The right winged folks think that outsourcing the good paying jobs is good for our American economy.

Ignorance we can believe in........

The warmongering/neoconservative branch of the right wing think spending 1.1 trillion per year on national offense is somehow good for the country, inspite of the Keynesian ketchup splattered all over their purdy white shirts,

Ignorance we can believe in.....

More to follow.:laugh:

QuakerOats;1221722 wrote:PS -- the private sector has also created millions of jobs, solely related to exports.

Yes the private sector has created tons of jobs offshore for all of our neighbors to welcome and enjoy. Most if not all to circumvent safety, health, occupational, worker's comp amenities that fall under the category of workers and even human rights. In addition, the private sector salivate daily at the ultra high enemployment rates in the US, as it drives the cost of labor down to such a state it hasn't seen since the early eighties.

Ignorance we can believe in.....

^^^^...and so your answer is to vote for who because they'll do what?

Just trying to keep it real, Wedge. The choice in November is Obama or Romney.

HitsRus;1221908 wrote:^^^^...and so your answer is to vote for who because they'll do what?

Just trying to keep it real, Wedge. The choice in November is Obama or Romney.

Or Ron Paul.

HitsRus;1221908 wrote:^^^^...and so your answer is to vote for who because they'll do what?

Just trying to keep it real, Wedge. The choice in November is Obama or Romney.

Eh, Footie has an obsessive loathing of the eeeevil neo-cons while choosing to ignore and remain silent on Obama's obvious failings.

He and others like him will gleefully vote for Ron Paul or some other libertarian third party candidate who has no chance in hell of being elected in order to make himself feel all tingly for doing the "righteous thing". Yet in doing so he and his holier than thou ilk ironically assist with the re-election of Barry the Massive Failure...and then will conveniently blame eeeevil neo-cons like Romney for the on-going debacle.

Crazy I know. Don't try to figure it out.

Or Ron Paul.

Like I said...the choice is between Romney and Obama. (Logic tells me so)

jmog;1221544 wrote:Reality check-Obama and the Ds wanted them ALL to go up from the beginning. They only changed to this "well, everyone under 250k will stay the same FOR NOW but those over 250k will go up" once they realized the GOP would balk at this. They only changed for political reasons, now which is worse?

That's called compromise which sounds like people being adults.

HitsRus;1221978 wrote:Like I said...the choice is between Romney and Obama. (Logic tells me so)

Disagree in principal. Nothing will change until we change the mindset that voting for someone that has no chance of being elected is "wasting" our vote. Building support of a third party over time is the only way they will eventually become viable. Is that worth voting for, even with the short-term cost of (re-)electing people you would prefer to lose? Absolutely, IMO.

^^^I'm talking reality, not principle. If you can cite historical example, I might agree with you.

It is far easier to change mindset within an established party, and the time for changes in mindset occur during the primaries ,at the grass roots level, and in electing congress where a representative can have some political effect.
You might have noticed a distinctly different political tilt in Republican members in the House that were elected in the midterms....that is the quickest way change can be effected. Further, you go to convention and influence the platform and continue to install that within the party. But even then, in order to win election, you have to satisfy other 'wings' of the group in order to get the nomination. Once you get the nomination, you have to convince 51% of all Americans to side with you. You have to accept that these Americans come from different walks of life, have different perspectives....and think differently from you. They have a right to do so, and that makes them no less of an American just because you think their views are #$%@.

Moreover, you need to be somewhat respectful of those views, otherwise what happens is what we have witnessed the past 4 years. You can't ram an agenda when your cause is not fully accepted by a solid majority of Americans.
The President has a huge effect in the direction the country moves, so you don't necessarily vote, as you would in a primary or in an election for a representative.

The choice is between 2 people. That is reality.

queencitybuckeye;1222188 wrote:Disagree in principal. Nothing will change until we change the mindset that voting for someone that has no chance of being elected is "wasting" our vote. Building support of a third party over time is the only way they will eventually become viable. Is that worth voting for, even with the short-term cost of (re-)electing people you would prefer to lose? Absolutely, IMO.

Third parties in the American two-party system have never fared well in our 236 year history. As HitsRus aptly states above it is far easier to change the political mindset within the existing two-party system than to hope that a third party can become viable.

The mindset within the existing parties can indeed be swayed. The Tea Party is one example of how a party can be impacted by a political movement.

I think Ron Paul himself would agree that there's no fighting it or he would not have attempted a run for POTUS within the GOP.

As far as "short-term cost" is concerned elections have lasting consequences. Obamacare, 4 solid years of high unemployment, $800 billion in politically tainted Keynesian spending resulting in nothing of real economic consequence, etc. are prime examples of those costs.

Casting your vote on principle might give you a temporary righteous rush, but if its ultimate effect actually sends our country's political course in precisely the wrong direction, what good has it actually done?

The "Republican" partys decision to pick Romney as the nominee for president has continued the course for failure. Congrats to those who picked this great candidate.

pmoney25;1222249 wrote:Your decision to pick Romney as the nominee for president has continued the course for failure. Congrats!

This is the best argument you can make? By all means waste your vote on Ron Paul the Perpetual Loser and assist with Obama's re-election.

