FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: skrogman on June 13, 2012, 03:06:38 pm
-
Mitt Romney? Yes or no?????
-
IMO I don't think Romney is going to win and it's mostly b/c the Republicans would have had a better shot w/someone like Santorum. Romney is too reminiscent of Bushs' and people are still recovering from that :wave:
-
Oh god yes! Romney is and was the only candidate who had a snowballs chance in hell of beating Obama. Look at the numbers..Obama is fading fast. Hopefully we will get our country back in 2012
-
The Mittdroid? No way. The guy changes his opinion faster than I can change the channel.
-
who knows i think the economy is going to hurt obama.i know an older gal who will vote for mitt cause he is good looking even though she is a democrat i won't vote for him cause he is nice looking but if he wins i'll be watching the pres more than i watch mr. obama now,i'll be like ok the president is on tv gotta go watch him ummm
-
(Expletive) No!!...I really don't like Obama that much either, but he's better than that soulless corpse Romney.
-
(Expletive) No!!...I really don't like Obama that much either, but he's better than that soulless corpse Romney.
I surely do hope Romney wins, and its beginning to look more every day like he will. This country cannot survive another 4 yrs with Obama. He is nothing but a socialist and a traitor to the U.S. I have yet to figure out why ppl like Obama think a socialist country would be best for us: look at the country's that have gone down that path and see what kind of shape they are in today! And, if we ever let the U.N. dictate what we can and cannot do we will really be in trouble. I pray that we, as ciitizens will stand up, vote him out of office and take our Country back to being what it used to be: "Land of the FREE and home of the BRAVE"
-
Thank you, patty4me! The man is talking about opening 800,000 jobs to illegal immigrants. Really? Where are these jobs? Man, I am tellng you the direction we are heading is either really scary or very promising.
-
uh=== NO
-
I am starting like him unfortunately. Give someone a new chance. Obama had his that is for sure. :angry7: :angry7: :angry7:
-
For me, Romney conjures up memories of Richard Nixon. What a nightmare. Watergate, Lies, Deceit, Hush Money........on and on. I would hate to see America go through that again.
-
Romney strikes me as a life-size Ken doll. On top of that he seems to have a hard time keeping his own positions straight. He has lots of high-gloss polish; personally, I don't think there's a lot of there there.
-
People who watch Fox news are adorable. Poor people that vote Republican... even more adorable.
-
Romney isn't the best candidate in world, but he sure beats the alternative.
-
Amen Hawkeye; we sure can't survive with another 4 yrs. of Obama. Romney may not be the most conservative but he will sure be better than what we have now. Everyday Obama says something new that is just hard to believe; giving jobs in the USA to illegals; what's up with that? Our unemployment is thru the roof so why give jobs to ppl who are here illegally? If we don't get this country back on track we are doomed.
-
Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.
There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site. What... WHAT makes you vote republican?
Your bigotry?
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet.
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works. Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"
Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.
Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.
How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!
-
No thank you. :thumbsup:
-
Oh god yes! Romney is and was the only candidate who had a snowballs chance in hell of beating Obama. Look at the numbers..Obama is fading fast. Hopefully we will get our country back in 2012
Get your country back? Back from what? Back from whom?
I really would like to know what utopia some of you were living in prior to now. I must've missed it. Our country goes into the toilet under leadership that thinks the way Romney does and that's what you want back? We're getting back on our feet now and that's what you want to escape from?
You clowns live in bizzaro world 'cause it surely aint reality.
-
Oh god yes! Romney is and was the only candidate who had a snowballs chance in hell of beating Obama. Look at the numbers..Obama is fading fast. Hopefully we will get our country back in 2012
Get your country back? Back from what? Back from whom?
They don't know. They just spout fractional sentences they heard on fox news or one of their hate spewing radio shows.
-
Oh god yes! Romney is and was the only candidate who had a snowballs chance in hell of beating Obama. Look at the numbers..Obama is fading fast. Hopefully we will get our country back in 2012
Get your country back? Back from what? Back from whom?
They don't know. They just spout fractional sentences they heard on fox news or one of their hate spewing radio shows.
Has to be the case. There is no way in hell you can look at where we were and look at where we are and say we're not doing better and have me take you seriously. No friggin' way.
Maybe Osama being alive was a good thing. Maybe continuing to fight a nonsensical war makes sense to them. Certainly giving away money is the best way to pay our debts... isn't it? I mean, for myself, when I complain about my debts, I usually try to increase the revenue I have coming in as well as cut some non-essential bills. But maybe I should start giving it away and watch my debts shrink down to zero. That is conservative wisdom of course. It hasn't worked in over a decade but it's only a matter of time of course. :dontknow:
You have to be drowning in a sea of misinformation with no oxygen getting to your brain to believe some of the nonsense I hear some regurgitate. Absolutely unreal.
-
Oh god yes! Romney is and was the only candidate who had a snowballs chance in hell of beating Obama. Look at the numbers..Obama is fading fast. Hopefully we will get our country back in 2012
Get your country back? Back from what? Back from whom?
They don't know. They just spout fractional sentences they heard on fox news or one of their hate spewing radio shows.
Has to be the case. There is no way in hell you can look at where we were and look at where we are and say we're not doing better and have me take you seriously. No friggin' way.
Maybe Osama being alive was a good thing. Maybe continuing to fight a nonsensical war makes sense to them. Certainly giving away money is the best way to pay our debts... isn't it? I mean, for myself, when I complain about my debts, I usually try to increase the revenue I have coming in as well as cut some non-essential bills. But maybe I should start giving it away and watch my debts shrink down to zero. That is conservative wisdom of course. It hasn't worked in over a decade but it's only a matter of time of course. :dontknow:
You have to be drowning in a sea of misinformation with no oxygen getting to your brain to believe some of the nonsense I hear some regurgitate. Absolutely unreal.
Instead of living a nice life buying things & accruing debt, you should have lived in a shack your whole life. That is their rationale.
This is their view of government.
-
I agree with you hawkeye. this country cannot withstand another 4 years of you know who. I know Romney does not always get everything straight, but he is trying. OB has lied too us for 3 1/2 more years.
-
Mitt is who I will vote for. I do not like the way our country is going. Less governmet. Less taxes. I want a leader who is anti-abortion, believes that marriage is between a man and a women, and is not afraid to say the name of Jesus. Not sure Mitt is my man but sure Obama is not
-
I agree with you hawkeye. this country cannot withstand another 4 years of you know who. I know Romney does not always get everything straight, but he is trying. OB has lied too us for 3 1/2 more years.
What did he lie to you about? Once, much less consistently for 3 years?
-
believes that marriage is between a man and a women,
So you think a mormon believes that?
Maybe between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman...
-
No fan at all of either Obama or Romney. I really can't figure out why the teaparty/right is rallying behind this guy. This is the guy who laid the blueprint for Obamacare and will only go through the motions of repealing it only to say "see, I tried, it didn't work". This is also the guy who through bain capital invested in a company called stericycle that disposes of aborted fetuses/babies so there goes the whole pro-life argument when you've mangaged to get rich off of abortion,so what's the appeal? It's pretty sad when this election is about "Just beat Obama".
-
Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.
There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site. What... WHAT makes you vote republican?
Your bigotry?
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet.
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works. Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"
Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.
Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.
How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!
I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.
-
Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.
There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site. What... WHAT makes you vote republican?
Your bigotry?
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet.
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works. Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"
Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.
Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.
How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!
I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.
Fine. Then you lose any right to complain about the deficit. The only way to get out of debt is reduce expenses AND raise revenue. It is irresponsible and frankly unintelligent to have our deficit be your major complaint and your solution is to give the country less money to pay off said debt.
-
I don't like the current state of the union, but unfortunately I don't believe Romney is the change we need.
Time and time again history has proven that tax cuts for the rich doesn't help anyone but the rich.
We need someone who will create jobs, going the economy going, and make it okay to be a legal citizen of the United States of America.
This time around I don't think there is a lesser of two evils. I am not sure what I am going to do voting wise, or living wise.
-
Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.
There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site. What... WHAT makes you vote republican?
Your bigotry?
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet.
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works. Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"
Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.
Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.
How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!
I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.
Fine. Then you lose any right to complain about the deficit. The only way to get out of debt is reduce expenses AND raise revenue. It is irresponsible and frankly unintelligent to have our deficit be your major complaint and your solution is to give the country less money to pay off said debt.
That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses. If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.
The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that. It is only shifting the burden even more on taxpayers because it is increasing the amount of revenues needed to even start paying off the debt. If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?
-
Meh politics.
It's my first year being able to vote :bunny
-
... what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?
I call that one of the central goals of any credit card company.
-
Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.
There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site. What... WHAT makes you vote republican?
Your bigotry?
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet.
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works. Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"
Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.
Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.
How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!
I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.
Fine. Then you lose any right to complain about the deficit. The only way to get out of debt is reduce expenses AND raise revenue. It is irresponsible and frankly unintelligent to have our deficit be your major complaint and your solution is to give the country less money to pay off said debt.
That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses. If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.
The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that. It is only shifting the burden even more on taxpayers because it is increasing the amount of revenues needed to even start paying off the debt. If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?
If you're one of the people under the incorrect assumption that the affordable healthcare act ADDS to the deficit, then there is no need to prolong a debate.
-
Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.
There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site. What... WHAT makes you vote republican?
Your bigotry?
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet.
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works. Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"
Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.
Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.
How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!
I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.
Fine. Then you lose any right to complain about the deficit. The only way to get out of debt is reduce expenses AND raise revenue. It is irresponsible and frankly unintelligent to have our deficit be your major complaint and your solution is to give the country less money to pay off said debt.
That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses. If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.
The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that. It is only shifting the burden even more on taxpayers because it is increasing the amount of revenues needed to even start paying off the debt. If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?
If you're one of the people under the incorrect assumption that the affordable healthcare act ADDS to the deficit, then there is no need to prolong a debate.
Actually, I used it as an example of the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending.
-
I like traveling the country via interstate as oppossed to pony or horse covered wagon. Also, having a millay is pretty expensive. So the government needs money.
The only way to boom economically like ww2 time would be to decimate a country with money and charge them to rebuild. We spend a significant amount of money on a military that is no longer useful in obtaining new wealth. The whole point of being a superpower is that we can take what we need. The world is changing so maybe a trillion dollar military is a luxury we can no longer afford.
-
He absolutely has my vote.
-
....which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs.
Even though they spend every single time they get into office and then when they get booted out, they complain about the spending of the other guys? Even though every single fiscal issue they're ranting and raving for Obama to tackle in less than 4 years, they could have dealt with in their 8 years of the presidency and 6 straight of those 8 years of the congress? Seriously, how many times are you going to fall for the okey doke? How many times does it have to happen before a light bulb goes on over your head and you realize they're all talk?
I mean, they scream at the top of their lungs about an anemic recovery and you completely forget that they're what you're recovering from. They're the reason why there needs to be a recovery in the first place. You fall for it hook line and sinker. It's like someone injected you with a virus then convinces you that paramedic is the one trying to kill. Abso-effing-lutely insane.
It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.
No. You're taking that too literally. When people mention tax cuts for the wealthy, they're just pointing out the fact that of all the people in the country, the majority of the money went back to the wealthy when the country needed it way more than they did. They didn't need it at all. No one actually needed one. In fact, no one benefited from these cuts. They're superficial. Only people that view things on the surface and go no deeper think these tax cuts mean anything. It'd bribery so you wont pay attention to how worthless they are. Under Clinton, the country was doing fine, we had a surplus, and guess what, taxes were higher. It's about the value of a dollar, not the quantity of it. You can get all the money back you want, but if the government can't pay it's bills, that money is worthless.
I'm sorry, but I think it's just a childish view point to think that getting money back is a benefit. It's not a benefit if it's harmful in the long run. Give a child a choice between broccoli and candy and they'll choose candy. Is the candy a benefit? No, it's just something they want. Their teeth will rot because of it though.
That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses.
When the CBO says the biggest contributor to our deficit is the Bush tax cuts, I'd say it absolutely is essential. When we had higher taxes, we had a surplus. When we lowered taxes, we had a deficit. It's not rocket science.
If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.
No. You can only cut so much. This goes back to what I was saying about going no deeper than the surface. If I have a bill with a balance of $20,000 and my minimum payment is $500 a month, but my only non-essential to cut is something like cable, and that's only $150 a month, I'm still short $350 which I have to get from somewhere else. If I cut deeper, I'll have to cut into essentials. I can't cut my rent but I can cut into food, gas, and electricity, etc.., but again, only so much and cutting into essentials can lead to further problems down the line. For example, if I make my money online but cut deeper into my electric bill by not being online so much, that would actually cost me money. Even if I can cut enough, whether deep or not, I probably can just cover what I owe with no room for savings. So if some unforeseen circumstance comes up like, I don't know, a terrorists attack, a war or two, a recession, I have no savings for emergencies. Cutting alone means, at best, you'll live paycheck to paycheck.
There's room for compromise? The party you're voting for doesn't think so. One side is willing to compromise like adults and the other says it's their way or no deal, like children. But hey, look what their way has brought us. I'd certainly vote for that ::) . In-effing-sane.
The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that.
Really? It's not that access to healthcare is a matter of life or death? It's simply 'cause they want to spend and increase government? Really?
Again, I'm sorry, but the mindset of conservatives (fiscally, otherwise, or both) is just childish. The only people that care about big or small government is them. It's a false dichotomy. I don't want big or small government, I want a government that functions properly. If in order for an area to function properly there needs to be a larger government presence, then so be it. If an area functions better with government backing off of it, then so be it. You just fall for the simple minded rhetoric every time. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's just frustrating. Look a little deeper into these issues. You're being played.
If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?
Oh, you mean like starting an unnecessary war while giving away money and turning around to borrow that money from another country instead of just speaking to people like adults and telling them we can't afford those cuts? You mean like that?
-
When the CBO says the biggest contributor to our deficit is the Bush tax cuts, I'd say it absolutely is essential. When we had higher taxes, we had a surplus. When we lowered taxes, we had a deficit. It's not rocket science.
