or, maybe you are selling out your fellow americans with your belief that there is only one option for liberals, living life perfectly content to vote for the wolf in sheeps clothing.

I dont really think I am being narcissistic because its really not about me "getting everything I want" (as you claim). I dont give a shit about tons of "issues", i am focused almost entirely on placing special interests over public interests.

Maybe if enough people who fancy themselves liberals realize that they are actually voting for special/business interests, maybe they will demand a change, and maybe they wont be forced to chose between the lesser of two evils.

At least you are starting to admit that you are a fake liberal.

[KevinNYC]

Like I said, I remember sophomore year too.

[Rasheed1]

Thanks for not retracting all the nonsense you have tried to put in my mouth, like that stupid shit about ponies

There are indeed some slight differences between the parties but they are built on the same core, ultimately both parties are putting special interests over public ones. Policy achievements can reflect party differences.... my hairy ass they do, go tell it to Bill Clinton the republican.

Maybe I am falling into a narcissistic trap, maybe I should just accept the lesser of two evils with my mouth shut. Or, maybe you are selling out your fellow americans with your belief that there is only one option for liberals, living life perfectly content to vote for the wolf in sheeps clothing.

I dont really think I am being narcissistic because its really not about me "getting everything I want" (as you claim). I dont give a shit about tons of "issues", i am focused almost entirely on placing special interests over public interests.

Maybe if enough people who fancy themselves liberals realize that they are actually voting for special/business interests, maybe they will demand a change, and maybe they wont be forced to chose between the lesser of two evils.

At least you are starting to admit that you are a fake liberal.


Nanners has a good point about both parties serving the same master...

[IcanzIIravor]

Nanners has a good point about both parties serving the same master...

All parties in some way, shape or form will do so. It's how you consistently raise cash and challenge for the House, Senate and Presidency. The only parties that don't are small and nationally insignificant It's all nice and well to hold a purist line with regards to finger pointing of who is a true liberal or who is a true conservative, but under the current rules cash is the almighty in national elections and state elections.

[Rasheed1]

All parties in some way, shape or form will do so. It's how you consistently raise cash and challenge for the House, Senate and Presidency. The only parties that don't are small and nationally insignificant It's all nice and well to hold a purist line with regards to finger pointing of who is a true liberal or who is a true conservative, but under the current rules cash is the almighty in national elections and state elections.



There is really only 2 parties... The other parties that might grow in a less exclusive system cannot. The two parties we have do not serve the public at large. They serve the interests of a few at the expense of the rest ..... The ridiculous amounts of money being poured into the presidential race is a constant reminder. Money is destroying our system. it gives undue influence to a small select group... Right now, everything else is just a show

[JaggerCommaMick]

A
There is really only 2 parties... The other parties that might grow in a less exclusive system cannot. The two parties we have do not serve the public at large. They serve the interests of a few at the expense of the rest ..... The ridiculous amounts of money being poured into the presidential race is a constant reminder. Money is destroying our system. it gives undue influence to a small select group... Right now, everything else is just a show


Mate we still have the power of democracy, and money cannot buy our votes if we choose to not let it. It is every chap's responsibility to vote for the candidate he aligns best with, and not with simply one of two alternatives that paid the most for advertising. Most people will do that, which tells you about the public in a given country. KevinNYC just claimed it is selfish and narcissitic to vote for the real candidate of your choice and not the designated 'party pick'. Mate, that is madness! That sounds rather Orwellian to me, but then again, he literally sounds as if he may be on Obamas paid campaign staff outside of this site. Refusing to disagree with any policies, spinning controversies or similarities to W, and using smear tactcs on those who would vote for a third party rather than Mama Obama. Its scary to think but sadly most blokes can be swayed by that kind of manipulation coupled with constant advertising.

Ironically KevinNYC sounds like an Obama Authoritarian. How's that for a so-called left wing democrat liberal? More than an oxymoron, but rather a bloody oxyretard!

[Jailblazers7]

The biggest source of inefficiency in the electoral process does seem to be that people derive too much of their utility from voting for one of the two political parties. People align themselves so strongly with either Republicans or Democrats to the point where they feel they receive a greater benefit from casting their vote for their chosen party regardless of policy. The divide seems to be progressively more dramatic as time goes on too.

