- 138
- 37
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
Son, that **** don't all go to our pockets though
Last edited:
Obama or Romney
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by soleobjective,
- Start date
Son, that **** don't all go to our pockets though
- 21,596
- 10,208
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
Coming from a gov't employee....Obama. Romney said he is going to cut government jobs. I don't want that to be me not to mention us at Nasa take a bad rap for some reason any for "wasting money". Even though our budget is less then 1/2 of 1% of the national budget....Department of Defense gets all the money already for our gigantic standing army that we don't need. Just my 2 cents
I also have 0 idea what Romeny actually wants to do. He came out in the debate talking like a moderate really which is a good look but why hasn't he done this the whole campaign? I do not believe trickle down economics will work. There was a report that 2,400 CEOs just pocketed stimulus money and didn't use it to create new jobs.....lots of trickling there.....not to mention his stance on planned parenthood and the fact that he is a Mormon and believes in another planet and Joseph Smith.
Last edited:
iblink
Banned
- 6,497
- 468
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
Why hasn't he sounded like a moderate his whole campaign? It's simple politics. He's had to appease the right people to get what he wanted. Of course there will be some variation in the person he projected himself as during the race to seek the republican nomination and the guy he made out to be last night. He's under a larger scope now that he's standing next to the president.
But I don't agree with much of what he says. Especially driving the point home that he'll eliminate the deficit by closing loop holes. To think that there is 5 trillion dollars that can be easily freed up is laughable at best. Dude contradicted himself like crazy, saying he wanted to create jobs, but would close loop holes and do away with some government agencies. All that costs jobs. So he would essentially be adding to the unemployment rate in order to stop deficit spending. Not sure how that will work because the more people out of work equals more people seeking government aide to survive, which the government cannot provide for because it isn't generating revenue. But as he already said, his job isn't to worry about the 47% of America is looking for "hand outs".
His rhetoric is that creating more jobs will essentially cure all because the more people working = the more people being taxed. That's a good idea, but he has yet to clarify how these jobs will come about while he's close loop holes.
You guys saying Obama seemed timid last night legitimately have me baffled. His pauses made him seem timid? The multiple "uhhh" made him seem timid? Have you guys paid attention to this man in the last 4 years? HE ALWAYS SOUNDS THAT WAY.
Obama admitted to the green job concept not working as he thought it should and I agree with Romney on the point that 90 billion dollars was too much money to be betted on such a concept. But it's the try and fail rhetoric that a lot of Americans have used since the country began its nationhood. You're kidding yoursf if you think Romney's plan, whatever that may be, won't have some failures.
I don't know if I'll make it to the polls that year because the state of affairs is just saddening to watch. You have corrupt politicians, and a public who is content with remaining ignorant. People don't even know the issues they're voting for, yet turn out to the polls in masses. Hate to say it, but a majority will vote for Obama and not know where he stands on education, the war in Afghanistan, or the budget crisis. Same for Romney. Party affiliation is blinding people from what should truly matter, but the American people won't wake up until something rocks their world. The concept of "vote for the guy who supports your interest" is practically gone since most people don't even know what their interests are, or which guy supports them.
For those of you who say "black people endured decades of hardships just so I could have the right to vote". I understand that if I don't vote, it's a selfish decision, but I ask you this. Who is more of a disgrace? The person who informs himself and opts not to participate and jump into a sea of ignorance, or the millions of people who don't inform themselves on the issues, but simply vote because it's become the thing to do?
But I don't agree with much of what he says. Especially driving the point home that he'll eliminate the deficit by closing loop holes. To think that there is 5 trillion dollars that can be easily freed up is laughable at best. Dude contradicted himself like crazy, saying he wanted to create jobs, but would close loop holes and do away with some government agencies. All that costs jobs. So he would essentially be adding to the unemployment rate in order to stop deficit spending. Not sure how that will work because the more people out of work equals more people seeking government aide to survive, which the government cannot provide for because it isn't generating revenue. But as he already said, his job isn't to worry about the 47% of America is looking for "hand outs".
His rhetoric is that creating more jobs will essentially cure all because the more people working = the more people being taxed. That's a good idea, but he has yet to clarify how these jobs will come about while he's close loop holes.
You guys saying Obama seemed timid last night legitimately have me baffled. His pauses made him seem timid? The multiple "uhhh" made him seem timid? Have you guys paid attention to this man in the last 4 years? HE ALWAYS SOUNDS THAT WAY.
Obama admitted to the green job concept not working as he thought it should and I agree with Romney on the point that 90 billion dollars was too much money to be betted on such a concept. But it's the try and fail rhetoric that a lot of Americans have used since the country began its nationhood. You're kidding yoursf if you think Romney's plan, whatever that may be, won't have some failures.