In any form of government where they can even begin to imagine something like what you are saying, you will know that you are dealing with a tyrannical out of control entity. How anyone can say that by not spending money that others have not even made yet will cause them to incur a deficit is ludicrous. We are a people with a government, not a government with a people. We give the power to the government and it is our servant and not the other way around.
Furthermore, the amount of these tax cuts -- collected for over a 10 year period -- would be enough to pay the operational fees of our out of control government for 8.5 days. Think about that. The money that our government wasted with overpayment of unemployment benefits last year due to its ineptitude is over 16 years of these tax cuts alone. This does not count the other areas where the government is even more wasteful. Until they can guarantee they will not waste one more penny of our money they have no reason at all to demand more. Anyone that claims that these tax cuts have any significance to anything is either an idiot (for not knowing the truth of it when all this information is so easy to obtain and yet still mentioning it in total ignorance) or a liar (they know the truth yet they still make these claims). There can be no other category to place them into (I thought about 'naive' but honestly who trust the government anymore? I figure if they do they fit well enough into the 'idiot' category to not suffer another choice).
-
When the CBO says the biggest contributor to our deficit is the Bush tax cuts, I'd say it absolutely is essential. When we had higher taxes, we had a surplus. When we lowered taxes, we had a deficit. It's not rocket science.
In any form of government where they can even begin to imagine something like what you are saying, you will know that you are dealing with a tyrannical out of control entity. How anyone can say that by not spending money that others have not even made yet will cause them to incur a deficit is ludicrous. We are a people with a government, not a government with a people. We give the power to the government and it is our servant and not the other way around.
What the hell are you talking about? If they're basing their numbers on what we were bringing in before the cuts and applying that number to our budget, that's how "anyone could say that". As I said, it's not rocket science, it's simple math. Our country was not in the shape it is in now, unable to pay its bills, prior to the Bush tax cuts (prior to Bush in general actually). The cuts had a sunset date but they should've never seen a sunrise in the first place. And, hello, **snaps fingers**, pay attention, we're talking about the entirety of the cuts not just a portion of them. That makes everything you said irrelevant. So, are you an idiot or have ADD?
-
When the CBO says the biggest contributor to our deficit is the Bush tax cuts, I'd say it absolutely is essential. When we had higher taxes, we had a surplus. When we lowered taxes, we had a deficit. It's not rocket science.
In any form of government where they can even begin to imagine something like what you are saying, you will know that you are dealing with a tyrannical out of control entity. How anyone can say that by not spending money that others have not even made yet will cause them to incur a deficit is ludicrous. We are a people with a government, not a government with a people. We give the power to the government and it is our servant and not the other way around.
What the hell are you talking about? If they're basing their numbers on what we were bringing in before the cuts and applying that number to our budget, that's how "anyone could say that". As I said, it's not rocket science, it's simple math. Our country was not in the shape it is in now, unable to pay its bills, prior to the Bush tax cuts (prior to Bush in general actually). The cuts had a sunset date but they should've never seen a sunrise in the first place. And, hello, **snaps fingers**, pay attention, we're talking about the entirety of the cuts not just a portion of them. That makes everything you said irrelevant. So, are you an idiot or have ADD?
They are basing the numbers on spending money that people haven't even made yet. That is what I am talking about. Even if they had collected all of the money from these tax cuts all of this time we would be in the exact same shape we were in about one week ago. So, unless you are seriously suggesting that we are only one week of government operational costs in debt then you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are simply "talking out the side of your neck". This money you are talking about isn't the governments money, it is money created by these people that the government takes from them. I will agree with you that these cuts should have never seen a sunrise in the first place -- but for different reasons: because they should have never been necessary in the first place as the government should not have been stealing this much money from any of the citizens. These cuts do not cost us any money and the US isn't sending out any checks to these people as you seem to think.
The amount of this money is trivial to what the government wastes every day. Last year alone the government over payed unemployment benefits amounting to over 16 years of these cuts. In 2010 they gave an equal amount of these cuts as income tax returns to illegal aliens who didn't even pay any income tax. Every year the US gives over 5 years worth of these cuts away in foreign aid. Before we steal more from our own people we need to hold the government accountable for what it wastes and spends already and no foreign nationalists should ever be placed above the freedoms and liberties of our own peoples.
-
They are basing the numbers on spending money that people haven't even made yet.
You keep saying this like it means something but it just doesn't. So what? That's what budgets are based on. You take estimates. You figure out what should come in and what should go out. You may operate above or below those estimates. That's why the words deficit and surplus even exist; if your estimates turn out to be wrong. And yes, our government should expect a certain amount of money from its citizens before they spend it. Every company that you owe money to does the exact same thing.
This money you are talking about isn't the governments money, it is money created by these people that the government takes from them. I will agree with you that these cuts should have never seen a sunrise in the first place -- but for different reasons: because they should have never been necessary in the first place as the government should not have been stealing this much money from any of the citizens. These cuts do not cost us any money and the US isn't sending out any checks to these people as you seem to think.
Your argument against taxation or the amount of taxation falls flat. There's more to being a citizen of a country than just living in it. You're a part of it. It's your home. If it's all of our home, it takes money from all of us for upkeep. You seem to want to believe that if you worked for your money, it's all yours... it's actually not :o Shocking, I know. I'm pretty sure you'll zero in on that and completely miss the point of what I'm saying, but I'll make the point anyway. Being ignorant, in denial, or just plain lying about reality doesn't change it. You would not have a job to work hard at if not for the roads, bridges, tunnels, public transportation, public libraries, public schools, police and fire departments, military, etc... that we all pay for. You wouldn't have the internet you're making money on without the development of it by the DoD.
You're fed this line (lie actually) by conservatives that you do it all on your own and you, obviously, swallow it whole because it flatters you. It's just not true. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that's reality. When you reject reality and substitute your own you just end up looking like an idiot like senior citizens on medicare at tea party rallies holding up signs saying "keep government out of healthcare". Or like Craig T. Nelson on Glenn Becks show extolling the virtues of capitalism and railing against government bailouts because he says when he was on welfare and food stamps no one helped him out. WTF?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
Again, ignorance and/or believing someone's lie because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside because it tells you how great you are doesn't change reality.
Even if they had collected all of the money from these tax cuts all of this time we would be in the exact same shape we were in about one week ago. So, unless you are seriously suggesting that we are only one week of government operational costs in debt then you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are simply "talking out the side of your neck".
No, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. This is why you keep trying to force some argument that no one's making. I'm talking about simple math. The same math the CBO is using. The money we have coming in is much less than the money we need to go out (deficit). The biggest contributor to that deficit is the Bush tax cuts. They didn't say "get rid of the tax cuts and that will cover our deficit" or that it's the only problem. They are saying it's the biggest problem though. We're talking numbers on paper. What about that don't you understand?
The amount of this money is trivial to what the government wastes every day...
I'm sure we'll disagree on what's considered wasteful but regardless, whether spending is wasteful or not, whether certain programs should be provided by the government or not, the bills incurred by them are owed, period. Our rates, at all times, should go back to a level to that gets us closer to covering what we owe while leaving people enough to live their lives and have enough of a cushion for emergencies. There should be levels our rates don't go above or below. It certainly should not be lowered on a whim, irresponsibly, basically to bribe people like you into voting for them again.
If we can't pay our bills, the money you get back will be worthless. It's about the value of a dollar, not just how many dollars you have coming in. Who's doing what with the money is a matter of voting, but if we know we can't pay our current bills with what we have coming in, and we know we could at a previous rate, and we know going back to our previous rate (which no one had a problem with at the time) will get us closer to our goal, to keep our current rate is just flat out wrong.
-
No. You can only cut so much. This goes back to what I was saying about going no deeper than the surface. If I have a bill with a balance of $20,000 and my minimum payment is $500 a month, but my only non-essential to cut is something like cable, and that's only $150 a month, I'm still short $350 which I have to get from somewhere else. If I cut deeper, I'll have to cut into essentials. I can't cut my rent but I can cut into food, gas, and electricity, etc.., but again, only so much and cutting into essentials can lead to further problems down the line. For example, if I make my money online but cut deeper into my electric bill by not being online so much, that would actually cost me money. Even if I can cut enough, whether deep or not, I probably can just cover what I owe with no room for savings. So if some unforeseen circumstance comes up like, I don't know, a terrorists attack, a war or two, a recession, I have no savings for emergencies. Cutting alone means, at best, you'll live paycheck to paycheck.
There's room for compromise? The party you're voting for doesn't think so. One side is willing to compromise like adults and the other says it's their way or no deal, like children. But hey, look what their way has brought us. I'd certainly vote for that ::) . In-effing-sane.
I'm not talking about cutting essentials. Outside of cutting the obvious wastes, I'm talking about actual reform and reorganization of government programs that are being ran inefficiently, which for the most part is all of them. These inefficiencies lead to higher costs. For example, the military wastes an estimated $200-300 billion a year in such inefficiencies, largely stemming from the bogged down with unnecessary layers of command and bureaucracies. I'm actually looking a little deeper than surface.
-
I'm not talking about cutting essentials. Outside of cutting the obvious wastes, I'm talking about actual reform and reorganization of government programs that are being ran inefficiently, which for the most part is all of them. These inefficiencies lead to higher costs. For example, the military wastes an estimated $200-300 billion a year in such inefficiencies, largely stemming from the bogged down with unnecessary layers of command and bureaucracies. I'm actually looking a little deeper than surface.
Well, we agree. I brought up cutting into essentials because, like I said, you can only cut so many non-essentials out but that won't be enough. If we're talking only cuts, you'll eventually have to look elsewhere at essentials. Also, I brought up looking beyond the surface because we may not agree on what "essentials" are. Certain programs for the poor may be viewed as non-essential until you cut them and the poor come looking to eat you. You'll cut yourself deep and bleed out if you don't look deeper into the consequences of cuts for programs seen as non-essential. That is not to say under normal circumstances the government should help anyone rebound from the bottom, it is however, to say that, when the playing field hasn't been even for everyone, and the government laid the foundation for that field, you can't just say go out there and succeed or fail on your own. Some were pushed more towards failure than others and it's not simply their own doing.
To bring this back to the topic of the thread, it may seem like I side with Democrats no matter what, but I don't. They stink too. But at least they'll compromise. That's why they're considered weak and Republicans can constantly beat them over the head. $1 of revenue for every $10 of cuts seems like a great compromise to sane people but not to people that signed pledges that say no tax increases no matter what. A plan was supposed to be put in place to decrease the deficit. If no deal was reached, automatic cuts were supposed to happen. Dems cutting social programs and Reps cutting the defense budget. Guess who backed out when a deal wasn't reached? I can't in good conscience vote Republican. I just can't stomach them.
-
Unemployment is down, gas prices are down, we have never been safer and NOW all of your booger picking kids will have health insurance.
There is NOW WAY you are int he 1% economically if you are on this site. What... WHAT makes you vote republican?
Your bigotry?
- No democratic President is ready to make same sex marriage legal. Don't worry, the queers won't take over just yet.
- No republican has came up with a mass deportation bill and none are in the works. Voting republican won't "git rid of dem mexins"
Your "God"?
- No Republican President is going to ban abortion.
Your Guns?
- No Democrat is going to take your riffle away.
How in the world the Republican party has convinced you hillbillies that tax cuts for rich people will somehow benefit you is beyond me!
I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and as you pointed out none of the social issues are changing, which leads me to vote Republican in line with my fiscal conservative beliefs. It seems you have fallen under the false notion that only the rich benefit from any Republican policies. A common misconception is that the Bush tax cuts just benefit the rich. In actuality, the Bush tax cuts decreased taxes for everyone. I do know that without the tax cuts, I would have paid roughly 10% more in taxes. I’m certainly nowhere near the Top 1%.
Fine. Then you lose any right to complain about the deficit. The only way to get out of debt is reduce expenses AND raise revenue. It is irresponsible and frankly unintelligent to have our deficit be your major complaint and your solution is to give the country less money to pay off said debt.
That’s not exactly the case. Higher taxes are not essential for this country to get out of debt. To avoid a deficit and get out of debt, you just need your revenues to be greater than your expenses. If you could cut spending below your revenues, then there is no need to raise taxes. Conversely, you could raise taxes above your expenses and you wouldn’t need to cut spending. Being fiscally conservative, I would rather go the route lowering government spending, but there is certainly room for compromise if you would like to do both.
The real issue for me in regards to budget has more to do with the fiscal liberals desire to increase government spending. The health care law is good example of that. It is only shifting the burden even more on taxpayers because it is increasing the amount of revenues needed to even start paying off the debt. If you want to talk about being irresponsible and unintelligent, what exactly to do you call increasing expenses when you already in debt?
If you're one of the people under the incorrect assumption that the affordable healthcare act ADDS to the deficit, then there is no need to prolong a debate.
How is the assumption incorrect? How could it not add to the deficit? Remember that the original CBO scoring involved figures that did not reflect the truth of the cost and half a trillion of the amount calculated within was deficit spending at its origin but when it was shifted over into the AHA it was calculated as deficit neutral (which it isn't). Also be very aware that the original costs for the AHA were under 1 trillion and already it has been revised 3 times by the CBO and is now nearly 3 trillion -- so unless we have suddenly discovered an endless surplus of cash of 200 billion every year then this could be nothing but deficit spending. Even the original calculations of the cost being neutral were suspicious as the CBO themselves when asked about the calculations basically said "we can only use the figures given to us (by the Democrats) and cannot consider other things".
-
They are basing the numbers on spending money that people haven't even made yet.
You keep saying this like it means something but it just doesn't. So what? That's what budgets are based on. You take estimates. You figure out what should come in and what should go out. You may operate above or below those estimates. That's why the words deficit and surplus even exist; if your estimates turn out to be wrong. And yes, our government should expect a certain amount of money from its citizens before they spend it. Every company that you owe money to does the exact same thing.
Our government is not a company. Our government cannot generate a profit or make investments -- it can only spend. To drive the point home even more clearly I will clarify the significance of my statement so that it reads "They are basing the numbers on spending money that the children of people that haven't even been born yet haven't even made.". That shift in perspective shines a light on the severe and dangerous ignorance of your casual dismissal of "so what?". "It is only indentured servitude that remains with any and all offspring of those alive today, so what?". Doesn't quite sound as reasonable as you wish to portray it now, does it? It is funny that when you apply your same 'budget and estimate" calculations and you consider who is paying and how much and how long that it reveals it for what it actually is, and that is slavery of the most insidious form.