[JaggerCommaMick]

The biggest source of inefficiency in the electoral process does seem to be that people derive too much of their utility from voting for one of the two political parties. People align themselves so strongly with either Republicans or Democrats to the point where they feel they receive a greater benefit from casting their vote for their chosen party regardless of policy. The divide seems to be progressively more dramatic as time goes on too.


Yeah mate, it's just like over in the basketball forum where anyone who likes the Lakers or Bulls hates Lebron, anyone who likes the Knicks over rates Carmelo, Wolves fans think Love is better than Griffin, Clippers fans think Griffin is better than Love. Nobody steps back to be objective, nor inclusive, mate! Everything is a tug of war. That's why I never understand why you Yanks don't want stronger states rights. A country as big as yours is just too hard to govern with a blanket. Too much inefficiency, too many geo-socio-demographic distinctions, too easy for people to slip through the cracks of the system. Why would you try to have a federal government bend over backwards to monitor 315,000,000 bloody people. I say let smaller groups monitor themselves as they'll be more likely on the same page which will allow for smoother governance, and just use the federal government to mediate civility between the states.

Federal income tax rackets are a bloody joke mate, as are blanket pronouncements about marriage for one side or the other, and abortion as well, and more. Federal government slowly usurps more power by playing the bloody class game, trying to pit rich vs everyone else and then playing appointing itself referee and taking a cut. More politicians, more jobs for their friends, more benefits, all so they can take money from businesses that offer employment, and instead hand a little to him, hand a little to her, keep a little for themself, and there you go! Three people who got paid to do nothing at the expense of a business who might have otherwise promoted someone who provided a valuable service to the community! Bloody backwards mate. Federal governments subsidize ignorance, apathy, idiocy, and irresponsibility. "Vote for us, you can do less, pay less attention, be less responsible for yourself, and we'll make the bad guys (hard workers, high income earners, people who could otherwise employ you) pay for it. Stay dumb. And vote for this bloody candidate!'"

It's rubbish, mates. The only way people will better themselves is if you don't give them all sorts of incentives not to. You got to put the onus on them to stay responsible, active, and involved by allowing consequences to have the educational affect that they do. KevinNYC just wants a magical ferry world mate! It's unsustainable! Your country will become the next Greece with all the handouts, entitlements, and disregarding of debt and financial culpability he and your president support!


By the way I am on record as supporting Obama, because as a rock musician and public figure, I have to make sure I look 'hip and cool' by supporting the a minority democrat candidate. It's no different from any of you, mates. I vote based on how I will look and how I can best fit in with the crowd I desperately want to accept me. Luckily if enough aging rockstars like myself and angsty teens mad at the world unite and vote for obama to show how we 'rebell against the system' we can take this bloody elections, mates!

[Jailblazers7]

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/03/update_on_the_fineness_of_the_private_sector.html

^Interesting look at the trend in employment numbers. Private sectors employment is doing pretty well while public sector employment has been declining, likely because of cuts being made at the state and local level.

[IcanzIIravor]

There is really only 2 parties... The other parties that might grow in a less exclusive system cannot. The two parties we have do not serve the public at large. They serve the interests of a few at the expense of the rest ..... The ridiculous amounts of money being poured into the presidential race is a constant reminder. Money is destroying our system. it gives undue influence to a small select group... Right now, everything else is just a show

The fault belongs not with the two major parties, but every voter who complains about the two major parties, but either still vote for them or don't vote at all instead of voting for a third party. Another problem I see is with the third parties themselves. The powers that be in these parties should be more focused on winning local elections followed by county elections, state elections then national elections. They also need to stop taking cast offs from the people who lose trying to run for President in the major parties who then bolt to the Green Party or Libertarian party to run lame campaigns.

[JaggerCommaMick]

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/03/update_on_the_fineness_of_the_private_sector.html

^Interesting look at the trend in employment numbers. Private sectors employment is doing pretty well while public sector employment has been declining, likely because of cuts being made at the state and local level.


Thats how it should be, mate.

