SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Do you think Obama deserves 4 more years to make at least some history except being the first African-American President and improve United States?


Please Vote/Discuss and keep it clean :)

-Cheers


Back in '08:
http://villavu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34679 69 for Obama – 25 for McCain
&
http://villavu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37758 Declaration of Obama being President

nop


ron paul 2012 or world will b Screwed

From: slushpuppy
nop


ron paul 2012 or world will b fucked

From: P1nky


Please Vote/Discuss and keep it clean :)

No need to curse, it's against the rule and also I had mentioned to keep it clean; The world will be ruined? Sorry but this thread is for the Presidency election in the USA, not the world.

I prefer Ron Paul, but its not happening.

So it's gonna be Obama. Actually we have two Obama's running against each other. Romney is basically the same thing.

From: kingarabian
I prefer Ron Paul, but its not happening.

So it's gonna be Obama. Actually we have two Obama's running against each other. Romney is basically the same thing.

If that was the case, then there would be three canidates from two parties. Obama, Romney, and the other Romney.

But I would never go as far as saying that Obama and Romney are the same people. I would love to hear your opinion on this subject (through PM as to not stray away from the topic).

But Obama definitely. Hopefully this term the republicans won't cockblock him at every chance they get, and maybe he'll get something done. If it were possible, I'd vote Ron Paul though.

It doesn't matter really. I remember somwhere Obama said that, "When you're campaigning for office, you want to change alot of things…. then when you get into office, you realize you can't do that."
Paraphrasing of course.

No matter who it is, they all think they're going to bring change - but its all the same b.s.

From: P1nky
No need to curse, it's against the rule and also I had mentioned to keep it clean; The world will be ruined? Sorry but this thread is for the Presidency election in the USA, not the world.

If America takes the nose dive, it will if Romney or Obama gets (re)elected, Alot of countries dependent on US consumption, manufacturing, or economy will get stuffed ;)

As long as its not Santorum I don't care. So glad he dropped out, guy was an idiot.

We are headed for a cliff and the decreased education that the establishment has helped create is leading all the sheeple over the edge.

Kony 2012 ; new president :garfield:
No gt*o Kony ; BARACK =D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

I honestly believe that the president really doesn't have much to power to do anything.

I hate them all. I want New Jersey's governer to run for president.

Fresh meat is always welcome. Plus I live i Canada, we Kinehdyinz enjoy the hype about elections :)

I'd rather have Obama than Romney any day. Obama has acted more like a Conservative President than a Democratic one. He's accomplished a lot, even with Congress blocking almost every move he tries to make.

Yes, he can.

Need more socialist nominees, like Stewart Alexander

On President Obama and the constitution. Your rights that you have lost since he has taken office.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obamas_constitutional_trap_for_conservatives.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2847870/posts

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/more-obama-constitution-shredding/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-over-obama-coup-against-constitution-surging/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-over-obama-coup-against-constitution-surging/

Read more people. Please I beg you all to read and actually think about what's getting jacked up in our country before it's too late. I also didn't even cover the Trespassing Act passed in Feb 12 which takes away more freedom of speech. Or the state of emergency that the president declared based on the Iran nuclear weapons program. Under NDAA which was signed on DEC 31(Really on new years eve) allows him to send us to war without congress consent. This with the Korean and syrian issues popping up. You want an end to Afghan war well say hello to the next 3 wars if we continue in this direction.



RON PAUL 2012

Mitt Romney is gona win, obviously. Obama was trying to make the government too strong

Brak has it to a T. I would urge you to look at those links as well, because as a Canadian I am definitely affected by whatever the states do. Ron Paul all the way!

How about total anarchy?

What about vermin supreme?

Obama or Romney

But he killed bin Laden….

deserves 4 more years to make at least some history except being the first African-American President

Who cares about his race? It doesn't mean anything. Obama has done some good, but in general has taken away a lot of your rights (see BraK's links, too lazy to cite some more). I'm voting for Ron Paul, hopefully enough other people do.

From: abu_jwka
But he killed bin Laden….

No he didn't, a team of Navy SEALs did. Also, Osama wasn't even a threat at the time. He was in hiding, not doing anything at all. It's the same as when they took out Sadam, it's cool "WE TOOK DOWN DEM TERRORISTS AMERICA #1", but nothing changed in either of the countries they were from. In fact, one could argue that Iraq is filled with even more unrest and violence than previously.

LOL I made it 15-14. Yay! Tie breaker!

From: abu_jwka
But he killed bin Laden….

When did he have time to do that. As far as I know it was my fellow brothers at arms that killed him. Not Obama. Yes he said go, Anyone in that position would have, that does not make him responsible for it. Honestly I blame him for it taking so long. We knew he was in Pakistan many years ago. He willingly sends us to die now failing to uphold his promises, He fails to up hold his duty as a citizen and he fails to uphold his oath of office that he would defend the constitution of the united states. These are epic fails to end all the rest. But the support for him is still there? Why? Because of the low education on politics in general. Most high schoolers don't even think it's important to vote. People are willingly becoming slaves of the government that was created to defend us. Why?

tl;dr

Sheeple won't look at my links. If they do they will write them all of as lies without doing the research for themselves and seeing that it much worse than the links say.

From: BraK
On President Obama and the constitution. Your rights that you have lost since he has taken office.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obamas_constitutional_trap_for_conservatives.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2847870/posts

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/more-obama-constitution-shredding/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-over-obama-coup-against-constitution-surging/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-over-obama-coup-against-constitution-surging/

Read more people. Please I beg you all to read and actually think about what's getting jacked up in our country before it's too late. I also didn't even cover the Trespassing Act passed in Feb 12 which takes away more freedom of speech. Or the state of emergency that the president declared based on the Iran nuclear weapons program. Under NDAA which was signed on DEC 31(Really on new years eve) allows him to send us to war without congress consent. This with the Korean and syrian issues popping up. You want an end to Afghan war well say hello to the next 3 wars if we continue in this direction.



RON PAUL 2012

If your sources have FOX NEWS video clips embedded into them…

Well I'll just leave it at that.

I have read or glanced over the other sources though, and I do acknowledge some of the things that are said in them.

From: sahibjs
If your sources have FOX NEWS video clips embedded into them…

Well I'll just leave it at that.

That doesn't mean anything, look at the other sources.

I really think Obama will be re-elected.

From: Jokester
I really think Obama will be re-elected.

He probably will…that doesnt mean it's a good thing….

If Obama was re-elected it will be useless.. since he cant even get anything passed through the house and senate.

In all honesty I have never cared less about who wins.

BraK, I love you man, but your sites are all conservative.

From your first link (http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/):
1. The individual mandate
Won't be into affect until 2014, and people won't be fined until 2016. There is no enforcement of this provision, if you don't buy insurance and don't pay the fines, then nothing will happen to you. If paying for insurance is greater than 8% of your monthly income, then you're exempt.