This money you are talking about isn't the governments money, it is money created by these people that the government takes from them. I will agree with you that these cuts should have never seen a sunrise in the first place -- but for different reasons: because they should have never been necessary in the first place as the government should not have been stealing this much money from any of the citizens. These cuts do not cost us any money and the US isn't sending out any checks to these people as you seem to think.
Your argument against taxation or the amount of taxation falls flat. There's more to being a citizen of a country than just living in it. You're a part of it. It's your home. If it's all of our home, it takes money from all of us for upkeep. You seem to want to believe that if you worked for your money, it's all yours... it's actually not :o Shocking, I know. I'm pretty sure you'll zero in on that and completely miss the point of what I'm saying, but I'll make the point anyway. Being ignorant, in denial, or just plain lying about reality doesn't change it. You would not have a job to work hard at if not for the roads, bridges, tunnels, public transportation, public libraries, public schools, police and fire departments, military, etc... that we all pay for. You wouldn't have the internet you're making money on without the development of it by the DoD.
You're fed this line (lie actually) by conservatives that you do it all on your own and you, obviously, swallow it whole because it flatters you. It's just not true. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that's reality. When you reject reality and substitute your own you just end up looking like an idiot like senior citizens on medicare at tea party rallies holding up signs saying "keep government out of healthcare". Or like Craig T. Nelson on Glenn Becks show extolling the virtues of capitalism and railing against government bailouts because he says when he was on welfare and food stamps no one helped him out. WTF?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
Again, ignorance and/or believing someone's lie because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside because it tells you how great you are doesn't change reality.
Ignorance? People built this country, not the government. We are a people with a government and not a government with a people. All of these things you indicate were built by people and paid for by people and their existence does not rely upon any government (but don't try to confuse people and move the goalpost so that it appears I am entirely against all taxes as if you will pay attention to the particulars of my post you will see the stipulation I made of "this much". I believe in the duties stipulated in The Constitution and also I believe that local governments can go as far beyond this as isn't a violation of The Constitution and that people can thus "vote with their feet").
The money I earn is mine, and you were right to suspect that I would focus in on that. As part of the spirit and letter of The Constitution, we are born free and if it as you suggest -- that we owe our government at birth -- then it could not be so. I am not as helpless as you, it appears. It could all come crumbling down tomorrow and I will persist where it seems you will wither into decay and immediately become dust. You see I am not dependent upon the government (I suppose you are to have your ideology) but it seems that it (and those that think like you) is dependent upon me.
Don't call me ignorant or naive when you are basically admitting here that without me you would be helpless -- all the while insulting me for calling into question the waste of my taxes.
Even if they had collected all of the money from these tax cuts all of this time we would be in the exact same shape we were in about one week ago. So, unless you are seriously suggesting that we are only one week of government operational costs in debt then you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are simply "talking out the side of your neck".
No, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. This is why you keep trying to force some argument that no one's making. I'm talking about simple math. The same math the CBO is using. The money we have coming in is much less than the money we need to go out (deficit). The biggest contributor to that deficit is the Bush tax cuts. They didn't say "get rid of the tax cuts and that will cover our deficit" or that it's the only problem. They are saying it's the biggest problem though. We're talking numbers on paper. What about that don't you understand?
Only in a tyrannical government can they contrive some notion of "not taking money from people" is an expense. Based on such reasoning I can say that "not robbing my neighbors is costing me money". Do you realize the implications of your statement and reasoning?
Do you even realize that this same CBO said that the elimination of these tax cuts would lead to an even more dire contraction of the economy with a loss in federal revenue greater than the amount of the tax cuts? When you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and then borrowing some more from Luke and Mark you have to look deeper into the numbers than your simplistic and naive methodology.
The amount of this money is trivial to what the government wastes every day...
I'm sure we'll disagree on what's considered wasteful but regardless, whether spending is wasteful or not, whether certain programs should be provided by the government or not, the bills incurred by them are owed, period. Our rates, at all times, should go back to a level to that gets us closer to covering what we owe while leaving people enough to live their lives and have enough of a cushion for emergencies. There should be levels our rates don't go above or below. It certainly should not be lowered on a whim, irresponsibly, basically to bribe people like you into voting for them again.
If we can't pay our bills, the money you get back will be worthless. It's about the value of a dollar, not just how many dollars you have coming in. Who's doing what with the money is a matter of voting, but if we know we can't pay our current bills with what we have coming in, and we know we could at a previous rate, and we know going back to our previous rate (which no one had a problem with at the time) will get us closer to our goal, to keep our current rate is just flat out wrong.
"...to bribe people like you into voting for them again"? Do you mean that they will give me money, food, a home, medical, etc and I don't have to pay any taxes? That is a bribe and that is the liberal/democratic strategy. I would hardly call it a bribe with then hold me at gunpoint and only take what is in one of my pockets but let me keep the rest...
The value of the dollar is meaningless without economic growth. Don't you understand that no matter how strong the dollar is, if your economy is dying that it doesn't matter. When you look back at historical figures you cannot simply look at the government side of things you must look at the US economy and what booms (and coming bubbles) were occurring. You must understand the nature of the government and how it will innately tend to spend more than it takes in and how it can never create wealth. If you doubled the revenue it takes in today it would quickly double the expense and would base the revenue delta into its calculations about how it can thus increase its spending in the future. You must understanding what you are dealing with and handle it appropriately, and you cannot tame a lion with the methodologies described within a manual on puppy rearing.
-
Our government is not a company. Our government cannot generate a profit or make investments -- it can only spend. To drive the point home even more clearly I will clarify the significance of my statement so that it reads "They are basing the numbers on spending money that the children of people that haven't even been born yet haven't even made.". That shift in perspective shines a light on the severe and dangerous ignorance of your casual dismissal of "so what?". "It is only indentured servitude that remains with any and all offspring of those alive today, so what?". Doesn't quite sound as reasonable as you wish to portray it now, does it? It is funny that when you apply your same 'budget and estimate" calculations and you consider who is paying and how much and how long that it reveals it for what it actually is, and that is slavery of the most insidious form.
After all that typing, you still get a big whopping "so what?" from me. Our government is not a company and it is not a household. It can't be compared 1 to 1 with either of those things. It doesn't get paid for the work it does, it collects taxes from us to pay for things we all collectively use. That is the nature of it. It does, however, create budgets just like a company or a household based on the money it expects to have coming in. That's how you create budgets. At this point, I'm repeating myself. Bringing up the children ("Oh no, will someone please think of the children!!") falls flat. Again, there's more to being a citizen of a country than just living in it.
What is actually funny is that you're talking about people building this country (below) and slavery (above) as you're talking to a black man. Actual slavery is slavery in it's most insidious form not people getting paid for what they do. So please, spare me.
Ignorance? People built this country, not the government. We are a people with a government and not a government with a people. All of these things you indicate were built by people and paid for by people and their existence does not rely upon any government (but don't try to confuse people and move the goalpost so that it appears I am entirely against all taxes as if you will pay attention to the particulars of my post you will see the stipulation I made of "this much". I believe in the duties stipulated in The Constitution and also I believe that local governments can go as far beyond this as isn't a violation of The Constitution and that people can thus "vote with their feet").
This is the beginning of the paragraph you're responding to:
Your argument against taxation or the amount of taxation falls flat.
Explain to me how I moved the goal post again?
The money I earn is mine, and you were right to suspect that I would focus in on that. As part of the spirit and letter of The Constitution, we are born free and if it as you suggest -- that we owe our government at birth -- then it could not be so. I am not as helpless as you, it appears. It could all come crumbling down tomorrow and I will persist where it seems you will wither into decay and immediately become dust. You see I am not dependent upon the government (I suppose you are to have your ideology) but it seems that it (and those that think like you) is dependent upon me.
Don't call me ignorant or naive when you are basically admitting here that without me you would be helpless -- all the while insulting me for calling into question the waste of my taxes.
What a load of self righteous crap. If it all comes crumbling down and you've been hunting and/or camping at least once, then yeah, you'd have it over me, otherwise no. Again, you eat up these lies 'cause they flatter you not because they have any basis in reality. Again, I'm just repeating myself, EVERYTHING you took advantage of to get where you are was absolutely because of all of us collectively. You did NOT do it all yourself. Show me the bridge you built by yourself. Show me the roads you built by yourself. Show me those libraries and schools with wings dedicated to you. Show me! You damn sure used them I bet. You are the old person at the tea party rally and Craig T Nelson on Glenn Becks show looking like an ignorant fool. That is absolutely you. Explain to me how you got anything you have WITHOUT utilizing any of those things. There isn't a damn thing you've done by yourself.
Only in a tyrannical government can they contrive some notion of "not taking money from people" is an expense. Based on such reasoning I can say that "not robbing my neighbors is costing me money". Do you realize the implications of your statement and reasoning?
::) Figure out the relationship between citizens and this government and neighbors and neighbors then try to make sense next time.
Do you even realize that this same CBO said that the elimination of these tax cuts would lead to an even more dire contraction of the economy with a loss in federal revenue greater than the amount of the tax cuts? When you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and then borrowing some more from Luke and Mark you have to look deeper into the numbers than your simplistic and naive methodology.
Do you even realize that this same CBO said the same thing about spending cuts? Look deeper into the numbers than your simplistic naive methodology.
Again (once more repeating myself), I brought up numbers on paper. What we could afford and why we can't afford it now. Unlike you, I'm not a keyboard economist but I do a little Monday morning quaterbacking though. We can't go to extremes in either direction. The exact path to take eludes even the people that get paid to analyze this stuff and offer their suggestions. Pardon me if your critique of a plan I didn't even provide doesn't move me.
"...to bribe people like you into voting for them again"? Do you mean that they will give me money, food, a home, medical, etc and I don't have to pay any taxes? That is a bribe and that is the liberal/democratic strategy...
No, providing you with a whole new world to live in separate from the real one to where you think you're not taking and you're doing it all on your own is the type of bribe I'm talking about. That's the conservative/republican strategy. Flatter, (brain)wash, rinse, and repeat.
-
Our government is not a company. Our government cannot generate a profit or make investments -- it can only spend. To drive the point home even more clearly I will clarify the significance of my statement so that it reads "They are basing the numbers on spending money that the children of people that haven't even been born yet haven't even made.". That shift in perspective shines a light on the severe and dangerous ignorance of your casual dismissal of "so what?". "It is only indentured servitude that remains with any and all offspring of those alive today, so what?". Doesn't quite sound as reasonable as you wish to portray it now, does it? It is funny that when you apply your same 'budget and estimate" calculations and you consider who is paying and how much and how long that it reveals it for what it actually is, and that is slavery of the most insidious form.
After all that typing, you still get a big whopping "so what?" from me. Our government is not a company and it is not a household. It can't be compared 1 to 1 with either of those things. It doesn't get paid for the work it does, it collects taxes from us to pay for things we all collectively use. That is the nature of it. It does, however, create budgets just like a company or a household based on the money it expects to have coming in. That's how you create budgets. At this point, I'm repeating myself. Bringing up the children ("Oh no, will someone please think of the children!!") falls flat. Again, there's more to being a citizen of a country than just living in it.
What is actually funny is that you're talking about people building this country (below) and slavery (above) as you're talking to a black man. Actual slavery is slavery in it's most insidious form not people getting paid for what they do. So please, spare me.
And looking at our national debt and the staggering unfunded liabilities it is quite evident that the government is incapable of formulating a budget. In fact the current Democratic controlled senate has not submitted a budget in three years -- so don't come at me speaking about budgets. I don't know how you do it, but when I calculate a budget I allow for a large percentage of "unknown liabilities and expenses" and this is something our government never does as it always assumes the attitude of "deal with it later". The issue of the children of children is not unwarranted as they are spending money now of the children of the children of people not even born yet -- that would be like me taking out a loan and signing the name of my unborn son's unborn daughter. We owe the spirit of our country, not the federal government as you seem to have confusion about this. I served my country honorably in the military because I wanted to and not because I owed some obligated debt. While I have a greater admiration for others that served in the military, I do not feel resentment or any other negativity towards those that choose not to. The nature of freedom is to live without debt or obligation and as our country is based upon freedom it's citizens must be capable of living such a life.
I don't care if you are black/brown/white/purple/orange/green, so don't play any race card with me as it will not work since I don't possess this liberal guilt. My ancestors gave their lives fighting against slavery and we won the civil war. I am not asking for you to thank them or give them your gratitude but I am certainly telling you that I don't feel sorry for you and I don't feel sorry that my ancestors lost their lives in freeing an enslaved people. Actual slavery is not insidious at all, it is direct and obvious and only possible because of the weakness of the spirit of the one enslaved (note: I don't mean that last part to sound insulting as it might seem upon first reading. Consider what I said and you will realize that nobody has to be a slave, regardless of how compelling the coercion used against one is. Nobody, likely, would choose to be a slave, but their are some that when put into such a situation might not choose to be free. While such methods and manners of torture and coercion are possible to break the spirits of men so that they conform to a master, such can never be absolute beyond the willingness of the enslaved. Again I say this not as a slave but as a free man who understands what lengths would be necessary to enslave me -- and I ask you, "what would it take to make you bend your knee to a master?"). That is where I see us now and while I so despise your opinion of the relationship between us citizens and our government. We are the masters and our government is the servant and you seem to think it the other way around. I don't see the government being capable of enslaving me with a gun to my head (can never know though till the act as brave words are just that), but I damned well know that they will not get me with an offering of some libraries and paved roads.
Ignorance? People built this country, not the government. We are a people with a government and not a government with a people. All of these things you indicate were built by people and paid for by people and their existence does not rely upon any government (but don't try to confuse people and move the goalpost so that it appears I am entirely against all taxes as if you will pay attention to the particulars of my post you will see the stipulation I made of "this much". I believe in the duties stipulated in The Constitution and also I believe that local governments can go as far beyond this as isn't a violation of The Constitution and that people can thus "vote with their feet").