Obama is going to press to add more goverment jobs, mate, and cite these statistics. Private sector creates jobs out of demand. Goverment creates jobs sometimes from demand, often from politics. Your president will suggest you spend money, during a recession, with a huge deficit, on largely unnecessary jobs, so that he can campaign on the theme of getting more blokes back to work. Mate he wants to spend YOUR tax dollars on phony jobs to strengthen his bloody campaign rhetoric! You oughtta be incensed!

Honestly mate your Democrat party is worse than our Labour party. They only want, want, want, now. Take from the future, take from the companies, take from thin air by printing the monies (I've gotta put that in a song, mate). Why? These hard-hat workers go to their 9-5 and pick up a shovel, eat fast food on their lunch break, turn their brains off while they work, come home and beat their wife, drink some beer, wath a sporting match and go to bed. They unionize to subsidize their lack of social independence and personal improvement. What do they care about the future? They dont pay attention, mate. These are your middle class rhubes the president is courting. The slobs. Their votes keep him in power. Of course he'll bloody well say they should have more pay, more benefits, forgive the loans, forgive the student debts, pay less taxes (but only them, not everyone). He offers them more than what they produce or earn, by taking from those who produce much on their own accord, or by borriwing from your childrens future. This is the bloody democratic game, mate! It fails eventually, we are seeing that in other nations. Dont letthem manipulate your emotions by talking about more opportunities for middle class joe wifebeater. Let him go earn his opportunities, not have them hand delivered by government on a silver platter made from some other mate's work. Come on, mates!




*And again Barack Obama is officially endorsed by myself and The Rolling Stones. Hopefully this keeps us popular with the teenagers.

[Jailblazers7]

Thats how it should be, mate.

Obama is going to press to add more goverment jobs, mate, and cite these statistics. Private sector creates jobs out of demand. Goverment creates jobs sometimes from demand, often from politics. Your president will suggest you spend money, during a recession, with a huge deficit, on largely unnecessary jobs, so that he can campaign on the theme of getting more blokes back to work. Mate he wants to spend YOUR tax dollars on phony jobs to strengthen his bloody campaign rhetoric! You oughtta be incensed!

Honestly mate your Democrat party is worse than out Labour party. They only want, want, want, now. Take from the future, take from the companies, take from thin air by printing the monies (I've gotta put that in a song, mate). Why? These hard-hat workers go to their 9-5 and pick up a shovel, eat fast food on their lunch break, turn their brains off while they work, come home and beat their wife, drink some beer, wath a sporting match and go to bed. They unionize to subsidize their lack of social independence and personal improvement. What do they care about the future? They dont pay attention, mate. These ate your middle class rhubes the president is courting. The slobs. Their votes keep him in power. Of course he'll bloody well say they should have more pay, more benefits, forgive the loans, forgive the student debts, pay less taxes (but only them, not everyone). He offers them more than what they produce or earn, by taking from those who produce much on their own accord, or by borriwing from your childrens future. This is the bloody democratic game, mate! It fails eventually, we are seeing that in other nations. Dont letthem manipulate your emotions by talking about more opportunities for middle class joe wifebeater. Let him go earn his opportunities, not have them hand delivered by government on a silver platter made from some other mate's work. Come on, mates!

Well, the point is that Republicans are attacking Obama for government spending and based upon claims that he is hurting the private sector. They are saying that private sector job growth should drive the economy and that Mitt would change policy to make that happen. But the numbers show that private sector job growth is already driving the economy under Obama.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Well, the point is that Republicans are attacking Obama for government spending and based upon claims that he is hurting the private sector. They are saying that private sector job growth should drive the economy and that Mitt would change policy to make that happen. But the numbers show that private sector job growth is already driving the economy under Obama.


Well mate the president himself actually has almost no tangible control on the economy. Broad policies and principles can shape it over time, but te idear that Romney could come in and magically create better jobs is mostly bollocks. My point is just that the Presidents spending will waste much of the production the private sector can create. The president should be encouraging mates to be more industrious. Benjamin Franklin autobiography was all about how he saved money, acquired useful skills, relied on himself and so forth. The president should preach these values but that is not his party's motto. They play class war and subsidize joe wifebeater in exchange for votes. They dont want the construction worker to go home and learn a language, take a business course, learn about investing. They demonize business and investing so he'll go home, plop in frot of the tele, and pay his union dues which will go to their campaigns.