2. Medicaid coercion
This isn't being forced on anyone, you either partake in it or not. If you choose not to, then that's the states choice. States are claiming that it's unconstitutional, but it's not, as declared by the Eleventh Circuit. If this is struck down, then this opens a can of worms. It would call into question dozens of other federal programs—not just in health programs, but also education, transportation, environmental protection, civil rights, and, indeed, national security—that provide funds to the states conditional on the states meeting certain requirements.

3. The Independent Payment Advisory Board
I'm fine with this to be honest, it's just a beefed up MedPAC (Medicare Payment Advisory Commission). MedPAC has recommended cuts to Congress that would cut "hundres of billions of dollars" to Medicare and guess what, Congress has simply ignored them. People in Congress are not informed enough to reform health care. This gives power to the people who are actually knowledgable in health care policy.

4. The Chrysler bailout
Bush bailed out Chrysler when they needed it, giving them $15 billion dollars in aid. That Chrysler has been renamed to "Old Carco". The new Chrysler did repay in full the loans it was given, six years early. In fact, the $6.6 billion payment provided an annual rate of return on the funds lent to Chrysler Group of almost 20 percent, which is a pretty attractive return. Old Carco is responsible for paying that back, not the new Chrysler.

5. Dodd-Frank
I honestly don't know too much about this, but the description given on the site seems innacurate. I will do some research.

6. The deep-water drilling ban
This was issued so that there was time to implement new safety requirements for drilling. This was/is needed. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was just one example of why. Oil companies were unregulated thanks to Bush, and that needed to change. It would of only impacted 33 deepwater drilling sites, which is less than 1% of the production platforms for oil and natural gas. Why is that such a bad thing? Also, the "the judge was so shocked by the administration’s conduct that he found the government in civil contempt of court." quote is completely false.

7. Political-speech disclosure for federal contractors
Oh, so you like U.S. corporations that are controlled by foreign governments influencing election outcomes? That's very American of you. This bill makes it so that us, the American people, control the elections, not huge corporations throughing out millions of dollars. This is NOT an attack on political and protected speech.

8. Taxing political contributions
Wow, the description for this is nothing but a bunch of bs. This isn't an attack on political speech like they claim, it's to stop nonprofit groups from dumping millions of dollars into campaigns. These nonprofit groups aren't even supposed to engage in political activity, and that's the law. Who's in the wrong here?

9. Graphic tobacco warnings
I have heard about this, but haven't really followed it. I will do some research.

10. Health care waivers
The claims of political favortisim and the luxurious waivers is bogus. Only 3% of the population was covered by these waivers. The ones that were denied wasn't because they were in Republican controlled states, but because they did not demonstrate that compliance with the minimum annual limits requirements would significantly increase premiums or decrease access to benefits. The healthcare overhaul granted HHS the power to grant these waivers, and they offered limited annual coverage.

I'll read the other links in detail later, but this is a good start ;)

From: BraK
When did he have time to do that. As far as I know it was my fellow brothers at arms that killed him. Not Obama. Yes he said go, Anyone in that position would have, that does not make him responsible for it. Honestly I blame him for it taking so long. We knew he was in Pakistan many years ago. He willingly sends us to die now failing to uphold his promises, He fails to up hold his duty as a citizen and he fails to uphold his oath of office that he would defend the constitution of the united states. These are epic fails to end all the rest. But the support for him is still there? Why? Because of the low education on politics in general. Most high schoolers don't even think it's important to vote. People are willingly becoming slaves of the government that was created to defend us. Why?

tl;dr

Sheeple won't look at my links. If they do they will write them all of as lies without doing the research for themselves and seeing that it much worse than the links say.

Not me ;)

Bush knew were Osama was too, why not attack him for not doing anything for it? Things don't happen overnight.

Also, Bush put us in the Iraq war, when we shouldn't have even been there in the first place. I blame Bush for all of our American soldiers deaths in that war, he caused them to die. He just wanted to "follow his dads footsteps" and go after Saddam, even though there was no need to. The other reason he decided to invade Iraq was to control the oil.

Oh, and let's not forget that he went to war without Congress' approval.

I'm disappointed in Obama for acting too much like a Conservative.

SRL for president 2012. Lol

From: Kyle Undefined
I'm disappointed in Obama for acting too much like a Conservative.

*I'm disappointed in lobbyists for paying Obama to act too much like a conservative.

Fixed it for ya ;)

Oh my god. You guys actually are voting for obama? He has limited the media, allowed companies to take hold over more of the USA, and it is now falling apart. He is not a citizen of the USA. The documents were proven to be falsified. He is not even a candidate. The ignorance I see makes me sad ='[

Edit: one of the lies your govt has hidden for near one hundred years. Income tax: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/defects.aspx

The bill was never voted in, as seen on the above page

We have no choice. We either elect a republican who would drag us into a war with Iran or.. Obama. Ron Paul makes sooo much sense however… But the media doesn't like him, and we have Americans who only vote for popular people.

The republican democrat war is a simulation. they both work towards the same end

Ron paul is the only one who is actually trying to hold the untited states together, and get the banks out of control

From: Kyle Undefined
Oh, and let's not forget that he went to war without Congress' approval.

Let's not forget Obama did the same exact thing now ;)

The bailouts are the public way of the companies accepting money from the govt in return for support in reelection. Companies should die if they fail, and the companies getting bailed, like banks, are perfectly fine.

These companies after being 'bailed' will funnel money into the campaigns, and the good poor guys never get any time on the media. Since the guys siding with companies have all the money and can afford the ads all the time. Tv time is expensive, and you cant pull that cash from your pocket unless you have big companies supporting you, or you are filthy freaking rich.

At this point, anyone but Obama.

Your both wrong conservatives spend less. All these ''conservatives" now a days are just establishment big spenders. Conservative at it's based mean less government not more as you all seem to believe. On Obama vs bush they both suck and they both came from the same party(The Establishment.) The establishment wants you to think there are only 2 sides. That's how they control the uneducated. Want my Primary Two freedoms lost.

Freedom of speech and Right to a trial/Inocent unitl proven guilty. If the military arrest you kiss your rear good-bye because you have no rights as a citizen. NDAA took them all from you. Need proof go read NDAA sign December 31 2011 and Trespassing Act 2012 both signed into law already. Then you can look up the 5 February 2012 State of emergency declaration about Iran nuclear weapons program under the NDAA. Kyle just because they haven't started yet doesn't mean they are any less Unconstitutional and that those are the thing to expect. Just because one president did it doesn't mean it was right and that others should do it. My favorite is that the NDAA signed Guantanamo bay the place he promised to get rid of as his first act into law.

When you think conservative vs liberal think spending. Conservative spender spends less money. Liberal spenders spend more money.

My honest opinion after upholding my oath to defend the constitution for 9 years. Is that anyone that willingly and knowingly votes for Obama needs to get out of the US and go somewhere else that doesn't have those liberties in the first place. In the military we understand better than most if not all what those freedoms really mean. Because frankly speaking we don't have many if any actual freedoms in the military. Just because others don't like their freedoms doesn't mean they have they right to deny us our freedom.