This is the beginning of the paragraph you're responding to:
Your argument against taxation or the amount of taxation falls flat.
Explain to me how I moved the goal post again?
Mainly because of your lead-in of "against taxation" where even in your above counter you stipulate the secondary additional of "the amount of taxation". Why include both if you are not wishing the readers to perceive both as a possibility? Subtle trick of debate but it is one that is effective upon the minds of the inexperienced and it is one that I will not allow to be suggested of me -- even if you follow up with a secondary. You are arguing circular and stating that the success of one is owed to the government and that the failings of the government to perform its duties requires a greater debt from those that find a way to succeed in spite of the ineptitude and incompetence and interference of this same government.
The money I earn is mine, and you were right to suspect that I would focus in on that. As part of the spirit and letter of The Constitution, we are born free and if it as you suggest -- that we owe our government at birth -- then it could not be so. I am not as helpless as you, it appears. It could all come crumbling down tomorrow and I will persist where it seems you will wither into decay and immediately become dust. You see I am not dependent upon the government (I suppose you are to have your ideology) but it seems that it (and those that think like you) is dependent upon me.
Don't call me ignorant or naive when you are basically admitting here that without me you would be helpless -- all the while insulting me for calling into question the waste of my taxes.
What a load of self righteous crap. If it all comes crumbling down and you've been hunting and/or camping at least once, then yeah, you'd have it over me, otherwise no. Again, you eat up these lies 'cause they flatter you not because they have any basis in reality. Again, I'm just repeating myself, EVERYTHING you took advantage of to get where you are was absolutely because of all of us collectively. You did NOT do it all yourself. Show me the bridge you built by yourself. Show me the roads you built by yourself. Show me those libraries and schools with wings dedicated to you. Show me! You damn sure used them I bet. You are the old person at the tea party rally and Craig T Nelson on Glenn Becks show looking like an ignorant fool. That is absolutely you. Explain to me how you got anything you have WITHOUT utilizing any of those things. There isn't a damn thing you've done by yourself.
What lies am I eating up? You say this as if you suggest I am being fed something by someone when what I give you is coming from me and of me. You are the one that seems to put into your belly the food and drink that the liberals provide you. Whether you perceive what I said as crap or not it is the truth -- I can persist without the help of anyone. That doesn't mean I would want to, it just means that I know I could and to you tell you the truth I already have done that (Homeless and not even one penny in my pocket -- but I did make use of these beloved roads of yours as I clearly remember how much it burned and hurt to walk on since I didn't own a pair of shoes. I received not a single penny in help from the government, but also I didn't ask either. Maybe that was pride or this arrogance you hint at with your above reference to self flattery. You can make your own mind up about which or fabricate another reason since you seem to think you understand even anything about me).
These roads and schools and libraries and such things you continue to bring up -- that debt was paid long ago and it cannot be both a gift and a debt at the same time. With your reasoning one would describe syphilis this way "The gift that keeps giving". Again with your socialistic "collectively" argument. That point is entirely moot at best since we would each have the exact same benefits and opportunities and that only the truly exceptional would rise above. From that sort of argument we can easily deduce that everyone should pay the exact same 'amount' of taxes and not just percent and it would reason then that the rich should pay no more than the poorest in dollar amounts (I know that isn't what you are arguing so you seriously need to rethink the implications of your ideology). Furthermore all the wrong and crime would also be a product of this government benevolence so at the best possible case (from your position) it could only be "a wash" with nobody owing the government anything nor it owing us.
Only in a tyrannical government can they contrive some notion of "not taking money from people" is an expense. Based on such reasoning I can say that "not robbing my neighbors is costing me money". Do you realize the implications of your statement and reasoning?
::) Figure out the relationship between citizens and this government and neighbors and neighbors then try to make sense next time.
The government is our servant and owes us. Our neighbors are our equals and do not owe us and we do not owe them. When the servant dictates to the master there is a problem and that is what we have in our government today. I was a soldier and a servant to my country. I did not tell my country who to fight or who to defend against, it told me (I was administrative and not combat so do not picture me blood covered and gung ho fighting from a trench in a life or death struggle as I would not want to be suggesting that and although I served honorably in the capacity as they called me to I would feel dishonest to not clarify as others here have already felt compelled to belittle me for merely being a 'secretary' as I think it was that they put it).
Do you even realize that this same CBO said that the elimination of these tax cuts would lead to an even more dire contraction of the economy with a loss in federal revenue greater than the amount of the tax cuts? When you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and then borrowing some more from Luke and Mark you have to look deeper into the numbers than your simplistic and naive methodology.
Do you even realize that this same CBO said the same thing about spending cuts? Look deeper into the numbers than your simplistic naive methodology.
Again (once more repeating myself), I brought up numbers on paper. What we could afford and why we can't afford it now. Unlike you, I'm not a keyboard economist but I do a little Monday morning quaterbacking though. We can't go to extremes in either direction. The exact path to take eludes even the people that get paid to analyze this stuff and offer their suggestions. Pardon me if your critique of a plan I didn't even provide doesn't move me.
I did as you did, brought up numbers on paper. Our same government that decides what we can afford and not afford also decides what to take from people. If I robbed my neighbors I could afford a lot more than I can afford now, but it would be foolish of me to calculate a budget based upon that and then go out and spend the money and not rob them and then blame them for it. Think about it, you already suggest that you believe we owe our government for the roads and schools and libraries and other things. Who pays for these things? It is the rich that do and the same people you seem to feel should be obligated to pay even more. If somebody offered to help me I would certainly not hold them up for even more money and I would not blame them if they suddenly chose not to help me anymore.
"...to bribe people like you into voting for them again"? Do you mean that they will give me money, food, a home, medical, etc and I don't have to pay any taxes? That is a bribe and that is the liberal/democratic strategy...
No, providing you with a whole new world to live in separate from the real one to where you think you're not taking and you're doing it all on your own is the type of bribe I'm talking about. That's the conservative/republican strategy. Flatter, (brain)wash, rinse, and repeat.
No man is an island argument? I never said a man was so you can abandon that approach. You cannot equate a reduction in extortion to a bribe, but you could well consider welfare and food stamps and other such charities as a bribe. The top 5% of wealth earners in the US pay 65% of the federal income tax and the bottom 50% of wealth earners pay 0%. Those numbers, while significant in their own do not even represent the whole truth of the disparity. Those top 5% also provide jobs and opportunities to countless thousands of others. They pay for your beloved roads and libraries and such other things. The bottom 50% contribute nothing to these things and yet they use them just the same and also additional resources not used by the top 5%. When someone running for offices says they will raise the rates on those that actually pay and give more 'free' stuff to those that will not -- well what the hell is that except a bribe? At 51% paying nothing democracy is dead and freedom is lost except for those with the honor and integrity to recognize right from wrong and not put a price on their dignity.
The world you allude to from your viewpoints is distorted and upside down and I cannot imagine how anyone could ever come to think that way.
-
Thank you, patty4me! The man is talking about opening 800,000 jobs to illegal immigrants. Really? Where are these jobs? Man, I am tellng you the direction we are heading is either really scary or very promising.
I'm going to move to another country, become a legal citizen there, then sneak back here as an illegal imigrant and get myself one of those 800,000 jobs (Are there even that many jobs available in the US?). :BangHead:
-
@Abrupt, we're not speaking to each other at this point (well, we never were). I don't know why I keep getting involved in these types of conversations when they go nowhere. We're not actually trying to come to some kind of understanding or even just a conclusion. I'm just going to respond to some points that stand out to me instead of all the quoting.
1st, I didn't play the race card. What you did is what conservatives typically tend to do and that is play the race card card. I mention race, you ignore whether the mention is relevant or not and just say "you're playing the race card!". You brought up slavery and people building the country. You honestly don't see why race would come up to me? Honestly? If you brought up abortion or voting rights, you're telling me you don't see why someone you're debating, if you didn't know it at the time, would bring up the fact that they are a woman? (race too actually 'cause it also applies here).
2nd, "We owe the spirit of our country"? That means absolutely nothing. How do you repay that? Saluting the flag? Saying the pledge of allegiance every day? Screaming "support our troops" while being fine with putting them in unnecessary wars and not doing anything to actually support them? That is the absolute least you can do if you can call that doing something at all. Giving back to our country means actually giving back. I have zero confusion about what our government is. Our tax dollars don't go to it to say "job well done" 'cause that certainly isn't the case. We employ our government to take care of business on behalf of the country. I have no problem with cutting off their pay for doing a poor job, I do have a problem with cutting off money for the business they have to take care of. You see the difference?
3rd, You mentioned your service. Thank you for that. That is giving back to our country. You did however take part in socialism though. What I meant by you eating up lies you've been fed is that you want so badly to believe you do everything on your on and you just don't. We have a balance between individualism and collectivism. Not liking that doesn't change it. Individualism doesn't trump everything, you just want to believe it does when reality says different. Our military protects taxpayers and freeloaders alike because the safety of our country as a whole trumps the fact that some people will get over. Our police departments, our military (and their healthcare), education, infrastructure...all socialized. Would you rather us hire a military only when needed? Should we all have our own private security details instead of police? Should those with money be the only ones allowed an education? I'm sure your answer is no to those questions so why pretend that this isn't the truth? We as a group provided these things for each other so that we can pursue what makes us happy as an individuals.
It is not a debt or servitude as you want to characterize it. If you own your home, do you let it crumble or do you continue to maintain it as long as you own it? If you pass it on to your kids, should they maintain it or say you already paid for it and you're the one that screwed it up so lets not put more into it? You can allow a house to crumble, you can't allow that for a country. Because of that, if it is a debt, it absolutely has not be paid off because the nature of this "debt" can and will never be paid off if you want to keep this country. It's passed down from generation to generation in whatever condition and each generation must attempt to repair its condition no matter how badly those before them damaged it.
Last, Do you look at a chess board and determine who's winning by how many pieces they've captured? If so, you're probably a horrible chess player. Having to be a slave is about much more than a willingness to bend or how strong you are. There are many variables to be considered. I'm sure there were slaves much stronger than you. It's really easy to speak about something you'll never deal with. Some of those slaves that bent their knees are the reason you or I will never have to. You as an individual may have resisted and died. You as an individual may have broken free and lived in hiding (if you want to call that living or freedom). Yay for you and your individualism :notworthy: . It, however, took groups of people, (black and white, free and unfree) and a head of government to actually end slavery so they could all pursue individual happiness.
I'm sorry, but I had to throw this in... You'd be the slave, after benefiting from everyone's sacrifice so you could finally come out of hiding, talking about "Who's this Harriet Tubman person? What do you mean Lincoln freed the slaves? I freed myself!".
-
@Abrupt, we're not speaking to each other at this point (well, we never were). I don't know why I keep getting involved in these types of conversations when they go nowhere. We're not actually trying to come to some kind of understanding or even just a conclusion. I'm just going to respond to some points that stand out to me instead of all the quoting.
While I disagree with your premise (I was and am trying as I am best capable to speak to you) I do agree with the gist of your conclusion (that an understanding might be impossible) -- but this I come to based solely that you suggest it here of yourself. I believe what we have here is a clash of two different ideologies or social systems or viewpoints that are so foreign from each other as to be incapable of spanning the distance between. That, in itself alone, is fascinating to me. I understand your approach in response and agree to the reasoning behind it.
1st, I didn't play the race card. What you did is what conservatives typically tend to do and that is play the race card card. I mention race, you ignore whether the mention is relevant or not and just say "you're playing the race card!". You brought up slavery and people building the country. You honestly don't see why race would come up to me? Honestly? If you brought up abortion or voting rights, you're telling me you don't see why someone you're debating, if you didn't know it at the time, would bring up the fact that they are a woman? (race too actually 'cause it also applies here).
I find it quite interesting that you would see this exactly opposite as I do. I never brought up race and I still see no relevance to this topic. You are no more a slave now than I am. We both had ancestors that were slaves and in both cases were enslaved by our respective peoples as well as others and in both cases likely fought and died to free their own people as well as others. We are not these people but instead we are ourselves.
2nd, "We owe the spirit of our country"? That means absolutely nothing. How do you repay that? Saluting the flag? Saying the pledge of allegiance every day? Screaming "support our troops" while being fine with putting them in unnecessary wars and not doing anything to actually support them? That is the absolute least you can do if you can call that doing something at all. Giving back to our country means actually giving back. I have zero confusion about what our government is. Our tax dollars don't go to it to say "job well done" 'cause that certainly isn't the case. We employ our government to take care of business on behalf of the country. I have no problem with cutting off their pay for doing a poor job, I do have a problem with cutting off money for the business they have to take care of. You see the difference?
It means everything. You honor the memory of the good of the country and you strive to uphold the spirit of its intent. To each person you honor this spirit as you see fit but the ultimate cost was paid already in blood so that we would be free. The debt we owe is that we all remain free. Since a debt of freedom cannot be forced or coerced to be repaid it must be done so entirely voluntary (anything else defiles the spirit of the gift and achieves the exact opposite effect). Giving back is just that -- giving. If someone takes something from me they cannot claim it to be a gift from me to them. You should have courage and not be afraid of "cutting off money for the business they have to take care of" because if our ancestors had applied this reasoning then it is possible that neither of us would be free today -- but that is not what we are discussing here, though.
3rd, You mentioned your service. Thank you for that. That is giving back to our country. You did however take part in socialism though. What I meant by you eating up lies you've been fed is that you want so badly to believe you do everything on your on and you just don't. We have a balance between individualism and collectivism. Not liking that doesn't change it. Individualism doesn't trump everything, you just want to believe it does when reality says different. Our military protects taxpayers and freeloaders alike because the safety of our country as a whole trumps the fact that some people will get over. Our police departments, our military (and their healthcare), education, infrastructure...all socialized. Would you rather us hire a military only when needed? Should we all have our own private security details instead of police? Should those with money be the only ones allowed an education? I'm sure your answer is no to those questions so why pretend that this isn't the truth? We as a group provided these things for each other so that we can pursue what makes us happy as an individuals.