The Democrats want a middle class, rather than an independent class. I find that discouraging, mate! Dont you expect every man to strive to be high class! Self sufficient, well rounded, informed and independent! Thats the opposite of Femocrat subsidies and unions to keep the masses dumb and apathetic, mate! All in exchange for votes to keep their bloody position in power. Thats all theyre doing.

[TheMan]

Romney is a clueless moron, he even pissed off the Brits in what should've been a slam dunk overseas trip:facepalm

[JaggerCommaMick]

Romney is a clueless moron, he even pissed off the Brits in what should've been a slam dunk overseas trip:facepalm


He's very awkward, mate. That has little to do with political philosophy. Lets stay on track. Priorities, gents!


We all know if the man had my dangerous levels of charisma to couple with his prodigious strategizing, he'd already be in his fifth presidential term. This election shouldnt be about personalities, or even individuals. It should center on core principles and philosophies.

[JaggerCommaMick]

In fact mates I may approach Mr Romney and tell him that for the right price I can teach him how to have the moves like Jagger so he can have the moves like Jagger, he'll have the mooOOooOoOoves like Jagger.



*I officially endorse Barack Obama.

[Jailblazers7]

Well mate the president himself actually has almost no tangible control on the economy. Broad policies and principles can shape it over time, but te idear that Romney could come in and magically create better jobs is mostly bollocks. My point is just that the Presidents spending will waste much of the production the private sector can create. The president should be encouraging mates to be more industrious. Benjamin Franklin autobiography was all about how he saved money, acquired useful skills, relied on himself and so forth. The president should preach these values but that is not his party's motto. They play class war and subsidize joe wifebeater in exchange for votes. They dont want the construction worker to go home and learn a language, take a business course, learn about investing. They demonize business and investing so he'll go home, plop in frot of the tele, and pay his union dues which will go to their campaigns.

The Democrats want a middle class, rather than an independent class. I find that discouraging, mate! Dont you expect every man to strive to be high class! Self sufficient, well rounded, informed and independent! Thats the opposite of Femocrat subsidies and unions to keep the masses dumb and apathetic, mate! All in exchange for votes to keep their bloody position in power. Thats all theyre doing.

You are playing the same game as the Democrats you hate by generalizing middle class and union workers as lazy, apathetic morons.

[JaggerCommaMick]

You are playing the same game as the Democrats you hate by generalizing middle class and union workers as lazy, apathetic morons.


Mate I am not doing it for the purpose of ridicule, however it is a generalization based largely in fact. It is foolish to whitewash and ignore reality for the purpose of sensitivity. If people dont like that Im didactic, I can live with it as long as the problem gets addressed. Ill be the bad guy, mate. Ill say it. Because again mate, my heart is in the right place. You can practically see it beating since I rarely wear a shirt.

Construction workers largely are what they are. The black community largely is what it is. The political system largely is wat it is. If we want to address the problems, you cant rightly do that if you wont admit theyre there, right? Coverin up dogshit with a thin layer of sand dont make it disappear mate. You'll remember its there soon as you step in it.

America is really bout to step in it mate if you guys dont smarten up and toughen up.

[Jailblazers7]

Your generalization is based on fact? Sounds exactly like the answer a liberal would give regarding the rich.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Your generalization is based on fact? Sounds exactly like the answer a liberal would give regarding the rich.

Mate, the left will villify businesses, ceo's, management, etc. They arent stereotyping them, rather simply saying they should have to pay what they earn to all the mates who dont earn the same. They are playing that game for votes.

We both know what the average middle class construction workers life is like. Even if hes a good family man, most simply collect their check and dont endeavor their minds outward or exercise their full rights, opportunities, and capabilities. Why baby them if thats their choice, at the expense of anyones elses independence? Be has the freedom to do as much or as little as he pleases. The idear he needs a goverment rescue package is bollocks. Mate, the best way to teach someone something is to say the words "Help is not on the way."

No self respecting man should need Obamas help to make a living. Thats pathetic, mate. Its nothing but a pact, the middle class gets to be less responsible, the president keeps his job. This comes at the expense of those who do t want the presidents pity and charity. The real men, mate. Not the femocrats.