From: Harry
Let's not forget Obama did the same exact thing now ;)

And what war would that be? I'm assuming you mean the actions in Libya. If so, then that wasn't a war. Not one ground troop was launched in, we only provided air support through NATO.

If that's a war, then that was the most effective and efficient war that America has ever been in.

Big yay for brak!!!1 He understands our situation!!!! =DD

You guys get only the normal media propaganda. Outside on the US they forcefeed Government and establishment propaganda into all the armed forces so to combat that we have to do more reading than others. Most people joining then military are liberal(Democrats) when they are young. Once they've been in for a while they normally switch to being conservative(republican). For Conservative and liberal definitions see my above post. Problem is that both parties are controlled by the same people the establishment.

In other words, the fight between the parties is simulated. ;]

Not real, fake, they are misleading us.

Voting almost invariably gives legitimacy to the state no matter what.

I like to think of it as, "voting for a candidate," "voting against a candidate," and "voting against the state."

Where voting for a candidate is to explicitly endorse the candidate's manifesto and his right to represent you. Voting against a candidate is essentially acknowledging that no candidate suits your interests, but saying that voting for a lesser evil brings about a more favorable outcome than not.

Both of these carry an implicit endorsement of whatever the outcome is. In either case, you're allowing someone to represent you, whether you voted for the winner or not.

The third option, not voting, is the most moral of the three in the case that none of the candidates act squarely in line with your interests.

That being said, while I'm libertarian-bordering-on-anarchist, strongly abhor the lesser-evil argument, find the whole political game to be a corrupt, self-gratifying reality TV show whereby those with big enough pockets and few enough ethics circle-jerk themselves up the civil-servant ladder, and because humans routinely fuck their morals for the prospect of some greater good, I will probably be casting a masturbatory vote for Ron Paul.

You guys think Ron Paul is out of the race? Don't make me laugh. The media is trying to make you think that. Ron Paul is actually matching, if not winning more delegates than Mitt Romney! Romney has tried to buy the election. There are videos all over the internet of delegates being told by the GOP to represent Romney and Santorum, and it's clear in all the polls that they're trying to block out Paul.

As for Obama, he's a coward. He's baught, just like most president's before him. I loved him because he wanted to end the drug war, legalize weed, bring the troops home and many more stances that he took. But he's completely changed, he's been bought out by alcohol companies who wouldn't want weed to become legal because they'll see a decline in alcohol purchases, he's been bought by oil contractors who don't want us to leave Iraq and Afghanistan because they wont be able to strip the locals of everything they have. He was a nice guy, and if he truly ran for office as Barrack Obama, not a imperialist puppet, he'd be a great president.

Ron Paul will never be bought out because he is a strict constitutionalist, he's been saying the same things for 30 years. His foreign policy is to stay out of other people's business and instead of trying to dominate the world, make friends with everyone instead. He wants to end the drug war, because all it's doing is making drug cartels richer (Mexican Drug Lord Thanks Obama), and the government has too much power over it's citizens, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - George Orwell.

I can go on for hours, I love a good debate.

yes both of yous.

Politics is a show, simulated battlefield, in which politicians say they will do what everyone wants, until they get into office. Then they screw off and do whatever. Everything except what they said. Then they come up with ridiculous excuses to why they couldnt do the things they said they would do.

We need Obama. Thats it.

Oxygen. why do we need him. what did he do. It sounds like you have NO IDEA about what is going on dude. You are listening to your parents, and from that poll up there, the united states is hopeless. Its a matter of time before all goes to shit =[

Can't believe all the people who support him… He redistributes the wealth… what the hell is the purpose in that other then to help the lazy people who don't want to get out of bed unless they want to do drugs or other garbage…

ANYONE but Obama a stick would be a better president!

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Ron paul is the one who is actually aiming to better the united states. All other candidates have been bought out by big companies =\. And yet people are stupid and vote right into their hands. I lose confidence in United States Citizens every day…

Americans vote for Ron Paul. Obama has been an utter failure and will not get any better from now on, he ALWAYS crumbles to republicans who bash him contantly, Mr. "Compromise"
This is how it goes
Obama: I want 50%
Republican: No, 100%
Obama: Okay 99.9%

Sadly Ron Paul gets little to no media coverage and all the american people see is mitt romney.

I'm really suspicious of the Illinois primary. That was Ron Paul's…

From: m34tcode
the united states is hopeless. Its a matter of time before all goes to shit =[

That probably will never happen…I don't see anything backing this statement up or anything, if so please feel free to elaborate :)?

From: P1nky
That probably will never happen…I don't see anything backing this statement up or anything, if so please feel free to elaborate :)?

Our debt? Economy? Keep getting involved in pointless wars?

Well, try this vid ;]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-of-boy-shocked-31-times-for-not-removing-coat-finally-released.html

Also, obama is trying to gain dictorial powers. He has issued a new tax. This tax is a punishment for all non islams. it is issued, so that the islams will 'tolerate' you.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-word-dhimmitude-is-found-in-the-new-health-care-bill-so-what-does-it-mean/question-2518005/

Thats just ONE thing. He is ruining us. We have let him.

P1nky after Losing plenty of rights the people still on these forums still want to vote for Obama. I'm really afraid of what he will do if he gets re-elected because he doesn't have to worry about public opinion. :< I've always thought that Villavu had the most sensible people. :(

No one has responded to my break down your link, why is that?

From: Kyle Undefined
BraK, I love you man, but your sites are all conservative.

That has to do with the problem America is in how? Conservative or liberal doesn't matter when your opinion has no more meaning. Never mind that's right Democrat vs Republican the only to sides that matter in politics these days even though they are both the same.

From: Kyle Undefined


From your first link (http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/):
1. The individual mandate
Won't be into affect until 2014, and people won't be fined until 2016. There is no enforcement of this provision, if you don't buy insurance and don't pay the fines, then nothing will happen to you. If paying for insurance is greater than 8% of your monthly income, then you're exempt.

So because it won't in effect until 2014. Do we wait for the hammer to hit us or catch it. You decide I don't particularly like getting hit by things.

From: Kyle Undefined

2. Medicaid coercion
This isn't being forced on anyone, you either partake in it or not. If you choose not to, then that's the states choice. States are claiming that it's unconstitutional, but it's not, as declared by the Eleventh Circuit. If this is struck down, then this opens a can of worms. It would call into question dozens of other federal programs&#8212;not just in health programs, but also education, transportation, environmental protection, civil rights, and, indeed, national security&#8212;that provide funds to the states conditional on the states meeting certain requirements.

