Ty Webb;1285255 wrote:What are you going to do Quaker if President Obama wins on November 6th?

I think you might have a heart attack

He'll be getting a vasectomy.

2kool4skool;1275196 wrote:I will make a wager with you. If Romney wins, I will PayPal you 1,000 USD. If Obama wins, you get a vasectomy so you can never reproduce again.

QuakerOats;1275215 wrote:Deal. I will give you a 2% cash discount to wire the funds before month end - your chance to save $20.

Shouldn't the Obama voters be the ones getting a vasectomy if BO wins? Obamakare will cover the cost, I'm sure, and then you don't have to worry about passing on that mountain of debt to your children.

gut;1285617 wrote:Shouldn't the Obama voters be the ones getting a vasectomy if BO wins? Obamakare will cover the cost, I'm sure, and then you don't have to worry about passing on that mountain of debt to your children.

What children? They're getting vasectomies.

You conflated the 47% of people who will support Obama with the 47% who do not pay taxes

I certainly did not!
Mitt Romney did in a surrepticiously obtained video of him talking to supporters at a fundraiser.

I ( how would you say it)...parsed out some of the "47% that are going to vote Democrat no matter what"..and they include some damn well off and rich people.

Right wing, self-righteous l00nz (many of whom themselves are in the 47%) are supposed to parrot this stuff.

LOL, coming from the elitist left who will be happy to tell us the correct way to think.

Here's an idea; you're gonna have 4 more years of Obama barring a spectacular fail by him tomorrow. I invite you to join the democratic party and get on board with a full employment program that gets everyone, whether they're just a groveling dependent democrat or a heroic down on his luck republican off their ass and in the dignity of work.

No thanks. I've had 4 years to see how that 'full employment program" works.

gut;1285617 wrote:Shouldn't the Obama voters be the ones getting a vasectomy if BO wins? Obamakare will cover the cost, I'm sure, and then you don't have to worry about passing on that mountain of debt to your children.

I take it on a case by case basis, and I've determined QuakerOats should not be allowed to pass on his genes. Hence the terms of the bet.

Obama, by more than you would expect.

Devilone;1286033 wrote:Obama, by more than you would expect.

Who is he going to blame for the real mess he inherits this time?

2kool4skool;1285643 wrote:I take it on a case by case basis, and I've determined QuakerOats should not be allowed to pass on his genes. Hence the terms of the bet.

Who would want to have kids now; they will be enslaved to obama's BIG government for their entire lives.

QuakerOats;1286070 wrote:Who is he going to blame for the real mess he inherits this time?

Those mythical obstructionist Repubs. The problem, as Boatshoes will tell you, is that Obama wasn't able to spend enough money. LMAO, how anyone can say that with a straightface...

Devilone;1286033 wrote:Obama, by more than you would expect.

???How do you know what I will expect?

gut;1286081 wrote:Those mythical obstructionist Repubs. The problem, as Boatshoes will tell you, is that Obama wasn't able to spend enough money. LMAO, how anyone can say that with a straightface...

Only true socialists and Marxists can >> FACT

Belly35;1285353 wrote:White, business owner, Christian, ccw, disabled veteran, college educated, believe in capitalizism, worked all my life, wants small goverment, goverment to get the hell out of my life, lower taxes, think that crimial should be in jail, dislike the welfare system, hate entitlemnet programs, likes makeing momey, enjoy freedom of speech, happy that I'm an American, Europe, Asia and Middle East can kiss my ass i dont' want to depend on them for anything nor be like them... I'm not a party line voter but this time I will be