[KevinNYC]

Just for the record,

You sound nothing like someone who has lived outside of the US.
You're sneerlingly calling other men feminine while posing as Mick Jagger.

Got it.

[Jailblazers7]

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/03/update_on_the_fineness_of_the_private_sector.html

^Interesting look at the trend in employment numbers. Private sectors employment is doing pretty well while public sector employment has been declining, likely because of cuts being made at the state and local level.

And the opposite trend is shown during the Bush years.

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/03/private_and_public_employment_under_george_w_bush. html

[JaggerCommaMick]

And the opposite trend is shown during the Bush years.

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/03/private_and_public_employment_under_george_w_bush. html


Mate, the Congress was essentially split during his first term, and democrats held a majority in both houses during his second. It's not all about the President mate. He has far less power than people think. This is why I say any plan Mitt Romney could profess right now to be able to just waltz in and turm around an economy is just bullocks. You can't 'credit' Clinton for huge economic gains nor can you 'blame' Bush or Obama for economic losses. Those will always be sporadic and influenced by market factors. However long-term policies will have some influence, and we should want politicians who have the right principles for the long haul. It's not about an immediate plan (you cant just change what the market is) so much as communicating a mindset of how each person should approach their own economy.

Democrats want to communicate the mindset that if you vote for them, they'll take care of you. Mate, people always say "how come those rednecks vote for Republicans when they're not rich!" Mate it's because they have pride. Well, some of them cheat the system for welfare but that's another story. In theory, they have pride in earning what they earn and making a living to support their family. You live in the United States of America, mate! I don't want to hear about the middle class struggling. What supposedly intelligent, able-bodied man would struggle to provide his family with the world's cheapest energy, most abundant groceries, low-cost housing and shelter, easily accessible transportation? Bullocks, mate! Politicians play the game that if you work a 30 hours at a mindless job, you DESERVE to have all the same things the round-the-clock decision making employer makes. That's just not life mate. You make your own lot. Don't let Mama Obama convince you you're entitled to be supported. Mate, corporations and churches are the largest donors to charity, why do you want to take those funds and transfer them to the government? So the government can dole them out in exchange for votes? That aint efficient mate.

Independence = opposite of the democratic party. Independence = Opposite of federal government. Independence = opposite of labor unions.


I hold this truth to be self evident, mate. Years ago the common man had to be self sufficient or he'd get his butt whupped by the red skins on the frontier, mate! Let's keep that same spirit of being a man and proud to be learned, hard-working, bold, and benevolent and apply it to modern times! Do you want a president and a Congress and local officials who will step aside and let you be a man, let you rise to your ability level, and let you be at liberty to make your living? Or do you want the class warefare, the economic redistribution, the lazy inefficient government mechanisms handling YOUR business mate?! Madness! That is for the weak, the soft, the lazy, the apethetic, the hopeless, the futile. Democrats pull those people in. Why do you think it's all young angsty teens and retirees who can't work, or labor unions who barely work? It's the party of "me me me, now, now, now, need need need, hands out, hands out!" Get up off your arse mate, stretch and stand up tall, and go capture the world! Don't wait for Obama to deliver your ration.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Just for the record,

You sound nothing like someone who has lived outside of the US.
You're sneerlingly calling other men feminine while posing as Mick Jagger.

Got it.


You got a sore bum or what mate? I've noticed if you don't have some dry statistic or press release to parrot, you offer nothing but artful dodging and caustic personal attacks.

When the argument veers from talking points to logic, you either shut up or look to divert it back to political cliches.

You're exposed, mate.

[bmd]

I'll be voting for Romney. But I'd rather not vote for either. It's an election between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

[KevinNYC]

http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG8591995/p/mick-jagger-rex_1927371a.jpg

I tremble before your manliness.

[boozehound]

I'll be voting for Romney. But I'd rather not vote for either. It's an election between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
then dont. vote for a third party if you feel that way about the candidates.

[TheMan]

Just for the record,

You sound nothing like someone who has lived outside of the US.
You're sneerlingly calling other men feminine while posing as Mick Jagger.