If your Talking National security such as the TSA then by all means Be gone with it. If you mean National Security as in all the Government Contractors Making 4-8 times my Salary to do less work than me for the same job then yes please do away with it. If you mean all the money going into information Technology for the sole purpose of documenting everything we do on the internet then by all means do away with it. I want less federal government involvement and more state involvement as was written in the Constitution. If you don't like how your state would run things then leave the state. It's easier then leaving the country. Why is the federal government in Transportation in the first place? The transportation they need to be into is deportation. Environmental protection are the states not able to protect themselves? Are Civil rights even civil rights anymore with the massive mob mentality going around in America they only exist if they are enforced and you can't enforce anything on a mob.

From: Kyle Undefined

3. The Independent Payment Advisory Board
I'm fine with this to be honest, it's just a beefed up MedPAC (Medicare Payment Advisory Commission). MedPAC has recommended cuts to Congress that would cut "hundres of billions of dollars" to Medicare and guess what, Congress has simply ignored them. People in Congress are not informed enough to reform health care. This gives power to the people who are actually knowledgable in health care policy.

So why are we sinking further into debt then? I mean the government Drilling a whole so big in the dollar that if you lay it on the ground and look through you can see china on the other side.

From: Kyle Undefined

4. The Chrysler bailout
Bush bailed out Chrysler when they needed it, giving them $15 billion dollars in aid. That Chrysler has been renamed to "Old Carco". The new Chrysler did repay in full the loans it was given, six years early. In fact, the $6.6 billion payment provided an annual rate of return on the funds lent to Chrysler Group of almost 20 percent, which is a pretty attractive return. Old Carco is responsible for paying that back, not the new Chrysler.

I hate bail outs and anything to due with them. They willingly put the nation into debt. Willingly put others into debt. I dislike Bush and Obama both for these but they aren't even in my top ten list.

From: Kyle Undefined

5. Dodd-Frank
I honestly don't know too much about this, but the description given on the site seems innacurate. I will do some research.

Same on this one as you.

From: Kyle Undefined

6. The deep-water drilling ban
This was issued so that there was time to implement new safety requirements for drilling. This was/is needed. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was just one example of why. Oil companies were unregulated thanks to Bush, and that needed to change. It would of only impacted 33 deepwater drilling sites, which is less than 1% of the production platforms for oil and natural gas. Why is that such a bad thing? Also, the "the judge was so shocked by the administration&#8217;s conduct that he found the government in civil contempt of court." quote is completely false.

I can agree with you there.

From: Kyle Undefined

7. Political-speech disclosure for federal contractors
Oh, so you like U.S. corporations that are controlled by foreign governments influencing election outcomes? That's very American of you. This bill makes it so that us, the American people, control the elections, not huge corporations throughing out millions of dollars. This is NOT an attack on political and protected speech.

Not it make it to where no one can use and of the money from let's say a personally own business to advocate in anyway that they feel.

From: Kyle Undefined

8. Taxing political contributions
Wow, the description for this is nothing but a bunch of bs. This isn't an attack on political speech like they claim, it's to stop nonprofit groups from dumping millions of dollars into campaigns. These nonprofit groups aren't even supposed to engage in political activity, and that's the law. Who's in the wrong here?

If the donations come from a non profit group then they need to fine said group heavily for Breaking that law.

From: Kyle Undefined

9. Graphic tobacco warnings
I have heard about this, but haven't really followed it. I will do some research.

I'd rather they show the dead bodies from Drunk driving on the side of every bottle of liqueur. Then We might actually see a decrease in the death toll each year. You try Drinking a beer with little susie's Brains Splatter all over a car window. I'm sure that will help as much as the Warnings on cigarettes. Note: I'm a Smoker and Ex-drinker. I haven't really drank alcohol in 5 years or so.

From: Kyle Undefined
Bush knew were Osama was too, why not attack him for not doing anything for it? Things don't happen overnight.

Also, Bush put us in the Iraq war, when we shouldn't have even been there in the first place. I blame Bush for all of our American soldiers deaths in that war, he caused them to die. He just wanted to "follow his dads footsteps" and go after Saddam, even though there was no need to. The other reason he decided to invade Iraq was to control the oil.

Oh, and let's not forget that he went to war without Congress' approval.

So because bush was a Republican Establishment Liberal then we should turn the blind eye to what the Democrat Establishment Liberal Is doing is that were that one was going. "Well this party did it wrong so ours can too."

From: Kyle Undefined

I'm disappointed in Obama for acting too much like a Conservative.

con·serv·a·tive
&#8194; &#8194;[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Which part of him fits into this? Which part of any of the republicans fit into this as well. I'm not a Republican and Also not a democrat but I believe in limited Federal Government as stated in the constitution.

lib·er·al
&#8194; &#8194;[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Does seem to fit this one though.

&#8194; &#8194;[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Doesn't fit this though. So he is a liberal but isn't at the same time, but he definitely isn't a conservative.

You still need to Read up on NDAA, the Trespassing act, and the February 5th "State of emergency" These are my biggest things. Kyle "IF" I get told we are to start arresting US citizens. I'm coming to for a visit and I'm only a few hours away. ;)

E: P.S. Answer the phone :p

From: BraK
That has to do with the problem America is in how? Conservative or liberal doesn't matter when your opinion has no more meaning. Never mind that's right Democrat vs Republican the only to sides that matter in politics these days even though they are both the same.

Conservatives are notorious for making up useless slander and bullshit. Neither party is exempt from this, and the mud slinging needs to end for both of them. However, it seems much more severe on the Conservative side.

I'm an Independent, I don't go toward a certain party because of my lifestyle or the things they say. I go by facts.

From: BraK

So because it won't in effect until 2014. Do we wait for the hammer to hit us or catch it. You decide I don't particularly like getting hit by things.

The point is, is that we're already paying for this. This just changes the way it's paid, and spreads it out so people who just can't afford healthcare can. The bottom 20% of the population of America make up 80% of the healthcare costs. We make them healthy, and the costs drop drastically.

I actually have a fantastic plan for this, and makes it very equal and fair among everyone, no matter what class type you're in. Just have to go over a few things, and it would be ready to be presented to someone who could do something with it.

From: BraK

If your Talking National security such as the TSA then by all means Be gone with it. If you mean National Security as in all the Government Contractors Making 4-8 times my Salary to do less work than me for the same job then yes please do away with it. If you mean all the money going into information Technology for the sole purpose of documenting everything we do on the internet then by all means do away with it. I want less federal government involvement and more state involvement as was written in the Constitution. If you don't like how your state would run things then leave the state. It's easier then leaving the country. Why is the federal government in Transportation in the first place? The transportation they need to be into is deportation. Environmental protection are the states not able to protect themselves? Are Civil rights even civil rights anymore with the massive mob mentality going around in America they only exist if they are enforced and you can't enforce anything on a mob.

Anything that is federal funded could be called into question if this fails. National security includes anything that is funded by the feds. Public transportation is paid for by the state, which in turns gets money from the feds. States have to meet requirements if they want the money for the program, and this clause is just that. It's a requirement to be enrolled in the program, not an enforcement.