It is not a debt or servitude as you want to characterize it. If you own your home, do you let it crumble or do you continue to maintain it as long as you own it? If you pass it on to your kids, should they maintain it or say you already paid for it and you're the one that screwed it up so lets not put more into it? You can allow a house to crumble, you can't allow that for a country. Because of that, if it is a debt, it absolutely has not be paid off because the nature of this "debt" can and will never be paid off if you want to keep this country. It's passed down from generation to generation in whatever condition and each generation must attempt to repair its condition no matter how badly those before them damaged it.
Thank you, it was my pleasure to serve. Some of these things are indeed indicated within The Constitution and are thus part of our country (military/interstate highways/etc). These things as such require money and are subject to lawful taxation. There are many things that are taxed now that are not part of The Constitution (healthcare/welfare/etc -- and do not try to imply that the preamble to The Constitution gives power to these as it does not) and the federal government has circumvented its obligations to actually force servitude from the states in other parts (federal highways will only be paid for if the States comply to the restrictions and demands of the federal government in areas such as speed limits, etc). These things are tyrannical and they tend to be easy to spot as they are almost always described with prefaces such as "for the greater good" or "for the good of us all", etc. These are forms of slavery that are not often recognized and I don't know how people have become numb to the sensations of such bindings placed upon them (gradual over time is most likely the reason).
Again, we are born free. The debt we owe is to ensure that we and our progeny remain free. A debt of freedom cannot be paid in slavery, but one can voluntarily serve as they see fit.
Last, Do you look at a chess board and determine who's winning by how many pieces they've captured? If so, you're probably a horrible chess player. Having to be a slave is about much more than a willingness to bend or how strong you are. There are many variables to be considered. I'm sure there were slaves much stronger than you. It's really easy to speak about something you'll never deal with. Some of those slaves that bent their knees are the reason you or I will never have to. You as an individual may have resisted and died. You as an individual may have broken free and lived in hiding (if you want to call that living or freedom). Yay for you and your individualism :notworthy: . It, however, took groups of people, (black and white, free and unfree) and a head of government to actually end slavery so they could all pursue individual happiness.
I'm sorry, but I had to throw this in... You'd be the slave, after benefiting from everyone's sacrifice so you could finally come out of hiding, talking about "Who's this Harriet Tubman person? What do you mean Lincoln freed the slaves? I freed myself!".
No slave bends their knee from choice, only a free man does that. Everyone that bends their knee, though, and declares "I am doing this by choice", is not. Often they don't recognize the bindings that hold them to this posture and it is only when these bindings are cut and the action performed that freedom is maintained and they become their own master.
Do not try to delude the discussion by alluding to the advantages or organization over disarray. That is tactics and strategy and has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Of course a 5 man phalanx is stronger than 5 men with spears at holding a line, but 5 men with spears can scout far superior to a 5 man phalanx so these things are not the same.
A nation that is comprised of citizens that are not free, is not a free nation -- even if it repels every other conquering nation as it has already been conquered from within.
-
iT IS REALLY TOO BAD THAT SO MANY PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER BY PEOPLE WHO HATE AMERICA. ROMNEY AND OBAMA IS ON THE SAME TEAM. SO WAS GOERGE BUSH, CLINTON, HERBERT BUSH, AND CARTER. ALL NEW WORLD ORDER. ONLY GOD CAN HELP AMERICA NOW.
-
iT IS REALLY TOO BAD THAT SO MANY PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER BY PEOPLE WHO HATE AMERICA. ROMNEY AND OBAMA IS ON THE SAME TEAM. SO WAS GOERGE BUSH, CLINTON, HERBERT BUSH, AND CARTER. ALL NEW WORLD ORDER. ONLY GOD CAN HELP AMERICA NOW.
Conspiracy, Devine intervention, and ALL CAPS.... the crazy trifecta. Well done.
-
Mitt Romney or Obama? What great choices! But, too bad; SAME TEAM. Both of these men are playing on the same team, and their agenda is to destroy this great country. The american public have been deceived. America has to go down in order for the new world order to appear fully. TRUST GOD!!! He is our only hope and escape from the coming dark days in America and the world.
-
America has to go down in order for the new world order to appear fully. TRUST GOD!!! He is our only hope and escape from the coming dark days in America and the world.
I would and will oppose any theocracy by any means necessary.
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”
-– Thomas Jefferson
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
--– John Adams
-
I would and will oppose any theocracy by any means necessary.
You and me both, brutha. Let's hope people like Healthfreedom stop getting into political offices.
Also, epic argument above between Abrupt and Bjohnson. Good read! I vant to see moar.
-
Has anyone read the book: "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levine? I'm not taking a stand one way or the other, I just thought it was a very interesting read.
-
Mitt Romney or Obama? What great choices! But, too bad; SAME TEAM. Both of these men are playing on the same team, and their agenda is to destroy this great country. The american public have been deceived. America has to go down in order for the new world order to appear fully. TRUST GOD!!! He is our only hope and escape from the coming dark days in America and the world.
Please enlighten us more....
-
Looking better ever day. Hope he picks a conservative vice president.
-
Looking better ever day. Hope he picks a conservative vice president.
You mean you hope he picks a white man that Hates gays, right?
-
Yes, I think he's the one this time.
-
Looking better ever day. Hope he picks a conservative vice president.
Well, everyday we find out he supports something Obama supports, so I guess he is looking better everyday. He also looks insane everyday when he tries to deny this even though all of this is on tape or in writing. It's a wash. Btw, is it just me, or do conservatives really not understand what video and the internet is for? Do they not realize everything they say and do is documented and, because of the internet, we ALL have access to it?
-
Hell yes! it's time to for someone else to get this country back to the way it ought to be.
-
Hell yes! it's time to for someone else to get this country back to the way it ought to be.
I AGREE! Let's start killing Indians and owning black people again. You read my mind!!!
-
Hell yes! it's time to for someone else to get this country back to the way it ought to be.
I AGREE! Let's start killing Indians and owning black people again. You read my mind!!!
And kick them women back in the kitchen where they BELONG!
-
I find it endearing that liberals on here want to crack jokes. Romney is a decent man, and all the other side has is insinuations and unsubstantiated accusations.
-
insinuations and unsubstantiated accusations.
Ummmm. that's all EITHER side has now. No one, republican or democrat will answer a question without rhetoric and political hackery anymore.
-
I find it endearing that liberals on here want to crack jokes. Romney is a decent man, and all the other side has is insinuations and unsubstantiated accusations.
No he's not. He's a tax-evading draft dodger who wants to cut programs that benefit the poor and needy so millionaires and billionaires can have more money. That's not very decent of him.
And now he picks the zombie-eyed granny starver for VP! Well done, Rmoney, well done indeed!
-
I find it endearing that liberals on here want to crack jokes. Romney is a decent man, and all the other side has is insinuations and unsubstantiated accusations.
No he's not. He's a tax-evading draft dodger who wants to cut programs that benefit the poor and needy so millionaires and billionaires can have more money. That's not very decent of him.
And now he picks the zombie-eyed granny starver for VP! Well done, Rmoney, well done indeed!
Wow you certainly are the brain washed one aren't you? It is known that he isn't a tax-evader, but yet we know that 36 members of Obama's executive staff owe over $800,000 in taxes and the entire current federal employees owe more than 3.4 billion in unpaid taxes. He also was not a draft dodger (do you even know what that is, as it is a crime) and was given deferments like Bill Clinton was, and while both of them could well have used such devices to avoid being drafted it is no more than speculation in either case.
These millionaires and billionaires pay for these programs. These programs are so full of fraud that if you removed the fraud they would be at least double over funded. Why should the government be allowed to continue to play middle man in a theft ring of robbing our responsible and successful citizens to pay for those who are thieves and worthless? Did you know that in 2010 alone the IRS gave checks to illegal aliens (in the form of tax rebates) that paid no taxes (actually cutting them checks for as much as 20k or more each) for an amount that was equal to the amount of money to be appropriated from our prosperous citizens in the proposed "Buffet Rule"? They were aware these claims were fraudulent but were instructed to not challenge claims under the forms used by illegal aliens. Did you not that nearly half of the legal immigrants from Mexico are on welfare programs? Why should the few of us that know how to be proficient in society and who provide vast opportunities for others that wish to also endeavor to succeed be force to pay for people who offer nothing of value and are simply drains on our society? Looking at the massive and obvious government waste and fraud (such as GSA, e.g.) you would lay fault on the citizens who are robbed from instead of the deficient and inept and corrupt government? Well that is not very decent of you!
Granny starver? Cite your proof, sheep, or quiet down and keep drinking that kool-aid you are being provided.
-
All I can say is: "GOD SAVE AMERICA" !!!
-
If Abrupt insults you, you know you're right.
-
If Abrupt insults you, you know you're right.
Do you consider my reply to be insulting? Look carefully at the baseless and dishonest accusations the person made. Realize then that the terms I assigned to the person are accurate. If they are accurate they cannot constitute an insult anymore than telling a person who wreaks of body odor that "they stink". The words the person said in the post above were baseless and dishonest accusation and they are mimicking exactly what the head of the DNC and the other Obama campaign attack dogs are proclaiming. Without any proof they make these charges and I would most certainly qualify anyone that repeats them under such lack of scrutiny as a "sheep" or "brain washed".
Please, with all sincerity, reread what I posted and honestly tell me in what way it is an insult.
-
If Abrupt says he's right, then, by gar, he's right!
Read Ryan's budget proposal, which Romney evidently supports whole-heartedly. The proof's in the pudding.
-
If Abrupt says he's right, then, by gar, he's right!
Read Ryan's budget proposal, which Romney evidently supports whole-heartedly. The proof's in the pudding.
Who is "gar"?
-
Romme introduced ryan as the next president of the united states.
-
Obama did the same thing with bidden, What i want to know is what happened to the part our forefathers started out with. of the people, For the people, by the people (may not be just wordered right) now it is lie to the people, steal from the people and fork the people. I think Romney is going to be the better prez. May not be exactly what we want but will be better then what we have.
-
If Abrupt says he's right, then, by gar, he's right!
Read Ryan's budget proposal, which Romney evidently supports whole-heartedly. The proof's in the pudding.
I have read both of them and never did I find any information about "granny starving". I personally don't think Ryan's budge plan goes far enough, but it is the best thing out there. If someone finds themselves in the situation that they cannot survive without stealing money from the successful (all the while blaming the successful and praising and giving their complete loyalty to the thieves) then all I can say is that you cannot be free if you depend upon others. Never forget, what the government gives you they can just as easily take away, and considering that the government has nothing of its own then realize that everything they give you they took from someone else.
-
Sorry I can't vote for a man that doesn't pay his fair share in taxes. What type of leader hides their money and faith abroad? Apparently Romney doesn't have much interest in fortifying our banks and nation.
-
Sorry I can't vote for a man that doesn't pay his fair share in taxes. What type of leader hides their money and faith abroad? Apparently Romney doesn't have much interest in fortifying our banks and nation.
He did pay his taxes, and I would be willing to bet he paid a heck of a lot more than you did. If you judge a man's character by how much he paid, then what is your worth.
Show me this proof that he has hidden his money. If you are referring to international banking do you apply your same logic to Reid, Pelosi, and all the other liberals who do just the same? If you had a choice, would you put your money in a bank that was overextending itself and making bad investments and subject to becoming a victim of fraud, or would you put your money in a bank that made wise investments and was not subject to fraud and shaky economic practices?
Apparently he has a heck of a lot of interest in it as he is running for president -- or did you miss that?
-
It should be pretty obvious to most people that when the vote suddenly becomes "which candidate do we get the most free stuff from?" that democracy is in jeopardy.
-
The process of selecting electors for the Electorial College is less obvious to the general citizenry.
"Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors."
--http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
-
He did pay his taxes, and I would be willing to bet he paid a heck of a lot more than you did. If you judge a man's character by how much he paid, then what is your worth.
I believe you choose to ignore my statement "fair share". Even Warren Buffet admits that the wealthy are getting away with financial murder.
Show me this proof that he has hidden his money. If you are referring to international banking do you apply your same logic to Reid, Pelosi, and all the other liberals who do just the same? If you had a choice, would you put your money in a bank that was overextending itself and making bad investments and subject to becoming a victim of fraud, or would you put your money in a bank that made wise investments and was not subject to fraud and shaky economic practices?
He has openly admitted that he has offshore accounts, and yes, the same does apply to every American that has made their money off the backs of the middle class only to invest in another country's future. If everyone was capable of performing the same tax dodging tactics as the upper crust, what state would our country be in? Are you sincerely telling me if the entire middle class was able to avoid x% of their taxes that everything would be ok?
Apparently he has a heck of a lot of interest in it as he is running for president -- or did you miss that?
He has a heck of a lot of interest in gaining power for his own personal gain -- or do you not understand modern day politics ?
The fact of the matter is, our personal belief in what makes a good leader is different.
As my grandfather once told me, "Opinions are alot like butts, everyone's got one, and they all stink." (modified for profanity)
-
NO WAY!!! iF YOU VOTE FOR ROMNEY YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
-
He did pay his taxes, and I would be willing to bet he paid a heck of a lot more than you did. If you judge a man's character by how much he paid, then what is your worth.
I believe you choose to ignore my statement "fair share". Even Warren Buffet admits that the wealthy are getting away with financial murder.
A fair share would be the same amount as everyone else -- that is one person should pay the exact same taxes as any other one person. The reason for many of these tax exemptions is to spur interest from the productive citizens to invest in areas that increase the prosperity of one's fellow citizens. If they are making other Americans richer by their efforts it was decided that they should get reductions based upon such generosity. If you removed the Romney's of America, we would be far poorer than the combined amounts of their wealth and that is something you seem to be totally unaware of.
Warren Buffet can pay as much in taxes as he wants to but he chooses to tax every exemption available and never donates beyond what he is forced to -- he is nobody to speak.
Show me this proof that he has hidden his money. If you are referring to international banking do you apply your same logic to Reid, Pelosi, and all the other liberals who do just the same? If you had a choice, would you put your money in a bank that was overextending itself and making bad investments and subject to becoming a victim of fraud, or would you put your money in a bank that made wise investments and was not subject to fraud and shaky economic practices?