I'll gladly give Romney a chance to see what damage he can do. After all, we all know for a fact what damage Obama can do.

I'll never quite understand the Pauliban Mentality.

You guys pat each other's righteous backs for being being smarter than the peasant American voter, you bitch about the ineptitude of the two-party system, and you circle jerk at the Viable Third Party altar.

Yet you have no issues ignoring the hypocrisy of using GOP resources and the "R" moniker in an on-going and vain attempt to get your hero the POTUS nomination.

I'll never quite understand the Pauliban Mentality.

You guys pat each other's righteous backs for being being smarter than the peasant American voter, you bitch about the ineptitude of the two-party system, and you circle jerk at the Viable Third Party altar.

Yet you have no issues ignoring the hypocrisy of using GOP resources and the "R" moniker in an on-going and vain attempt to get your hero the POTUS nomination.

Ultimately you grab your toys and run home to mommy in tears when the GOP decides Paul ain't their guy.

HitsRus;1221978 wrote:Like I said...the choice is between Romney and Obama. (Logic tells me so)

I don't think Paul has a chance to win. I'm still voting for him.

I'd rather have Obama win. Sure, he's a garbage president, but maybe a loss from the Republican party against such a weak opponent will force change within the party. The benefit of Obama is a quicker dissent into bankruptcy, thus making some of the boomers actually have to pay their bills and eat their peas.

You made your bed with Romney, now you have to sleep in it. If Romney loses, it'll be the fault of the Republicans, not the fault of those who believe in liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

believer;1222205 wrote:Third parties in the American two-party system have never fared well in our 236 year history. As HitsRus aptly states above it is far easier to change the political mindset within the existing two-party system than to hope that a third party can become viable.

I see more partisan posturing than I see any real difference between the two sides. Also, that neither of the current two parties were the original two parties tends to indicate this statement is not all that accurate.

The mindset within the existing parties can indeed be swayed. The Tea Party is one example of how a party can be impacted by a political movement.

Hence one of the candidates being a fiscal conservative. Wait...

As far as "short-term cost" is concerned elections have lasting consequences. Obamacare, 4 solid years of high unemployment, $800 billion in politically tainted Keynesian spending resulting in nothing of real economic consequence, etc. are prime examples of those costs.

If that were the cost to get us back to the point where someone who actually believes in the constitution could win, even if it were 20 years from now, the cost would be well worth it. The idea that if one of these candidates is elected means the end of the republic is reactionary, partisan nonsense.

Casting your vote on principle might give you a temporary righteous rush, but if its ultimate effect actually sends our country's political course in precisely the wrong direction, what good has it actually done?

Not so much principle, more strategic vs. tactical thinking.

sleeper;1222292 wrote:I don't think Paul has a chance to win. I'm still voting for him.

Did you change your mind?

sleeper;1222298 wrote:I'd rather have Obama win. Sure, he's a garbage president, but maybe a loss from the Republican party against such a weak opponent will force change within the party. The benefit of Obama is a quicker dissent into bankruptcy, thus making some of the boomers actually have to pay their bills and eat their peas.

You made your bed with Romney, now you have to sleep in it. If Romney loses, it'll be the fault of the Republicans, not the fault of those who believe in liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Interesting. Having seen you say the opposite, I'm curious which stance you actually believe.

"The idea that if one of these candidates is elected means the end of the republic is reactionary, partisan nonsense."

You might be surprised, an Obama victory will likely mean a US$20T deficit by '16, if not a US$T or two higher...at this point why bother counting? There would be no curb on entitlements and we have a class of young people that will be happy to have a job that pays US$15/hr with no benefits (other than the "free" government entitlements), yet these same young people are supposed to pay the unfunded entitlements that our government has "guaranteed," yet can't even pay back their student loans. Something has to give. A breakdown of the Republic? Perhaps not. A fundamental shift, undoubtedly. Our standard of living has peaked for the time being. Either we make the choices to help out our children and grandchildren and ultimately ourselves if we even think about drawing a single cent of social security, or we continue down the wrong path. As others have mentioned in our political climate we have two choices. One may not be the most favorable, but the other one is potentially devastating.

^^^ well said, Buck

Pretty much agree with MB; although I don't really know what changes with Romney. Does anyone really think he's going to cut spending or roll back Obamacare? I mean seriously think he's going to do any of the above?

I won't address fish and his seemingly obsessive interest in my voting decision.

T

believer;1222282 wrote:I'll never quite understand the Pauliban Mentality.

You guys pat each other's righteous backs for being being smarter than the peasant American voter, you bitch about the ineptitude of the two-party system, and you circle jerk at the Viable Third Party altar.

Yet you have no issues ignoring the hypocrisy of using GOP resources and the "R" moniker in an on-going and vain attempt to get your hero the POTUS nomination.

Ultimately you grab your toys and run home to mommy in tears when the GOP decides Paul ain't their guy.

I don't think its hypocritical for Paul to use Republican resources considering he is an actual republican conservative. I think nominating Romney is a slap in the face to the real republican party.

But at least Romney will repeal obamacare and save the country. I think Bill Parcells said it best "you are what your record says you are" and it is fairly obvious what Romneys record is.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-10/low-paid-grads-on-tight-budgets-switching-to-discounters.html