From: BraK

So why are we sinking further into debt then? I mean the government Drilling a whole so big in the dollar that if you lay it on the ground and look through you can see china on the other side.

Because Congress is f'k'd up. Plain and simple. Politics is so corrupt and in for itself that it ruins everything. It's sickening, and really pisses me off.

From: BraK

I hate bail outs and anything to due with them. They willingly put the nation into debt. Willingly put others into debt. I dislike Bush and Obama both for these but they aren't even in my top ten list.

Oh trust me, I hate bailouts too. However, if Chrysler hadn't of been bailed out, the American car industry would of been dead. I think the investment corporations should of been killed off, they got themselves into their own mess and brought down America with them. Why should they be allowed to continue their ways?

From: BraK

Same on this one as you.

Yeah, the research that I did returned nothing relevant. So I honestly have no clue.

From: BraK

I can agree with you there.

Yay! :D

From: BraK

Not it make it to where no one can use and of the money from let's say a personally own business to advocate in anyway that they feel.

This only applies to a company that's controlled from outside of America. Any American based, controlled, and ran company is free to donate how they wish. However, huge corporations that give millions of dollars in campaigns need to be stopped.

From: BraK

If the donations come from a non profit group then they need to fine said group heavily for Breaking that law.

I agree.

From: BraK

I'd rather they show the dead bodies from Drunk driving on the side of every bottle of liqueur. Then We might actually see a decrease in the death toll each year. You try Drinking a beer with little susie's Brains Splatter all over a car window. I'm sure that will help as much as the Warnings on cigarettes. Note: I'm a Smoker and Ex-drinker. I haven't really drank alcohol in 5 years or so.

I wouldn't mind the warnings to be honest, because I'm responsible when it comes to that. Sure, I"ll drink at dinner when out with friends, but only two or three beers at most. If I want to get drunk, I do it at my apartment, and stay there till the next day.

People are stupid, and if it takes graphic warnings to get the point across, then do it.

From: BraK

So because bush was a Republican Establishment Liberal then we should turn the blind eye to what the Democrat Establishment Liberal Is doing is that were that one was going. "Well this party did it wrong so ours can too."

Him being a Republican has nothing to do with the war he cause. I would be pissed at them and hold them responsible for no matter who was in office.

The point is, is that we shouldn't have even invaded Iraq. Don't you agree? Billions have been wasted on this war, countless lives have been taken, families torn apart, life ruining injuries, etc. I heard a statement awhile ago, that it's costing us $500 Million a day to be in this war.

No party is exempt from anything, they're all corrupt. They all have their pros and cons. It's up to the people who represent the parties to set the image for them. Frankly, neither party has done a good job.

From: BraK

Which part of him fits into this? Which part of any of the republicans fit into this as well. I'm not a Republican and Also not a democrat but I believe in limited Federal Government as stated in the constitution.



Does seem to fit this one though.



Doesn't fit this though. So he is a liberal but isn't at the same time, but he definitely isn't a conservative.

The actions he has done, the horrible crumbling, and compromises.

From: BraK

You still need to Read up on NDAA, the Trespassing act, and the February 5th "State of emergency" These are my biggest things.

Will do! Thanks for the information.

From: BraK

Kyle "IF" I get told we are to start arresting US citizens. I'm coming to for a visit and I'm only a few hours away. ;)

Nooooo! That's not cool man! :(

From: BraK

E: P.S. Answer the phone :p

D: WTF man, I don't answer numbers I don't recognize! Should of posted on my FB that you were calling :/

Good article for everyone to read. It's a bit long winded but non the less a must read for everyone that really wants to be informed.

http://www.infowars.com/the-man-who-should-be-president/


Kyle: the 337 number is me ;)

Triple Post BraK

Inb4selfinfract

OT: I'm british, so I don't really care but I've always thought Obama was doing a great job :s

But meh, I'm not American so who am I to judge :p

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/15/the-road-to-tampa-ron-pauls-stunning-upset-in-colorado/

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/15/ron-paul-moneybomb-the-revolution-will-not-be-televised/

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/14/americans-agree-with-ron-paul-on-military-spending/

Man this freaking video is funny http://www.youtube.com/embed/WUO84t1H9Tg


My internet sucks right now and has been doing that. this is the third time it's done it :<

Obama will win and nothing we can do about it, 4 more years of "change'. /facepalm

Easy bro I removed the racist statement keep it clean here please.

From: kingarabian
I'm really suspicious of the Illinois primary. That was Ron Paul's…

They reported only 70 votes in my county/parish here in LA. My parish has 20,000+ Military on it and your telling me only 70 voted for Ron Paul! I'm calling bull on that. The Military fully supports Ron Paul over any other candidate.

The problem is many people are voting for mitt Romney because he has the appearance that he is popular. Not that that is the right way to vote. My Aunt told my She wanted to vote for Ron Paul but didn't think he was going to Win so she was going to vote for Romney instead. My response to her is that exactly the reason that Romney can win is because people aren't doing what's right but doing what is popular.

http://www.infowars.com/5-reasons-why-ron-paul-is-the-militarys-choice-for-president/

http://www.infowars.com/former-president-jimmy-carter-supports-call-for-new-911-investigation/

http://www.infowars.com/holding-the-president-accountable-on-libya/

http://www.infowars.com/my-plan-for-a-freedom-president-or-how-i-would-put-the-constitution-back-in-the-oval-office/

http://www.infowars.com/owe-the-irs-youre-not-going-anywhere/

The next SOPA
http://www.infowars.com/activists-plan-week-of-protests-against-new-house-cybersecurity-legislation/

http://www.infowars.com/help-bring-war-criminal-obama-to-justice/

http://www.infowars.com/coup-detat-pentagon-obama-declare-congress-ceremonial/

More links for the Lolz

More links to go through, yay! Haha. Will read through them.

/offtopic
Are you still on the phone? You got quiet lol.

You put me on hold you noob I could still hear you. XD

http://teamcoco.com/video/same-sex-wedding-news

From: Kyle Undefined
I'm an Independent, I don't go toward a certain party because of my lifestyle or the things they say. I go by facts.

Yay for facts! Boo for what they say ='[

Grabbign a link to abamas mention of Dhimmitude in the new healthcare bill. Look up that word while i grab the link. Youll see that america is on the brink of losing. If this is not removed, we will be an owned country. We didnt fight for our freedom, and we lost it :<

Some more videos for your entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=oVOH4XPMEtk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=3-MzKvVi1FI

A really good read:
http://m.sodahead.com/united-states/santorum-supporter---visits-ron-paul-rally-ft-worth-texas---shares-his-reaction/question-2587931/

An interesting take on the media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IO8_9Xiu1o&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Qhm7FL6NE&feature=related

Oh Noes not Texas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33FsSsSdIRw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2uOiti8wnA&feature=related


Kyle one for you: I plan to make you a Ron Paul supporter yet :)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU2AvSwzuok&feature=related


http://youthrevolutionarycouncil.org/?p=1264

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68yGJMUwd5k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU2AvSwzuok&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmNU6RC_XCQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOByZf84sJw&feature=related

Omg so many links! It will take me awhile to go through them all haha.