He has openly admitted that he has offshore accounts, and yes, the same does apply to every American that has made their money off the backs of the middle class only to invest in another country's future. If everyone was capable of performing the same tax dodging tactics as the upper crust, what state would our country be in? Are you sincerely telling me if the entire middle class was able to avoid x% of their taxes that everything would be ok?
There is nothing illegal with offshore accounts, these are perfectly reasonable things to have, especially when you do international banking. Considering the foolish regulations placed by our government onto the banking systems that prompted this financial crisis we are in it would be better for us all to have had offshore accounts and then maybe it would have been avoided. You do realize that just because you have money in an offshore account that it doesn't mean there is tax dodging going on don't you? You realize he paid US taxes on this money, don't you? You realize that it is absolutely known that he did nothing illegal with this venture, don't you? The middle class does avoid x% of their taxes through various deductions they take advantage of -- whether that is ok or not is subjective, but I think every person is entitled to keep at least 90% of their own damned money. Considering the amount of waste and fraud and unconstitutional expense perpetrated by our government I seriously wish that every American refused to pay any more in taxes until it was corrected -- after all it is time for us to remind them who is in charge and who pays the bills.
Apparently he has a heck of a lot of interest in it as he is running for president -- or did you miss that?
He has a heck of a lot of interest in gaining power for his own personal gain -- or do you not understand modern day politics ?
The fact of the matter is, our personal belief in what makes a good leader is different.
As my grandfather once told me, "Opinions are alot like butts, everyone's got one, and they all stink." (modified for profanity)
I understand politicians quite well and I do not trust any of them as a general rule. I also have some knowledge about businessmen too and it is their greed that I count on as it is at the core of their success and the success of those invested in them. It is my hope that he will be more businessman than politician.
-
NO WAY!!! iF YOU VOTE FOR ROMNEY YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
I deserve freedom and prosperity so I will certainly vote for Romney then, thank you for helping me make up my mind!
-
If Abrupt says he's right, then, by gar, he's right!
Read Ryan's budget proposal, which Romney evidently supports whole-heartedly. The proof's in the pudding.
I have read both of them and never did I find any information about "granny starving". I personally don't think Ryan's budge plan goes far enough, but it is the best thing out there. If someone finds themselves in the situation that they cannot survive without stealing money from the successful (all the while blaming the successful and praising and giving their complete loyalty to the thieves) then all I can say is that you cannot be free if you depend upon others. Never forget, what the government gives you they can just as easily take away, and considering that the government has nothing of its own then realize that everything they give you they took from someone else.
Stealing money from the successful? How about if you're a widowed mother of three who's barely scraping by and depends on food stamps to feed her children? Is that stealing from "the successful?" What if you're elderly with no living relatives, you can't work, and you have a life-threatening illlness that you have no chance of being able to afford treatment for without Medicaid? Is that stealing from "the successful" too? Should these moochers just crawl away and die? Ever hear of the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I?"
You really are one sick puppy.
-
If Abrupt says he's right, then, by gar, he's right!
Read Ryan's budget proposal, which Romney evidently supports whole-heartedly. The proof's in the pudding.
I have read both of them and never did I find any information about "granny starving". I personally don't think Ryan's budge plan goes far enough, but it is the best thing out there. If someone finds themselves in the situation that they cannot survive without stealing money from the successful (all the while blaming the successful and praising and giving their complete loyalty to the thieves) then all I can say is that you cannot be free if you depend upon others. Never forget, what the government gives you they can just as easily take away, and considering that the government has nothing of its own then realize that everything they give you they took from someone else.
Stealing money from the successful? How about if you're a widowed mother of three who's barely scraping by and depends on food stamps to feed her children? Is that stealing from "the successful?" What if you're elderly with no living relatives, you can't work, and you have a life-threatening illlness that you have no chance of being able to afford treatment for without Medicaid? Is that stealing from "the successful" too? Should these moochers just crawl away and die? Ever hear of the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I?"
You really are one sick puppy.
Yes it is. If you take by force the property of another person, then it is stealing. There is no way around that simple fact. You liberals are always so emotional in your thinking and you never consider things reasonably with logic. When you have to deal with the logic of the facts (You are taking through force the wealth/property of another and giving it to someone else) your argument becomes clear for what it is, and it reveals that it is undeniably stealing.
I am familiar with the phrase and so much that I am generous with my wealth and time (what I have of either -- not that the amounts are particularly significant). I cannot be generous with other peoples time or wealth, though, as it is not mine to give. If I force you to mow my 'poor' neighbors lawn should I be pleased and call it 'good'? Traditional charity has always handled these things rather well and is the best provider, not this government mismanaged system that presides now. It would be far better for all of those you mentioned above to die and have that brought to the attention of those who could have helped (every damned one of us and not just the rich -- none of us are helpless invalids) than to take by force from the rest of us and blaspheme it as 'charity'.
I am not sick at all, I am simply a realist in these matters. I don't let my emotions override what is best. I don't feel this sense of guilt or pity that you seem to, as those emotions are destructive when applied to the considerations of the well being of another. If I see someone in need and I can actually help them, then I will -- but I will not throw money at them just so that I can get a night of guilt free sleep. Are you honestly feeling sorry for another person or do you feel sorry for the image you see as yourself in that situation?
-
am familiar with the phrase and so much that I am generous with my wealth and time (what I have of either -- not that the amounts are particularly significant). I cannot be generous with other peoples time or wealth, though, as it is not mine to give. If I force you to mow my 'poor' neighbors lawn should I be pleased and call it 'good'? Traditional charity has always handled these things rather well and is the best provider, not this government mismanaged system that presides now. It would be far better for all of those you mentioned above to die and have that brought to the attention of those who could have helped (every damned one of us and not just the rich -- none of us are helpless invalids) than to take by force from the rest of us and blaspheme it as 'charity'.
I would recommend taking into consideration crime and theft. You are correct (imo) that it technically is stealing, but would you prefer a mismanaged system to 'steal' from you, or would you rather have some poor a55hole bash your door open with a handgun, tie you up, potentially kill you, and steal from you? Granted this already happens, but what do you imagine happening if all gov't aid ceased tomorrow? Look at countries that have little/no gov't benefits. Also having those people who are in need just die is a cold statement, however I completely understand from the aerial viewpoint of what you're saying. The problem with your ideal outcome is simply that it's speculative and does not address the polar opposite of what could happen.
I see this as a strange argument of 'civilized' or less-threatening stealing versus anarchic stealing. I look back onto what my grandma tells me about the Great Depression and how the gov't and it's people did do as much as it/they could to make sure people were okay. Times were tough, but they pulled through. Granted times have changed a lot...I guess it's just a messy argument with a lot of 'what ifs?'.
-
am familiar with the phrase and so much that I am generous with my wealth and time (what I have of either -- not that the amounts are particularly significant). I cannot be generous with other peoples time or wealth, though, as it is not mine to give. If I force you to mow my 'poor' neighbors lawn should I be pleased and call it 'good'? Traditional charity has always handled these things rather well and is the best provider, not this government mismanaged system that presides now. It would be far better for all of those you mentioned above to die and have that brought to the attention of those who could have helped (every damned one of us and not just the rich -- none of us are helpless invalids) than to take by force from the rest of us and blaspheme it as 'charity'.
I would recommend taking into consideration crime and theft. You are correct (imo) that it technically is stealing, but would you prefer a mismanaged system to 'steal' from you, or would you rather have some poor a55hole bash your door open with a handgun, tie you up, potentially kill you, and steal from you? Granted this already happens, but what do you imagine happening if all gov't aid ceased tomorrow? Look at countries that have little/no gov't benefits. Also having those people who are in need just die is a cold statement, however I completely understand from the aerial viewpoint of what you're saying. The problem with your ideal outcome is simply that it's speculative and does not address the polar opposite of what could happen.
I see this as a strange argument of 'civilized' or less-threatening stealing versus anarchic stealing. I look back onto what my grandma tells me about the Great Depression and how the gov't and it's people did do as much as it/they could to make sure people were okay. Times were tough, but they pulled through. Granted times have changed a lot...I guess it's just a messy argument with a lot of 'what ifs?'.
Well, if the person that is supposed to be helped is going to break into my home and rob me (odd to see him in the light of a poor sort though), then I would not want to help him in the first place. He isn't too lazy to steal (I actually respect that and I know it may seem odd in the light of what I have previously said about stealing but it is in contrast to him living deliberately off government redistribution) so he is obviously capable in his own way of taking care of himself. It comes off more of which form of being robbed would I prefer, and to tell you the truth I would prefer the one where I at least get to fight back -- which is the later. If someone asks me to help them I generally do, but when someone tells me to help them it brings out the worst sort in me (unless it is an employer or an elder as I always comply with both with no argument).
I understand what you mean about the statement being cold, and I agree. It isn't something one would ever intentionally do and that is why I think charity would always prevail without the government intervention. People are not cold and heartless and they do help each other out, it is when we are put under duress to help that we start to balk. I sleep sound at night, not because I know other people are taking care of other people, but because I know I am doing what I can to take care of other people.
I have stories from my dad about how his father took his four other brothers and the rest of his family and went north and left him and another brother on their own to fend for themselves. They turned out well enough and it didn't seem to bother them in the long run. I realize that I am one of those people that it is hard to help (you may know the type). I also don't take compliments well either. This is certainly attributed to my upbringing, I suppose, and is an instilled characteristic of self dependency. I would never ever ever take food stamps or government assistance and I was brought up to look upon those things in a shameful manner, and I would be so ashamed to be reduced to such an unworthy level as to have to accept them. I am not that strict with others, though, they should do what they must to survive, but they shouldn't be proud of being on welfare or receiving government aid. If some of what I say seems harsh, it isn't intentionally that way it is just naturally that way from me.
-
Well, if the person that is supposed to be helped is going to break into my home and rob me (odd to see him in the light of a poor sort though), then I would not want to help him in the first place.
Perhaps they're stealing because someone else (family or friend) is in miserable shape? Again, these are all speculative pathways of thought, but I'm fairly certain we can agree that this does happen. Some people just get cornered in life.
he is obviously capable in his own way of taking care of himself.
Possibly. Though not everyone has the same moral standards or work ethic you adhere to. It depends on the upbringing, education, etc. and some just don't get that. If these gov't programs give these people/children a chance to get those, I'm for them. If they're just lazy and living off of them, screw it. Therefore I believe it's a case-by-case situation.
If someone asks me to help them I generally do, but when someone tells me to help them it brings out the worst sort in me
Unfortunately I know the feeling of the 2nd statement. That's precisely why I'm in the gray here. I wouldn't mind the gov't using my money to fund welfare just as long as the people are thankful for it and aren't being parasites and living off of it when they're in good shape to get their lives on track (for instance the example of my friend above-- he just needed it due to his crappy situation). There'd be less of a need for it. I find it as sort of a barrier of keeping parts of our country from becoming third-world though, and I'm totally for wiping the parasites off of it and being much stricter with it (drug tests, proof of purchases with the welfare, etc.). Unfortunately these would probably require more taxes on us though. :-
I am not that strict with others, though, they should do what they must to survive, but they shouldn't be proud of being on welfare or receiving government aid. If some of what I say seems harsh, it isn't intentionally that way it is just naturally that way from me.
I'm looking at this from an argumentative standpoint, so in no way would I judge your character. I do agree with a lot of what you're saying though as it is informative, but it's still a mess no matter which way I look at it.
-
Amen Hawkeye; we sure can't survive with another 4 yrs. of Obama. Romney may not be the most conservative but he will sure be better than what we have now. Everyday Obama says something new that is just hard to believe; giving jobs in the USA to illegals; what's up with that? Our unemployment is thru the roof so why give jobs to ppl who are here illegally? If we don't get this country back on track we are doomed.
The thing is the illegals already have our jobs,work for the less pay and don't have to pay taxes. In my area the whites are the minority and the illegals are the majority.
-
I hope he does make it in; Obama has led America to fast decline. He has allowed immorality to become rampant when he allowed homosexuals to marry. The more mistakes we make, the more we have to pay to get out. How do we get out of trillion dollar debt? We have not been paying it back. Why/ what are we waiting for? If everyone put forth a certain amount, it would be paid off. There are billionaires and millionaires who do give of their wealth, but no one wants higher taxes.
As far as morality is concerned, not all homosexuals want to stay that way. Some do want to change and aren't sure where to go for help.
There is a website "coming out loved" that has helpful resources.
Have faith.
Be strong.
Point your neighbor in the right direction.
-
I hope he does make it in; Obama has led America to fast decline. He has allowed immorality to become rampant when he allowed homosexuals to marry.
As far as morality is concerned, not all homosexuals want to stay that way. Some do want to change and aren't sure where to go for help.
The only ones who want to change are the ones that are afraid and pestered by the ignorant bigots. Your "coming out loved" website is really really screwed up.
http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/10/31/international-healing-foundation-comes-out/
-
I hope he does make it in; Obama has led America to fast decline. He has allowed immorality to become rampant when he allowed homosexuals to marry. The more mistakes we make, the more we have to pay to get out. How do we get out of trillion dollar debt? We have not been paying it back. Why/ what are we waiting for? If everyone put forth a certain amount, it would be paid off. There are billionaires and millionaires who do give of their wealth, but no one wants higher taxes.
As far as morality is concerned, not all homosexuals want to stay that way. Some do want to change and aren't sure where to go for help.
There is a website "coming out loved" that has helpful resources.
Have faith.
Be strong.
Point your neighbor in the right direction.
So, do you want to raise taxes OR hate gays?? In today's political climate, you cannot do both.
-
The potential Romney Administration reminds me of the Dreaded Nixon Adminstration of the 1970's and we all know how that ended. Obama has not fullfilled the expectations of those who voted for him, true but it has not been due to any kind of deceit or his lack of caring about all of the american people and genuinely wanting to restore the middle class in this country. I wonder how much could have been accomplished had there been a congress in place that was not hell bent on blocking everything he proposed, keeping benefits to the most wealthy americans going, and making sure he was a one term president. Do we really want the TEA PARTY running the country? Romney's chosen running mate is from Tea Party country and even some of the people there dont like him.