Got it.
this

his constant usage of mate, chaps etc tells me he's a fraud:no:

and if he's a real foreigner, he should mind his own fakking business and let us decide who we want to vote for.

[Legend of Josh]

Nanners has a good point about both parties serving the same master...

It's been this way for centuries. The term "same master" is spot-on. It's all about special interests, and that's what/who really runs shit. It's a very flawed system. I'm talking about the electoral college, or course. A creative design implemented to always elect an official from one of only two camps available to voters. Either elected official, is unquestionably in the back-pockets of the truly "elected official(s)" ...

It should be the popular vote, period. In addition, even if we get past the E.C., there's manipulation and potential corruption with the vote counting process. Look at the 2000 election, destination Florida, for the proof in the pudding. It's really some shameful, mega i-LL SMH type shit.

I didn't support Al Gore all that much, but damn, G Dub for eight years? Holy shit, what a nightmare. Now we're in the Obama era, and give me Obama over Bush any day of the week, but damn, what a puppet, almost up there on Bush's level too. Romney? LOL, same shit, different toilet.

So many of us want to "pretend" we're not living in a masked enslaved society, but come on people... wake up. It's all right in front of our eyes, and either A) we look the other way B) completely deny, never ask questions and blindly follow whatever we're told or C) roll with the punches and hope for the best.

Well why not option D? What's option D? Option D is grow some balls and stand the **** up. Grow a pair, and if enough of us do that, we can unmask the beast, because there's raw power in numbers. If enough of us ask questions, if enough of us fight for our rights (which we're slowly but damn surely losing with each passing year) and remember why freedom is such a profound and scared element to prosperity and true, truthful happiness ... we'd obviously be better off, no?

[bmd]

then dont. vote for a third party if you feel that way about the candidates.3rd party has no chance of winning.

My main issue is cutting spending and reducing regulation. Obama completely disagrees with that.

Romney at least talks the talk... I just don't think he's seriously willing to walk the walk.

But I'd rather Romney than Obama because there is at least a chance he can cut spending because he at least says that is what he wants to do.

So Romney is nowhere near my first choice, but at least he isn't Obama.

[Legend of Josh]

3rd party has no chance of winning.

My main issue is cutting spending and reducing regulation. Obama completely disagrees with that.

Romney at least talks the talk... I just don't think he's seriously willing to walk the walk.

But I'd rather Romney than Obama because there is at least a chance he can cut spending because he at least says that is what he wants to do.

So Romney is nowhere near my first choice, but at least he isn't Obama.

LOL, exactly why even vote for a 3rd party if there's 0% chance they'll even get a whiff of winning the outcome? To make a statement? Oh yeah, the "powers that be" would seriously consider changing the system b/c the "people have spoken"

:roll:

[boozehound]

LOL, exactly why even vote for a 3rd party if there's 0% chance they'll even get a whiff of winning the outcome? To make a statement? Oh yeah, the "powers that be" would seriously consider changing the system b/c the "people have spoken"

:roll:
why vote for someone you dont agree with? Why vote at all (especially with your viewpoint)? And yes, each of the current dominant parties started out as a third party. so, suck on that, windbag.

Romney wont cut spending at all. Look at the last 30 years of american politics. The biggest spenders have all been the ones giving lip service to fiscal responsibility (reagan, bush jr). Its a ****ing scam. If anything (and this has been corroborated by independent organizations) his tax plan will create a larger burden on the middle class while cutting taxes (even further) for the wealthy with an overall reduced revenue (every economist who has looked at his plan says its completely unrealistic and unfeasible). meanwhile, he will cut some very small amounts of spending in social programs and redirect it to his vested investors. There is not a mainstream presidential candidate who will change the direction of our fiscal priorities.

[Nanners]

Maybe someone already pointed this out, but the mick jagger gimmick is the same person who was recently behind the marty crane gimmick.

As for the identity of the poster, my guess is nick young but I dont really know.

[Sarcastic]

Maybe someone already pointed this out, but the mick jagger gimmick is the same person who was recently behind the marty crane gimmick.

As for the identity of the poster, my guess is nick young but I dont really know.

http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/1098/927/080/003/starface.jpg

[Legend of Josh]

why vote for someone you dont agree with? Why vote at all (especially with your viewpoint)? And yes, each of the current dominant parties started out as a third party. so, suck on that, windbag.