Looked at a bunch of those. Thanks ;]

I urge all Americans here to read the Constitution of the United states as written. So that you can better understand the issue that we face in these dire times. To understand how the Senate and the House of Representatives along with the President of the united states have sold us the citizens to the Large corporations and use us to fight the Global war of forceful indoctrination.

I present to you the United States Constitution the founding document. Of which Myself, My fellow brothers at arms, And every Politician in Washington is sworn to defend. I have done so, My fellow brothers and sisters at arms have done so. Can we say that the Politicians have done so? You decide after reading it. Then Read the Patriot Act, The National Defense Authorization Act, and The Trespassing Act.



The United States Constitution

The Patriot Act

National Defense Authorization Act

The Trespassing Act

Sincerely,
BraK SRL Forums Moderator
SGT United States Army
United States Citizen

P.S. A Message from the Person getting my vote for Defending the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xws0j0DDkUQ&feature=related

Nope.

He can't screw up worse than any of the others running for office, let him finish what he started.

TheAnubis But he can and already has Please read my last post and the previous post in the thread. :)

From: BraK
TheAnubis But he can and already has Please read my last post and the previous post in the thread. :)

I see where you're getting some of your stuff from, and I completely back you on some topics. But really, would Romney be a better president? Thats the matter at hand.

he would not, he has been bought off. Ron is the only one actively FIGHTING banks. the others are still saying what you want to hear. look at their records. They flip flop, they say one thing one year, the next is completely different. Ron has had the same stance for 30 years. he wont change

50 50 atm :)

poll is looking far better, although it is still far too many yeses =\

From: m34tcode
he would not, he has been bought off. Ron is the only one actively FIGHTING banks. the others are still saying what you want to hear. look at their records. They flip flop, they say one thing one year, the next is completely different. Ron has had the same stance for 30 years. he wont change

I think Romeny is chessy018 on RS. Both pro flippers :P

No, but I don't like Mitt Romney either. It's apparent he will be the Republican nominee. But I do think Obama will probably be re-elected. He is still popular enough to win, besides Obama has more resources (and media support) than Mitt does. The only candidate I would vote for is Ron Paul, but unfortunately he has been blacked out the entire time by the media. He is almost never mentioned when they report the poll numbers. The media has been so biased towards him from the get go. News outlets aligned with both political parties are doing it so I think it's obvious who they are the most afraid of. He has said the whole time he wants to end the fed, and of course they don't that to happen.

What I'm confused about is, everywhere I go, everywhere I ask people are like RON PAUL RON PAUL. And I completely agree. But when we look at the polls, its almost as if he's not even on there.

Ugh, the effects mass media can have :/

Woah, the vote changed fast….I don't like any of the republicans running…that and I have something against republicans in general. :P

I would love to see the statistics if it was obama vs romney.

Hell no i dont want Obama again id rather have the cat in the hat; even if he has tried to do some good stuff and it got blocked look at all the bad he's did: solyndra, that failure stimulus package, the keystone pipeline, taking away rights….

He's just a dreamer and thinks that everything will work out right by taxing everyone more and big government programs such as national healthcare; maybe in a perfect society stuff like welfare and national healthcare would work, and if it did work id be all for it, but i just doesn't and thats harsh reality.

hes not a dreamer hes a doer

Hes bringing us down on purpose

there were videos showing him saying he did not like the united states

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/23/obama-worse-than-bush-on-civil-liberties-romney-no-different-from-obama/

A link for everyone to read.

From: BraK
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/23/obama-worse-than-bush-on-civil-liberties-romney-no-different-from-obama/

A link for everyone to read.

Romney is probably gonna change his mind on some of the things (that are mentioned in the above link) tomorrow haha.

of course
he will say what people like
he isnt speaking opinion
he is trying to make people like him
like all the other liars we have been electing

ron paul, same stance for 30 years… we can depend on what he says he will do

Obama+4 More Years= Terrorism, Anti-Christ-ism x end of world= More suicides before the zombie apocalypse.

Added 5 trillion to our debt. That's 1.5x our debt before he was in office. More than any other president has achieved. Won't be getting my vote.

From: BuckWild
Added 5 trillion to our debt. That's 1.5x our debt before he was in office. More than any other president has achieved. Won't be getting my vote.

From a failing country that Bush put into place, so Obama didn't add that ;)

obama is a retard who aquired as much debt in 4 years as all the presidents combined, honestly the man deserves to loose, 53m babies slaughtered and hes all for it, my opinion is when obama looses he will make this a military state and im sure you guys know what that means.

From: Kyle Undefined
From a failing country that Bush put into place, so Obama didn't add that ;)

double post cant edit on a droid- sir you do know bush couldnt do shiz if it weren't for bush ud be osamas bitch, you see you guys look at america as your country i look at America as a getaway spot form third world countries obama wants to destroy this great land.

Ron Paul has my vote in the primary, but I won't chance Obama getting re-elected in the general. Ill vote for the lesser of the two liberals.

Romney would be a complete disaster. Republicans are terrible for the deficit. Reagan messed up, Clinton recovered it, then Bush messed up again and Obama once again saved it. Romney is also quite rich and obviously very biased; it's ridiculous that millionaires pay only 14% tax where normal people over 20%. It's a shame that Obama was only able to properly do stuff in the first two years of his term due to House of Representatives messing up.

Obama is also good for international relations.

And republicans generally have no clue about most things that matter. It's a shame really.

Please remember this is my own personal opinion when looking at my member application and don't hate cus of my party affiliation haha

Anyways, if it weren't for Reagan Russia would have been all over us during the Cold War. I take a lot of politics classes so I know I am not ill informed. Also I would like to point out the president does not control the spending of the country but congress does rather. When Clinton was in office, the Republican's had a supermajority in Congress (meaning they could pass bills without any Democrat votes) and they brought us out of the debt. Bush is also not responsible for the market crash. The panic following 9/11 was the initiation, and then with the bubble artificial inflation from the national treasury popped, there was no stopping it. (I would like to point out the national treasury controls much of our economy through artificial inflation, which makes huge debt possible for the government, as they know the treasury will just inflate their way out of debt. This is just another form of taxation. If there was a gold standard, then this would be impossible, as it would define the value of a dollar instead of just make it based on trust in the government.) Then, in the 2008 elections, the Democrats gained very close to a super majority in congress. Congress then spent over double total what Reagan had spent in the first month of their majority. Right now our debt is currently reaching its limit. By this I mean that we will spend as much in interest as the government collects through taxes. Unless the treasury devalues your money by half, there is not much of a chance that our country will ever be debt free again. The taking over of the health care does not help at all either. The health care is 1/3 of our current economy. Everyone knows that private businesses do a much better job than the government. Also, it is unconstitutional to interfere with matters that belong to the state governments. For example, the federal government has mandated we manufacture a CERTAIN TYPE OF LIGHTBULB, AND TELL US HOW MANY GALLONS OF WATER WE CAN FLUSH DOWN THE TOILET. If this isn't socialism, then shoot me. For the federal government to force everyone to purchase health care under penalty of law is complete socialism. The government in no way has the right to tell you how to spend your money. Go read the constitution for yourself if you don't agree.