-
I am voting for Romney and I hope he wins.
-
Momoney, anyone running the country would be better than the way Obama has; all the running he has done has been in the wrong direction.
-
Momoney, anyone running the country would be better than the way Obama has; all the running he has done has been in the wrong direction.
Nice sting. Stolen from Beck? Parrot.
-
I wonder how much could have been accomplished had there been a congress in place that was not hell bent on blocking everything he proposed, keeping benefits to the most wealthy americans going, and making sure he was a one term president.
Are you new to living in the United States? Don't you remember Obama's first two years with a democratic house and senate? He could have passed anything he wanted then, and he did in fact -- even things strongly opposed to by the American People. You seem to forget, it is not the presidents job to propose bills, it is the duty of Congress. The president is responsible for executing the laws that congress passes and this is something Obama is not doing, and is even defying the law of the land and making up his own new contradictory laws and calling them executive orders.
-
Momoney, anyone running the country would be better than the way Obama has; all the running he has done has been in the wrong direction.
Oh, I remember the BUSH Administration unbelievably being given 8 years to create the train wreck Obama Inherited. Was that better?
-
I want Romney to win- do not like the way Obama has ran our country.
-
"Oh, I remember the BUSH Administration unbelievably being given 8 years to create the train wreck Obama Inherited. Was that better?"
I agree with momoney. If Romney and Ryan get elected you can forget about medicare and social security. Those of us that are nearing soc. sec. age don't want those things to change, we've worked really hard for the right to receive those benefits. By the way I'm 55 and am no longer able to work due to arthritis problems.
-
Romney for me :thumbsup:
-
"Oh, I remember the BUSH Administration unbelievably being given 8 years to create the train wreck Obama Inherited. Was that better?"
I agree with momoney. If Romney and Ryan get elected you can forget about medicare and social security. Those of us that are nearing soc. sec. age don't want those things to change, we've worked really hard for the right to receive those benefits. By the way I'm 55 and am no longer able to work due to arthritis problems.
Medicare and Social Security are doomed now. Social Security will reach insolvency by at least 2033 and most likely sooner. This administration has already cut medicare by over 700 billion (they call it 'cost reduction' but it doesn't actually include any cost reduction methodologies and simply takes the cash) and it is expected to reach insolvency by as late as 2024 with some saying 2017. Romney and Ryan have plans to fix it and allow it to continue on a modified and sustainable path so that not just you will be able to benefit from these but so will your children and their children. Obama has done nothing but hasten the demise of these programs and lacks the courage to be honest with the citizens and paint the bleak picture of what we are facing. You can poke your head in the sand and pretend that things will be well and then act surprised and shocked when they run out -- or you can elect leaders that will be honest with you and fix the broken programs. Don't be afraid to research what I have told you as the facts are out there and easily located.
-
Yes Romney.....If Mickey Mouse was running againist Obama, I would choose him! Everyone worrying about medical care now....if Obama is re-elected and OBAMACARE passes then all of our "physicians" will be PA's....and they are required to have what a little more than a 4 year degree???? MD's and DO's will be a thing of the past! Deaths will sure be on the rise then!
-
Yes Romney.....If Mickey Mouse was running againist Obama, I would choose him! Everyone worrying about medical care now....if Obama is re-elected and OBAMACARE passes then all of our "physicians" will be PA's....and they are required to have what a little more than a 4 year degree???? MD's and DO's will be a thing of the past! Deaths will sure be on the rise then!
Umm...Obamacare was already passed. And upheld by the Supreme Court. I guess we all start dying tomorrow or something.
-
I guess we all start dying tomorrow or something.
We all started dying at the same time we began living. This is a non sequitur.
-
Yes Romney.....If Mickey Mouse was running againist Obama, I would choose him! Everyone worrying about medical care now....if Obama is re-elected and OBAMACARE passes then all of our "physicians" will be PA's....and they are required to have what a little more than a 4 year degree???? MD's and DO's will be a thing of the past! Deaths will sure be on the rise then!
No
-
Hi everyone, just joined FusionCash. I probably should not get into this conversation but oh heck why not.
My view - I do not know what Mitt Romney really stands for...I liked him when he stood for Pro Choice but now he is Pro Life or perhaps he is in the middle. He appears to be avoiding our military and the war we are currently fighting. While watching the GOP convention I did not like it when the rules were changed to avoid another Ron Paul situation. Mitt won't show us his taxes but just had to see Paul Ryan's taxes don't you think that's a little odd? Just what is in his taxes that Senator McCain see that made him choose Palin over him stating she was better....No I don't think he will win. :angel11:nvwikiwiki's opinion.
-
Mitt won't show us his taxes but just had to see Paul Ryan's taxes don't you think that's a little odd?
Romney released two years of tax returns just like Paul Ryan.
-
I find it much less odd than Obama refusing to release his academic records - something every president has done since the 1970's. I don't know of any candidates have released 6 years of tax returns.
-
I'm voting for obama. I can't understand how after 8 years of economic suicide from the great G.W. that anyone could put their faith in the republican party. Not to mention their completely *bleep* backwards social policies.
-
I find it much less odd than Obama refusing to release his academic records
Incorrect.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/
I'm voting for obama. I can't understand how after 8 years of economic suicide from the great G.W. that anyone could put their faith in the republican party. Not to mention their completely *bleep* backwards social policies.
This. Though he's a stark liberal, George Takei (Mr. Sulu) wrote a fantastic article of what's plaguing the republican party.
http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/gorilla-their-midst
-
I really don't see Obama losing to Romney. If Obama could take down the clinton machine in 08, Romney doesn't stand that much a chance. The way the establishment GOP talk they're alienating so many different groups at an alarming rate. Get ready for another 4 years of Obama, barring gas going to $10/gal or something on that scale, Romney's not winning. If the GOP wanted to grow the party they would have gone with Ron Paul, but at the RNC they did everything they could think to exclude him and his supporters. Good luck with that approach.
-
Well I say it again. NO... Hell No....need I say more. I dont trust him Romney that is!!!!!
-
From the for-what-it's-worth-department: if the Old White Men's party wants to remain politically viable it will (at some point) have to appeal to those who are neither old nor white nor men.
Just sayin'.
-
At the rate they're going, their party will implode before this happens.
From the for-what-it's-worth-department: if the Old White Men's party wants to remain politically viable it will (at some point) have to appeal to those who are neither old nor white nor men.
Just sayin'.
-
if mit romney becomes president i will move to canada. i cannot understand y anyone would vote for him i think its jus mis-informed people thats all. my vote is for obama and i hope he wins
-
Here america is enthralled in this major war that has claimed the young lives of thousands of Americans, and the Republican nominee for president of the United States doesn't feel that that is an important enough issue to even mention it in his speech about his vision for the future of America. I don't see where the middle class American has any other choice but to re elect Obama. I feel the policies he has put in place and wants to put in place will work over time and there is no quick fix for the economic troubles of America. Making everyone pay their fair share of taxes and returning jobs to America that have been shipped overseas ASAP, would go a long way in helping to fix the economy.
-
I can see it happening, Mitt Romney beating Obama. It seems like Obama has lost a lot of ground even though he is still leading in the polls. It wouldn't surprise me at all if on November 6th, we were calling Mitt, President Romney, however it also wouldn't surprise me if Obama held his seat since the race has been close.
I don't know what will happen with Mitt in office, but personally I don't think he will save the economy either. I believe the economy's rebound is still years away and that it will take a really long time before we see the boom that was there during the Clinton administration.
-
Romney or Obama??? Is there really a difference. There are some who believe that both of them are really on the same team; they're just stringing us along.
-
Romney or Obama??? Is there really a difference. There are some who believe that both of them are really on the same team; they're just stringing us along.
To be honest I lean a little towards Obama because I am left/center overall. Mitt is pretty moderate. He believes a guy found a gold plate in the woods though.
-
Mitt Romney??? HELL NO!!!!!! and all those other bad words too
-
after reviewing a lot of the post i think the best thing that we all could do for ourselves is become informed citizens. when we vote we have a responisibility to all the young men and women in uniform to exercise our rights as knowledge citizens. i do not agree with PRESIDENT Obama on everything he has done for our country. but then, i am unsure of what Romney plans to do with our coutry. and gaining knowledge from a biased new source does more harm than good.
-
Like mitt. hate paul so im voting for obama
-
I DO NOT WANT OBAMA. He supports abortion which is murder. He even supports letting a baby die in a closet after being born alive. He voted for it three times. That can be researched through legitimate web sites and hes on youtube talking about it. I normally try not to be hard to deal with or start arguements, but I want people to see who they are really voting for. Every election, I beleive, has a result on the future. Even twenty years from now it will be affected by the decisions of today. A lot of people vote and know nothing about either candidate. Be informed. We always hear, "get out and vote." However, we should be hearing, "vote with caution," and, "beware."
Heres a salvation message. I hope you are interested.
Romans
Chapter 3
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Psa 51:4
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Psa 14:1, 53:1 Ecc 7:20
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Psa 14:2, 53:2
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 14:3, 53:3
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Psa 5:9, 140:3
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Psa 10:7
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Isa 59:7 Prov 1:16
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
Isa 59:7
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Isa 59:8
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Isa 59:8
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Romans 3 KJV
-
I DO NOT WANT OBAMA. He supports abortion which is murder. He even supports letting a baby die in a closet after being born alive. He voted for it three times. That can be researched through legitimate web sites and hes on youtube talking about it. I normally try not to be hard to deal with or start arguements, but I want people to see who they are really voting for.
Which "legitimate" websites specifically support your claims?
Heres a salvation message. I hope you are interested.
...
You've spammed the exact same bible-thumping requotes in at least three different threads tonight, (one was actually in a verse-thumping thread). Although such religious proselytizing isn't specifically prohibited by FC, neither are posts opposing such faith-blinded propaganda.
-
I DO NOT WANT OBAMA. He supports abortion which is murder. He even supports letting a baby die in a closet after being born alive. He voted for it three times.
I must've missed the yay/nay baby dying in closet vote(s) on cspan.
-
No why does people keep talking about taking our counrty back PLEASE EXPLAIN!! Can someone tell me how much better off wii we have been if John McCain had won the election!
-
Can someone tell me how much better off wii we have been if John McCain had won the election!
Healthcare would still need drastic reformation, people would still be badly in debt, and we'd have a disney soccer mom as a VP and thus the laughing stock of all the first world nations.
He even supports letting a baby die in a closet after being born alive. He voted for it three times.
Sources or you're full of it.
-
The biggest disservice we can do to ourselves and the rest of the citizens of this country is to vote blindly. I for one want to have all the facts in order to make an informed decision. Having seen first hand what Obama has proposed for this country I am very worried about what will happen over the next four years if he is reelected. For me the economy is the biggest hurdle we face and the past four years has proved that Obama has no answers in that department. While I make several charitable donations throughout the year I still believe that the best source of revenue has to be the monies you earn yourself. If you earn it you value you it more.
-
I think my best bet will be to vote for OBAMA because although I have paid as high as 20% income taxes over my lifetime (unlike Mitt Romney, I have always paid my fair share) I now find myself in the 47% of Americans who he has labled as victims who haven't taken responsibility for their own lives. What a Joke....
-
i don;t think romney was the best pick for the republicans but hey anybody is better than obama. look at OURCOUNTRY!!!!DISGRACEFUL
-
For me the economy is the biggest hurdle we face and the past four years has proved that Obama has no answers in that department.
He has answers.... the republican party just filibusters them.
-
No! No! No! and No!! Romney is going to mess this country up worse than it already is. Him and Ryan two people all for themselves! Get'em out of here!!! :BangHead:
-
Given the past four years I can't understand why anyone would vote for Pres. Obama. We have seen such a decline in our economy that we surely need someone who has some sort of business sense to get us out of the gutter. Romney may not be the best alternative but he is an alternative that hopefully will help us return to economic solvency.
-
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/glittertextlive/2012/10/02/91c28f1200f2a7e253630ca25196b27d.gif)
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/glittertextlive/2012/10/02/382c5f3b77cc7b432baa2505a1e3da83.gif)
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/glittertextlive/2012/10/02/6ba71734f8262f3b02c9f0499cf1efa7.gif)
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/glittertextlive/2012/10/02/ac69d592b35e4e65a8f8415befdcd388.gif)
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/glittertextlive/2012/10/02/463b99f67c5b410b4bd42764f9cf030f.gif)
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/glittertextlive/2012/10/02/65fff12d6d396247314addc80f45b109.gif)
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/glittertextlive/2012/10/02/db8dd15731bf2c70436b356f6bbaa58d.gif)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/yfxMg.gif)
-
Eccl 8:9 Man has dominated himself to his own injury.
The apostles said "we must obey God as ruler then man"
Am i getting the biblical point across?
-
I'm still dumbfounded how poor people vote republican. And yes, if you're reading this I consider you poor. I understand if you own a business and a yacht that you'd want to vote republican to keep capital gains taxes down. But if you are clicking on ads for pennies I don'y understand where the republican party has your interests in their cross hairs.
-
I'm still dumbfounded how poor people vote republican. And yes, if you're reading this I consider you poor. I understand if you own a business and a yacht that you'd want to vote republican to keep capital gains taxes down. But if you are clicking on ads for pennies I don'y understand where the republican party has your interests in their cross hairs.
The three G's God, Guns, and Gays.
-
Absolutely Not!
Just my opinion.. as we all know... everyone is entitled to their own.
I personally think Obama is the best.
Again.. my opinion.
One thing about tonight.. Romney was extremely RUDE!
Again.. my opinion. :dontknow:
One must remember what Obama walked into.
Just saying...
I know how some people get with politics... so that is enough said... :female:
Happy Earnings!!! :thumbsup:
:wave:
-
Eccl 8:9 Man has dominated himself to his own injury.
The apostles said "we must obey God as ruler then man"
Am i getting the biblical point across?
Was he debating tonight? Because I didn't see him on stage. Maybe he was too busy making sure kids are starving and dying in Africa?