I don't know if I'll make it to the polls that year because the state of affairs is just saddening to watch. You have corrupt politicians, and a public who is content with remaining ignorant. People don't even know the issues they're voting for, yet turn out to the polls in masses. Hate to say it, but a majority will vote for Obama and not know where he stands on education, the war in Afghanistan, or the budget crisis. Same for Romney. Party affiliation is blinding people from what should truly matter, but the American people won't wake up until something rocks their world. The concept of "vote for the guy who supports your interest" is practically gone since most people don't even know what their interests are, or which guy supports them.
For those of you who say "black people endured decades of hardships just so I could have the right to vote". I understand that if I don't vote, it's a selfish decision, but I ask you this. Who is more of a disgrace? The person who informs himself and opts not to participate and jump into a sea of ignorance, or the millions of people who don't inform themselves on the issues, but simply vote because it's become the thing to do?
iblink
Banned
- 6,497
- 468
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
Excuse the typos. I'm writing this/selling dope... Straight off my iPhone. (Woooop)
- 34,984
- 16,885
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
Good stuff as always Blink
- 361
- 102
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
F*ck em both.
Matt Ryan / Julio Jones 2012.
Go Falcons!
Matt Ryan / Julio Jones 2012.
Go Falcons!
iblink
Banned
- 6,497
- 468
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
Appreciate it fam. This topic is frustrating as hell.
- 4,079
- 179
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
"The loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room."
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- 1,042
- 154
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2012
i believe the right to vote is an honor and a privilege (when many people in the world don't have that ability) and I don't want to argue that point, but I hear what you're saying.
I always thought the "right to vote" meant it was a dis-service to NOT vote if you've been given the privilege . . . BUT it also means we Americans have the right NOT to vote. It's good to have a choice.
And as much as we criticize our government (and how the rest of the world may criticize us), this is STILL the best place to be.
Last edited:
- 6,346
- 1,111
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
Doesn't really work with only two people in the room, because the quietest isn't always the strongest ya feel me
- 5,196
- 8,139
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
Word...but to the untrained eye/ears, Mitt was the champ. Dude looked and sounded good but said NOTHING! Being moderate means nothing to me, especially when you're just saying what you will and wont do with no real plan being presented. Obama saving heat for the 2nd round, no need for the 47% not important or offshore talk yet. Bet if he would've thrown that out asap, analyst would've been saying something like he's dirty or desperate
I'm only mad at Obama's closing statements. Too non chalant, everything else was straight
Sad thing is, people will just regurgitate the same sentiments that the "analysts" say. Many people dont EVEN remember what Mitt was saying a month ago, now he's back and better than ever ?
iblink
Banned
- 6,497
- 468
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
I'm very interested to hear Jon Stweart's take on all of this.
- 14,574
- 19,321
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2008
- 25,831
- 15,061
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
Romney basically said I'm going to do everything everybody wants, but I'll tell you how I'm going to do it later...
- 25,831
- 15,061
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
Last edited:
- 53
- 15
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
you seem a little misinformed. perhaps this might help...
the u.s. code controls military pay raises through a complicated equation drawn from the employment cost index (eci for short), which measures and tracks the cost of labor for businesses throughout the country. in brief, when the eci goes up, so does military pay. in fact, over the past 11 years, increases in military pay raises have outpaced increases in private sector pay raises. needless to say, the military has received a pay increase every year under obama. the u.s. code also allows for a president to legislate for added increases on top of the eci base raise during times of economic crisis or extreme financial uncertainty. obama legislated with congress for those very such increases in 2010, 2011, and 2012 for the military (see: national defense authorization act of 2012). bargained budget increases even went towards military housing allowances, family support programs, and child care and tuition assistance for military families.
indeed, romney has said he will increased defense spending by $2.1 trillion over the course of the next decade, which would obviously include increases in annual military pay raises. but he has yet to reveal a single detail as to how he'll pay for it without adding that number towards the deficit. that would be nearly 3 times as much as obama was forced to ask congress and the american people for in january 2009, and everything in the stimulus will be/has been paid for!
trust me, the military will be the one area of the federal budget that DOES NOT take cuts. perhaps they'll freeze growth (with an emphasis on the unlikeliness of perhaps), but they'll never chew, nibble, or numb on the dod's money.
i'm interested, do you, or anyone else, think that romney would be a better commander-in-chief than what obama has been for the nearly past 4 years?
- 53
- 15
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
anyone else peeved at the amount of spin and unadulterated bias and borderline defamation going on in the media around last night's debate and america's political discourse in general? it's so difficult to find a legitimate source of information and substantive discussion on so much policy, even with social media and the immediacy of everything everywhere right here right now.