A side note of why I am against Obama. Bush signed a document which would have mandated to have all of the American troops out of Iraq by September 2009. What happened to that Obama?? Why did you make our troops stay quite a few years longer than Bush??? Obama has not kept any of his promises, besides Health care which is completely Socialistic, and over all a complete drag to the economy.

I also do not like Mitt Romney. Although he is the better of the two candidates from an economic perspective and a moral perspective considering his views on abortion.


Sorry for ranting but Politics just get me going. Abortion and contraception are bad for the economy. You'd think that the huge businesses would all discourage their use. 1/3 of our economy is completely gone, as we are missing 1/3 of the citizens we would have had. If these would never have been made legal, then we would have close to 50 million more Americans, which would obviously have solved the housing market as it is, and with an increase of consumers, we would have more industrial and manufacturing to keep everyone employed.

ok who ever just said Reagan messed it up can go jump in a lake as anyone in the world who has historical knowledge of the us they will tell you when the economy and life was best and that was under Reagan. and if you look at taxes republicans have been better and if you listen to the media then your worse then the red media is full of lies Obama says the jobs deficit is back at 9 percent lol its 11.7 percent of people who are looking for work the real unemployment rate is 24.5 percent. and if you haven't figured it out hand outs lead to socialism, if you want this country to be destroyed fine but im getting my money saved and moving the hell to Costa Rica.

From: dude1994
A side note of why I am against Obama. Bush signed a document which would have mandated to have all of the American troops out of Iraq by September 2009. What happened to that Obama?? Why did you make our troops stay quite a few years longer than Bush??? Obama has not kept any of his promises, besides Health care which is completely Socialistic, and over all a complete drag to the economy.

Do you know that this is simply wrong? I very much doubt Bush would have gotten the soldiers out there any sooner (as it's not really in the presidents power to ``quickly'' redraw soldiers. You can't invade a country, devastate it and then just leave - which is what Bush apparently would have done). It is however in the power of the president to start a war - which is what Bush has done, Obama just cleaned up his mess.

As for Health Care, that's ridiculous. Proper health care is (amongst other things) what differentiates the Western civilisation from many other civilisations.

From: dude1994
I also do not like Mitt Romney. Although he is the better of the two candidates from an economic perspective and a moral perspective considering his views on abortion.

Morals are not dictated by religion and certainly not by mormons. I suggest you read ``The Moral Landscape'' on how morals are formed.
Religion knows as much about morals as the Klu Klux Klan can say about the laws of physics.

The Vatican excommunicates women if they want to become a priest, but does not excommunicate male priests who abuse children; it excommunicates doctors that save the life of a mother by removing the unborn children - even if the mother is a nine year old that was raped by her stepfather and is going to give birth to a twin but does not excommunicate any member of the third empire aka (then) nazi-germany. This isn't just completely immoral, but also a diabolical turnaround of priorities.

Over 150 charts debunking the Reagan Myth and supply-side economics. Includes an in-depth statistical comparison of the United States to other rich (and more liberal) countries, showing how the U.S. comes in last on almost every important list.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm


For those who are against socialism, why not stop the massive government spending on defence? The US spends over 6 times more on military than any other country.


It seems to me you hate socialism when it helps the poor, through healthcare and the like, but love socialism when it comes to buying weapons for the rich and powerful and bailing out their banks when they make mistakes.

^Your chart shows exactly what we need to cut. 700 billion dollars is nothing compared to social security and the useless government bailouts. The military according to our founding fathers should be our nations ONLY expense. The federal government was only made to protect the citizens in time of war. Social security is the number one expense of our federal government. It needs to go. This is just the government's way of forcing you to save your money for the future. One could just as easily put it in the bank and save it up.

From: Wizzup?
Do you know that this is simply wrong? I very much doubt Bush would have gotten the soldiers out there any sooner (as it's not really in the presidents power to ``quickly'' redraw soldiers. You can't invade a country, devastate it and then just leave - which is what Bush apparently would have done). It is however in the power of the president to start a war - which is what Bush has done, Obama just cleaned up his mess.

As for Health Care, that's ridiculous. Proper health care is (amongst other things) what differentiates the Western civilisation from many other civilisations.



Morals are not dictated by religion and certainly not by mormons. I suggest you read ``The Moral Landscape'' on how morals are formed.
Religion knows as much about morals as the Klu Klux Klan can say about the laws of physics.

The Vatican excommunicates women if they want to become a priest, but does not excommunicate male priests who abuse children; it excommunicates doctors that save the life of a mother by removing the unborn children - even if the mother is a nine year old that was raped by her stepfather and is going to give birth to a twin but does not excommunicate any member of the third empire aka (then) nazi-germany. This isn't just completely immoral, but also a diabolical turnaround of priorities.

In the first place, President Bush provided for 9 months of rebuilding Iraq in the paper he signed.

Secondly regarding health care. Are you saying you support the government controlling 1/3 of our economy as it stands? I know the health care did not go as big as Obama did want it too, but it forces everyone even the poor to buy health care under penalty of being fined.

I never said that Romney had good morals. I said he had better morals.

Regarding the Vatican. Are you Catholic at all?? You probably don't even know their reasons for having only men becoming priests. Priests are relieved of their duties if they do anything to children. You are being influenced by the media too much. You should compare the percentage of priests that are rapists to the percentage of teachers or any other class that are rapists and you will see the morals of Catholics greatly reduce this percentage among priests. Also the percentage of abortions that are about medical risks to the mother are very very low. I just did a quick google and the first link says 92 percent of abortions are for "social reasons". Clearly this is unnecessary killing of unborn. If you had read official documents published by the vatican, you would see that they were not neutral during WWII. They did much unofficial work which dealt with helping Jews escape from Germany. You may find these documents which were recorded during the World Wars in the Vatican library now.

I hope Obama will get reelected but sadly even if he will, he can't really do what he wants to do.
Since most of the things he wants to change will get voted against….just because they can >_>

You mean things like taking over health care??? Or spending another trillion dollars on a temporary economy boost?