Just my opinion.. as we all know... everyone is entitled to their own.
I think both made great points and Romney made a better conclusion, but Obama definitely had more weight to his arguments than Romney.
And now for something humorous-
(http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/MAD-Magazine-Obama-Romney-Tale-of-the-Tape-1.jpg)
-
interesting as usual Falcon...
Smiling.... interesting... :female:
Happy Earnings!! :thumbsup:
:wave:
-
Happy Earnings!!
You too! Glad you enjoyed it! :)
-
I haven't seen such a one-sided fight since Mike Tyson was in his prime.I'm surprised Jim Lehrer didn't jump on stage to give the President a standing 8 count!
Go Mitt,Go! ;D
-
I'm not very good at predicting especially with such a close race. I do think it seems like many people that usually skip voting will make an effort to VOTE! I hope so.
-
Far as I can tell the debate wasn't about changing anyone's mind/position; it was more about galvanizing the candidate's base to get out and vote. It seems to have definitely done so for the Republicans. The damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead approach seems to work well with them (on the whole the New Republican Party seems to enjoy the smell of blood in the water--and napalm in the morning for all I know.) Yes, I considered Romney to be just plain rude and boorish (I mean, what else is new--and WTH was that guy ON anyway?) What can I say? It got him attention. It worked.
Romney is beginning to remind me more and more of the shiny toy a kid gets for Christmas that he plays with until just after New Year's--and then he either tires of it or gets cut by the sharp edges that have emerged. Just keep in mind that the toy you choose now is one you're stuck with for at least four years.
-
Yes Romney!!!! After the 2nd year with Obama...I said anybody is better than OBAMA!!
-
Loved the debate- hope the next goes as well- America cannot afford any more years like these last four
-
Try 12, Constance! Hahaha!
-
I think Romney walked all over Obama during the debate. Obama stuttered, paused a lot and shook his head "yes" to most of what Romney said. The only comeback Obama had was when he repeatedly said Romney was raising taxes 5 trillion and adding another 2 trillion for the military even though the military did not ask for it: neither of which is true!! Another 4 years of Obama and the American Dream will be over; we will be living as a socialist nation listening to other countries who have no interest in the USA doing its best. We will have to take our orders from the U.N. and that will truly be a disaster. For the life of me I can't see how anyone can think any of us are better off than we were 4 years ago but some people are just liberal thru and thru and will vote that way if Louis Farrakan (spelling?) himself was running for president.
-
I would NOT vote for Louis Farrakan for president, I assure youl
-
I'm definately not voting for Obama and I'm kinda afraid that Romney is a snake in the grass, so I'm thinking that I'll probably not vote this time.
-
I am so undecided with all this chatter. I am still unsure what way I am going to vote. I will keep watching debates and upcoming current events. Confusion as to who I am going to vote for and I think there are many in my shoes.
-
If you don't vote then don't gripe about it. Romney may not be the best of the best but he sure beats Obama. Congress was a democrate power for the last 8 years so it can't all be blamed on Bush and the Repulicans. Obama and his cronnies have had their way for the last four years. It is time for a change ( which is what Obama promised when he was elected)and look at where we are. He can't even get a budget put together in 4 years and blames the rep. when it has been the dem. who wouldn't pass it in the senate or he would veto it if he didn't get what he wanted. Oh well that is the way i feel about it.
-
If you don't vote then don't gripe about it. Romney may not be the best of the best but he sure beats Obama. Congress was a democrate power for the last 8 years so it can't all be blamed on Bush and the Repulicans. Obama and his cronnies have had their way for the last four years. It is time for a change ( which is what Obama promised when he was elected)and look at where we are. He can't even get a budget put together in 4 years and blames the rep. when it has been the dem. who wouldn't pass it in the senate or he would veto it if he didn't get what he wanted. Oh well that is the way i feel about it.
So let me get this right. You say I don't have the right to complain about who is president because I did not vote. Even though either candidate sucks and it really doesn't matter who I vote for, I find them to be nearly carbon-copies on the really important issues. Even though the fact that person is president still affects me even though I decided not to vote. How about we get some real change, and stop this two party blame-game? Change will not, and cannot come from the ballot.
-
If you don't vote then don't gripe about it. Romney may not be the best of the best but he sure beats Obama. Congress was a democrate power for the last 8 years so it can't all be blamed on Bush and the Repulicans. Obama and his cronnies have had their way for the last four years. It is time for a change ( which is what Obama promised when he was elected)and look at where we are. He can't even get a budget put together in 4 years and blames the rep. when it has been the dem. who wouldn't pass it in the senate or he would veto it if he didn't get what he wanted. Oh well that is the way i feel about it.
:thumbsup:
-
The difference between Mitt Romney and Clint Eastwood?
Clint debated an empty chair.
Mitt debated an empty suit.
;D
-
The difference between Mitt Romney and Clint Eastwood?
Clint debated an empty chair.
Mitt debated an empty suit.
;D
You forgot to mention that you pseudo-debate with empty faith.
-
(http://www.bloomberg.com/image/ihx8Nuf6mpzU.jpg)
Yes Mitt Romney. Even though he probably wont win. :bs:
-
Oh yes Romney is the only one that will call Obama out on his lies. He corrects Obama on everything. Makes Obama want to :BangHead:
-
As much as I want him to, he is not going to win. We are going to have to get used to the idea that we will have President Obama for another 4 years.
I don't beleive the President has the answers, but I also don't beleive Romney trickle down theory is the answer wither. In the 80's when Regan tried it the country was far far worse than off it was when he took office.
-
People who watch Fox news are adorable. Poor people that vote Republican... even more adorable.
I agree with you there. Going back is not a choice of mine, moving forward is the best choice. :peace:
-
:wave: romney for sure!!!! we can not stand another 6 trillion in debt. the continued high unemployment and the lack of leadership
-
Oh yes Romney is the only one that will call Obama out on his lies. He corrects Obama on everything. Makes Obama want to :BangHead:
Good Luck with That. :icon_rr: :icon_rr: :icon_rr: :icon_rr: :icon_rr:
-
I certainly hope so because we are headed for a real problem if Obama is reelected.
-
Romney all the way. We need definite change not a money spender.
-
If it was up to me neither candidate would win. But since it won't happen, i would rather have obama again.
-
If obama is reelected everyone will probably homeless. Hopefully everyone uses their brains a votes for romney. He keeps spending and taxing. It is not working.
-
If one is to believe the polls it looks like Romney is pulling ahead in most states. Hopefully this turns out to be true.
-
Putting Romney and the Tea Party in charge of this country is a big mistake. How can anyone in the middle class or lower vote for this man. He is not interested in restoring the middle class. The rich will definitely get richer. He is telling you whatever he thinks you want to hear just to get your vote. At least with OBAMA we wont be dragged into war. The fact that these two drastically different candidates are tied in this election is very troubling. People are obviously being duped. I think the policies in place will work and everyone will eventually benefit not just the 1% of wealthy Americans who will greatly benefit under Romney. They are the only ones he cares about, HE SAID SO.....
-
Mitt Romney? Yes or no?????
First of all choosing a President is a serious matter and all true facts should be considered. Some people will say that Obama is the guy cause he's done well. Others will say Romney is better cause he knows how to run a business. It's really up to the individual AFTER THEY HAVE RESEARCHED EACH CANDIDATE!!!! Let's face it, we all have our opinions but what really counts IS WHO IS BETTER FOR AMERICA!!!!
-
If he wins, he will be the riches president of all the presidents before him.
-
I hope it's not Romney. The last big "business" man that ran the country was Herbert Hoover, and I hear those hoovervilles weren't the best places to live.
-
I'm old enough to remember the catch-phrase of the early 90's "It's the economy,stupid." Bush Sr was riding high in popularity after dealing with Iraq,then the recession hit and George didn't stand a snowballs chance.
Obama had his chance and things went from bad to worse.When that happens,the coach has got to go.That's the way it works.How anyone can keep cheering for another 4 years of this guy is beyond belief.
-
How anyone can keep cheering for another 4 years of this guy is beyond belief.
Wait till you've had 4 years under a Romney administration with greedy big business controlling your life just as they are controlling Romney. these last 4 years will look pretty good!
-
I'm old enough to remember the catch-phrase of the early 90's "It's the economy,stupid." Bush Sr was riding high in popularity after dealing with Iraq,then the recession hit and George didn't stand a snowballs chance.
Obama had his chance and things went from bad to worse.When that happens,the coach has got to go.That's the way it works.How anyone can keep cheering for another 4 years of this guy is beyond belief.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-private-sector-and-the-public-sector-under-obama-2012-6#first-here-are-corporate-profits-after-tax-theyve-gone-parabolic-and-never-been-higher-1
Perhaps you should look at some graphs to help you understand. Please re-iterate how things are getting worse again?
-
Yes Romney is 2012. I believe he will get the job done and bring the jobs back and reduce the deficit that was caused by the current president.
-
Yes Romney is 2012. I believe he will get the job done and bring the jobs back and reduce the deficit that was caused by the current president.
Romney is part of big business responsible for shipping American jobs overseas in the first place and he is one of the wealthy Americans who feels it is fair that he be entitled to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class even though America has a huge deficit to pay down, created before Obama came into office. Oh yeah...he's the man for the job!
-
Yes Romney is 2012. I believe he will get the job done and bring the jobs back and reduce the deficit that was caused by the current president.
Romney is part of big business responsible for shipping American jobs overseas in the first place and he is one of the wealthy Americans who feels it is fair that he be entitled to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class even though America has a huge deficit to pay down, created before Obama came into office. Oh yeah...he's the man for the job!
Exactly so. Why is it that republicans in general seem to convienently 'forget' that it took them eight years to put the country in this situation and the democrats have had only four years to try to dig us out of the holes republican presidential policies dug? Whether it stems from unawareness or, just plain self-deception, the lesser of two evils isn't Romney.
-
Romney is part of big business responsible for shipping American jobs overseas in the first place and he is one of the wealthy Americans who feels it is fair that he be entitled to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class even though America has a huge deficit to pay down, created before Obama came into office. Oh yeah...he's the man for the job!
Exactly so. Why is it that republicans in general seem to convienently 'forget' that it took them eight years to put the country in this situation and the democrats have had only four years to try to dig us out of the hold republican presidential policies dug? Whether it stems from unawareness or, just plain self-deception, the lesser of two evils isn't Romney.
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/flamewordmaker/2012/10/24/cf70b02a25c993b149ca723a350e43db.gif)
-
Romney is part of big business responsible for shipping American jobs overseas in the first place and he is one of the wealthy Americans who feels it is fair that he be entitled to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class even though America has a huge deficit to pay down, created before Obama came into office. Oh yeah...he's the man for the job!
Exactly so. Why is it that republicans in general seem to convienently 'forget' that it took them eight years to put the country in this situation and the democrats have had only four years to try to dig us out of the holes republican presidential policies dug? Whether it stems from unawareness or, just plain self-deception, the lesser of two evils isn't Romney.
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/flamewordmaker/2012/10/24/cf70b02a25c993b149ca723a350e43db.gif)
-
Whoa Falcon 9. We might have a repb. Pres for 8 years but for the last 4 years of his term the dem. congress was in charge, and the first 4 years of Obama's has been the dem. senate. But there again it is so easy to blame someone else. I might not have totally agreed with Bush on everything, but he was delt a hard hand during his last term. And now in this next 4 year term comming up Obama has no one to blame but himself, now he should know how Bush felt when he couldn't get anywhere with the other party.
-
Whoa Falcon 9. We might have a repb. Pres for 8 years but for the last 4 years of his term the dem. congress was in charge, and the first 4 years of Obama's has been the dem. senate. But there again it is so easy to blame someone else. I might not have totally agreed with Bush on everything, but he was delt a hard hand during his last term. And now in this next 4 year term comming up Obama has no one to blame but himself, now he should know how Bush felt when he couldn't get anywhere with the other party.
Since any current situation stems from previous ones, it depends on how far back one goes to assign initial "blame". Both republican and democratic presidencies and congresses, (current and previous), contributed to the current state of affairs.
-
Since any current situation stems from previous ones, it depends on how far back one goes to assign initial "blame". Both republican and democratic presidencies and congresses, (current and previous), contributed to the current state of affairs.
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/flamewordmaker/2012/10/24/cf70b02a25c993b149ca723a350e43db.gif)
-
No way! Romney is not too smart. Why would I want someone who don't know what his right hand is doing. Vote President Obama!
-
Definantly Mitt Romney.
-
Who will a faith-blinded fundie who tries suppressing non-xtian viewpoints vote for?
Definantly Mitt Romney.
Very revealing indeed.
-
Plain and simple: NO!
-
Yes I will vote for Romeny
-
i agree that romney isnt our best candidate, but after watching all the news and debates i think obama has had plenty of time....
-
i agree that romney isnt our best candidate, but after watching all the news and debates i think obama has had plenty of time....
Plenty of time for what? It took the republicans more than eight years to create their mess and a democratic president only gets four to try repairing that damage? While representatives of both parties are responsible to varying degrees, your suggestion isn't equitable.
-
no i dont think so check out CNN Electoral Map it show what states are romney or obama
-
It appears that for reasons beyond me, Romney might end up with the popular vote, but Obama will win with the electoral vote. With this election being so close, I fear we are in for a repeat of the 2000 election nightmare. I just hope Democrats are keeping an eye on Florida and that they have gotten rid of "hanging chads".
-
Romney should have won!!! He was the best choice to pull this nation out of the down word spiral.
-
(http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/flamewordmaker/2012/11/07/70df469f220d20f8256598bd48fa711f.gif)
-
No, he lost. :peace:
-
Pray for our country. It is so divided and in need of a great awakening
-
Pray for our country. It is so divided and in need of a great awakening
Such magical intercessory rituals won't induce an "awakening" since that type of thing has the opposite effect, (suppressing awareness, not enhancing it).
-
Romney should have won!!! He was the best choice to pull this nation out of the down word spiral.
America has spoken. Apparently they didn't think he was the best choice.
-
Pray for our country. It is so divided and in need of a great awakening
I completely agree.