You curiously included your race why? If Romney wins none of the things you want will change. Define "big government" you can't it's just a cliche. You might as well believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Bigdogg;1286114 wrote:Define "big government" you can't it's just a cliche. You might as well believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Since the size of things can be quantified and measured, here's a starter list for you:
It spendt $3,700,000,000,000 last fiscal year. That's roughly $11,900 for each and every American.
It has accummulated $16,000,000,000,000 in total debt over roughly 236 years. That's roughly $51,600 for each and every living American.
It confiscates $2,700,000,000,000 per year from taxpaying citizens.
It has a tax code over 72,500 pages in length - http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/07/2011-number-of-pages-in-us-tax-code.html
The same tax code has 3,000,000 words and only started with 11,400 in 1914. This is a 26,215% increase in 98 years, or an annual increase in the size of the tax code of about 260% per year - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/10/how_many_words_are_in_the_tax_code_.html
It has the largest military expenditures on planet Earth.
It collects more retirement and medical insurance money than any other entity on planet Earth.
It owns more American acreage than any other entity.
It employs over 2,000,000 citizens and rising - http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/

^^^ I see that you brought up the size of the military. Would you be cool with scaling back military spending to be say, 3x the next country instead of like a gillion X? Don't we spend more than the next 27 countries combined or some riduclous stat?

derek bomar;1286250 wrote:^^^ I see that you brought up the size of the military. Would you be cool with scaling back military spending to be say, 3x the next country instead of like a gillion X? Don't we spend more than the next 27 countries combined or some riduclous stat?

Personally, I'd be ALLLLLLL for spending considerably less on military, IN ADDITION to other domestic programs.

derek bomar;1286250 wrote:^^^ I see that you brought up the size of the military. Would you be cool with scaling back military spending to be say, 3x the next country instead of like a gillion X? Don't we spend more than the next 27 countries combined or some riduclous stat?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but Hell yes.

derek bomar;1286250 wrote:^^^ I see that you brought up the size of the military. Would you be cool with scaling back military spending to be say, 3x the next country instead of like a gillion X? Don't we spend more than the next 27 countries combined or some riduclous stat?

Agreed. A 5% reduction in military spending(a real reduction, instead of a "reduction") per year for the next 5 years would probably be enough military cuts without crippling the industry.

I feel like most Rs I talk to are finally coming around on defense spending, but yet I don't hear much of it from those in leadership roles (congress, senate, Rombo, etc...).

Here's my problem. I want to vote for Romney, but I can't see myself actually doing it right now. I want to believe Romney has the balls to cut things that are necessary (defense for example) . But I've heard Romney demonize Obama for trying to curb defense spending (and it's really not curbing it so much as slowing the rate of growth). I just get a creepy feeling from Romney, like I want to punch-a-size his face, for free. Idk. Hopefully I see something in the debate that will change my mind, but as of right now you put a gun to my head I'm voting Obama. I'd rather dance with the devil I know than the one I don't.

There are more candidates than Obama and Romney. I wouldn't vote for Romney or Obama.

Dear Derek,

Voting for guaranteed and proven failure is not the way to vote. Please vote for the guy with proven, private sector turnaround success. You can do it; we know you can. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Your OC support group

For Ty, Boatshoes, Footwedge, and other potentially irrational egos come November 7th, I offer you this money-saving tip:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/oct/3/airline-help-upset-voters-leave-usa/


This gives you a compelling choice: either stay stateside and reap the benefits of lower taxes, rolled back regulations, and a growing economy under the Romney presidency, or make use of a free ticket to any foreign Jet Blue destination, say Europe perhaps, where you can bask in the wonderful, booming socialist eocnomy that so many Europeans have come to enjoy.

FWIW ...........no charge

sleeper;1286353 wrote:There are more candidates than Obama and Romney. I wouldn't vote for Romney or Obama.

Fascinating that you would choose that quote by Stephen Hawking to be your sig.

QuakerOats;1286364 wrote:Dear Derek,

Voting for guaranteed and proven failure is not the way to vote. Please vote for the guy with proven, private sector turnaround success. You can do it; we know you can. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Your OC support group

Thanks for the tip! Gary Johnson it is.

pmoney25;1286388 wrote:Thanks for the tip! Gary Johnson it is.

No problem; Johnson is pro-America.

I don't get why the debates don't allow for 3rd-party candidates. It seems like it'd be a common-good to include them and they should be allowed (provided ya know, they are on a certain amount of ballots)