Romney wont cut spending at all. Look at the last 30 years of american politics. The biggest spenders have all been the ones giving lip service to fiscal responsibility (reagan, bush jr). Its a ****ing scam. If anything (and this has been corroborated by independent organizations) his tax plan will create a larger burden on the middle class while cutting taxes (even further) for the wealthy with an overall reduced revenue (every economist who has looked at his plan says its completely unrealistic and unfeasible). meanwhile, he will cut some very small amounts of spending in social programs and redirect it to his vested investors. There is not a mainstream presidential candidate who will change the direction of our fiscal priorities.

Why do you have to be so negative (towards other posters, personally)? Name calling, etc. I made a valid point, and instead of just acknowledging that, you counter and insert insults.

I'm not voting for Obama or Romney. I doubt I'll even vote at all this term. So, I assume you'll respond with some "well, if you don't even vote, then STFU you stupid North Carolinian redneck! Haha, you oppose gay marriage, what a moron! Come out of your cave, and realize we're in the year 2012!"

*edit*

In my post nowhere did I mention I'm in favor of Romney ... yet you quoted me and turned it into a Romney bashing parade. Not that it really matters, but it's clear what your agenda is here. Quote anything and everything, and in the process create extensive paragraphs about Romney being pure cyanide for our nation, as if Obama isn't any better.

LMAO.

[Balla_Status]

http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG8591995/p/mick-jagger-rex_1927371a.jpg

I tremble before your manliness.

We gonna act like Mick Jagger hasn't pulled a lot of trim?

[KevinNYC]

Maybe someone already pointed this out, but the mick jagger gimmick is the same person who was recently behind the marty crane gimmick.

I think so too. Both seem to have studied how to troll. Repeatedly, not just quoting, but calling out people by name, so they take the bait and respond.

Very similar styles.

[KevinNYC]

We gonna act like Mick Jagger hasn't pulled a lot of trim?

You miss my point. The guy with gimmick was going after people in a way that Mick Jagger never would.

Someone who cared about how masculine they came off would never act or dress the Mick does. (This, of course, is a quality that is very attractive to a lot of women, and is one of the reasons he pulled so much trim as you put it.)

Jagger has also long been rumored to be bisexual. I remember as kid hearing stories of what went on the Stones tour plane, etc.

[bmd]

We gonna act like Mick Jagger hasn't pulled a lot of trim?What does being manly have to do with pulling hoes?

There are plenty of manly people who can hardly get any women, and there are plenty of non-manly people who can get a ton of women.

[boozehound]

Why do you have to be so negative (towards other posters, personally)? Name calling, etc. I made a valid point, and instead of just acknowledging that, you counter and insert insults.

I'm not voting for Obama or Romney. I doubt I'll even vote at all this term. So, I assume you'll respond with some "well, if you don't even vote, then STFU you stupid North Carolinian redneck! Haha, you oppose gay marriage, what a moron! Come out of your cave, and realize we're in the year 2012!"

*edit*

In my post nowhere did I mention I'm in favor of Romney ... yet you quoted me and turned it into a Romney bashing parade. Not that it really matters, but it's clear what your agenda is here. Quote anything and everything, and in the process create extensive paragraphs about Romney being pure cyanide for our nation, as if Obama isn't any better.

LMAO.
The second part of the post was directed at the post above yours. Hence the dismissive end to the first part addressing you. Go suck a caulk for jesus

[Jailblazers7]

The worst part about the economics discussion of this election is that nobody wants to look at the data. People just spout of opinions they learned in intro 101 with actual thinking about the problems and understanding what the numbers mean.

[Legend of Josh]

The second part of the post was directed at the post above yours. Hence the dismissive end to the first part addressing you. Go suck a caulk for jesus

Why do you find it necessary to talk this type of shit towards me (especially here lately)?.

It's no secret you're a hater of religion, most notably Christianity, but it seems here lately you've been itching and burning with shooting me with personal insults based on my own personal beliefs.

I guess I'm just not understanding where the hostility is coming from. I don't see why we can't discuss politics, etc without the personal bullshit.