You'll excuse me if I don't immediately buy into the global perspective of a guy calling himself "Thong Pounder" won't you?
Well, I thought we would have a conversation, but as it turns out you just want someone to agree with you....Good luck with that....I wasn't being disingenous, I just wasn't going to allow you steer my points off to something else.
Ok, that's a fair point, but this race is going to be Romney v. Obama and the contrast between those two. So in apples to apples comparison it is not straight up in my opinion to just bash one, without looking at the other.Why does an attack on one candidate automatically have to resort in an attack on the other? I thought it was a big joke that Obama hired all those Clinton supporters after claiming he was going to be different. But that fact has nothing to do with the fact that Mitt is hiring all these Bush advisers.
Wouldn't you rather people who actually use the services in question, pay the fees, instead of spreading them out to people who don't use the services?Semantics here...the people had to pay less of a fee for these services before Mitt was Governor, and for 33 of these services they never had to pay a fee before. I could play silly little games like the Neocons play and say Mitt was redistributing wealth with this scheme. He was taking from the few who had the resources to pay these fees and redistributing to the whole. Either way, he derived a set of funds from taxpayers to offset another set of funds coming from the taxpayers.
Ok, I'll remember that.I don't think the government should subsidize any businesses. Business should be able to stand on the merits of their labor.
You might as well vote for Obama.Actually, I was going to vote for Gary Johnson. He's the most qualified of the three candidates. And, even if he loses, sooner or later the Republicans are going to have to realize that if they keep giving us wishy washy subpar candidates that we aren't going to vote for them. I'd rather sacrifice an election or two where I might have gotten a miniscule improvement if it means strengthening the party as a whole.
You said that you were against all subsidies, yet Johnson, the guy you want to vote for co sponsored a Governors assn. resolution to further tax incentives to the coal industry for their R&D. You don't consider that a subsidy?
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Obama is the first black president, and that alone was enough to impress liberals four years ago. Perhaps now Obama needs to morph into a giant taco that craps ice cream, and maybe that would impress liberals???
Last edited by The Man; 06-09-12 at 09:43 PM.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
I think it would help to suggest that the person doesn't even know what a neoconservative actually is and how people are in any way compared to them.Holy crap this post is so stupid i don't know where to begin.
First off, Richard Perle's (Perle, not Pearl) foreign policy is not identical. This was a guy who fought tooth and nail against the Soviet negotiation team and the US State Dept.'s attempt to give up some ground after the Soviets gave on one concession. Do you think that this guy would have taken that most recent nuke deal? Gimme a break.
Last edited by Fiddytree; 06-09-12 at 11:26 PM.
"No religion is true, but some religion, any religion, is politically necessary. Law and morality are insufficient for the large majority of men. Obedience to the law and to the morals are insufficient for making men happy. […]Law and morality are therefore in need of being supplemented by divine rewards and punishments."
Not so, apparently. There seems to be, in this person's postings, at least a hint of normal intelligence, which is not seen in those of the person whose sock I initially suspected him of being.
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.
And the problem with "wasting US lives" is that everybody uses this to protest what they don't believe in. I believe it's a waste of US lives to pretend that small problems will always sort themselves out before they evolve into bigger events.
Bush tried to close GITMO. He failed. Obama promised to close GITMO. He has failed.
With Iraq on the outs, focus was naturally going to go back to Afghanistan.
So what did Obama do? He promised much and failed at most. He failed because he assumed to be able to apply his liberal perspectives to a very defined brutal world. Once realizing this, he shifetd fast and has dissapointed Liberals everywhere. This is why he rushed to apologize to Europe and wound up spurning Europe even more than Bush. This is why his promises that focused on countering everything he and others criticized about Bush, shifted to a focus on Universal Health Care and gays. And the truth about gays in the military was that the Federal court was already on its way to countering DADT with the Pentagon more than willing to end that burdensome policy.
He is not the great Liberal dream. Neither was Clinton, who defied the UN over Bosnia and Kosovo. Neither was Kennedy who put us in Vietnam. Carter was closer to the Liberal dream than any of them. Ironic enough, he is placed beneath the other three.
You have noticed that the military very much follows the orders of a single man right? Closing GITMO would have happened within wekks given the Presidential order.