Correct me if I'm wrong

From: superbuster4
obama is a retard who aquired as much debt in 4 years as all the presidents combined, honestly the man deserves to loose, 53m babies slaughtered and hes all for it, my opinion is when obama looses he will make this a military state and im sure you guys know what that means.


double post cant edit on a droid- sir you do know bush couldnt do shiz if it weren't for bush ud be osamas bitch, you see you guys look at america as your country i look at America as a getaway spot form third world countries obama wants to destroy this great land.

well think about it from a girl's point of view? If u got raped, if you were stupid, and soo many other cases, WOULD U WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PAIN, PAY THE TAXES THAT COME WITH IT, ect.. Now the debt, thats another issue, but aside from that i am mainly satisfied with obama

From: dude1994
^Your chart shows exactly what we need to cut. 700 billion dollars is nothing compared to social security and the useless government bailouts. The military according to our founding fathers should be our nations ONLY expense. The federal government was only made to protect the citizens in time of war. Social security is the number one expense of our federal government. It needs to go. This is just the government's way of forcing you to save your money for the future. One could just as easily put it in the bank and save it up.

You don't really sound like a republican or a democrat to me; you sound like an anarchist. Perhaps you should talk to some of the people in the U.S. with and without social security. Making sure people can stay independent lifts a huge burden off others. Unless you're stating they don't deserve to life if they don't have enough money. Not everyone is born equally and not everyone can achieve the same; not everyone has the same ``luck''.

From: dude1994

In the first place, President Bush provided for 9 months of rebuilding Iraq in the paper he signed.

How is this relevant? 9 months is not enough. Unless you're stating that the army works much harder when Bush is president. That and leaving too early is a pompously stupid idea. That will just hand the country right into the hands of the group that the U.S. has been fighting all along; terrorists.

From: dude1994

Secondly regarding health care. Are you saying you support the government controlling 1/3 of our economy as it stands? I know the health care did not go as big as Obama did want it too, but it forces everyone even the poor to buy health care under penalty of being fined.

Over and over has been proven that Health care for everyone leads to higher (combined) welfare. You can dispute this all you want, it won't change the fact that you're wrong. Morals are all about welfare; they're created to provide us with the best possible life and welfare. Something the church doesn't give us, by the way.

From: dude1994

I never said that Romney had good morals. I said he had better morals.

Regarding the Vatican. Are you Catholic at all?? You probably don't even know their reasons for having only men becoming priests. Priests are relieved of their duties if they do anything to children. You are being influenced by the media too much. You should compare the percentage of priests that are rapists to the percentage of teachers or any other class that are rapists and you will see the morals of Catholics greatly reduce this percentage among priests. Also the percentage of abortions that are about medical risks to the mother are very very low. I just did a quick google and the first link says 92 percent of abortions are for "social reasons". Clearly this is unnecessary killing of unborn. If you had read official documents published by the vatican, you would see that they were not neutral during WWII. They did much unofficial work which dealt with helping Jews escape from Germany. You may find these documents which were recorded during the World Wars in the Vatican library now.

No, of course I'm not catholic. When I look around I see absolutely no reason to believe in any sort of God. I can assure you that I'm not more brainwashed by the media than you are by your religion. Once again, I refer you to the book I mentioned in my previous post if you do not agree with the facts I posted. You'll find all the references you need there. You can dispute them; but I doubt you can do that with a clear mind and conscience.

I do not confirm your sources on the Vatican; and that was also not what my point was about. There is a pretty big group of germans that were ``wrong'' during the war still active in the Vatican, including (if I recall correctly) mr Pope himself.

About abortion, I never claimed I supported abortion only to save the mother; I'm simply saying that the church is against any kind of abortion. I completely and fully support abortion in every way. I believe that parents can choose not to raise their child if the child is either a burden to them (e.g. they did not want the child) or if the child is so ill it will lead a terrible life, inflicting pain on both the parents and the child itself. I'm also completely in favour of parents choosing aborting even though there is nothing wrong with the child.

If you would like to lessen the suffering in the world; you have to support abortion. Abortion does not make suffering any worse; no matter how you look at it. It does however, lead to less pain and suffering. So forget that silly book out of your head and take an objective look at what is the best for humanity as a whole. I don't believe you can come up with a single argument that can attack abortion on proper morals. (That means, you can't fall back to silly dogma's)

E: Base: Abortion is always by choice. If parents choose to not have a child; they decide not to in good will and will most likely not regret the decision later. (Even if they do, it was their decision and only they are to blame; it seems that you should agree here if you don't think everyone should have health care and social security). Furthermore, the child is never really alive and certainly does not suffer. In most cases, parents choose abortion (it is a choice) and will lead to less suffering. No (or less, depending on the morals of the parents) terminally ill children will be born; and there was less suffering.

If you don't want to pick abortion; don't. But what gives you the right to decide for others if they're allowed to or not?

E2: If you agree on the above paragraph; you'll also see why both the republicans are a bad choice. They don't follow proper logic and disregard common knowledge. They also restrict your freedom. (Freedom to abortion is just a freedom like any other)

Republicans say they want smaller government, yet want government to control what a woman can/can't do with their own bodies.

On health care: in the US of A people literally die because, for example, they can't afford cancer treatment or surgery.
Not providing healthcare to them is thus indirectly murder. You can help them, yet you won't for egoistic reasons (zomfg tax moneys to ppl who need it!!).
To look back at your religion: wasn't it Jesus who said we should care for our brethern? Wasn't Jesus, essentially, one of the first providers of free and open healthcare for the poor? And at the cleansing of the temple, wasn't that essentially where he sorta kicked the 1% out?

republicans say they want smaller government, yet the U.S. has the smallest government for a country the size and wealth of it

Ron Paul 2012 I don't have anything else really to add :p I've said about all I will on the subject. If you want some good information on Obama Check out www.Infowars.com or the www.drudgereport.com

@ Wizzup

I support people being able to be independent. Social Security is not the way to do it. Instead of paying 8% of your income into social security every year people should be putting it in savings which they can manage on their own. I think you missed my point that the FEDERAL government should not do it. It is in the constitutional powers of the STATE government to do it.

In addition, how is 9 months not long enough??? Are you saying we should be having our troops in unfriendly territory for an extra 4 years now? We won the war with Iraq in little less than a month and we were rebuilding their country ever since and implementing democratic systems of government. We can't baby them like we babied Japan after WWII because of the economy of our country at the moment.

Regarding health care, argue all you want. Obamacare does NOT PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR ANYONE. It simply forces you to buy it under a monetary penalty. Tell me how forcing poor people to spend their money on something they can't afford under penalty of a fine is good at all.

Furthermore, when did I say I was a Catholic? You assume because I know a lot about them that I am a Catholic? I am looking at things completely from an economic and political point of view here, not taking religion into consideration at all. If you find God then thats good for you, and if you choose to not investigate the possibilities then that is up to you.

Regarding abortion, are you aware of the psychological suffering mothers go through after an abortion??? Immediately after doing the procedure they are immediately taken to a psychiatrist. They could just give the child up for adoption if they don't want to raise it. Abortion causes just as much if not more pain and suffering as birth. I have an essay which I have written on why abortion is wrong, going through laws going back to greek and roman times, and the pharoahs. Apparently you don't know that only up until the early 1900's to mid 1900's has it become popular. The parents decide whether they want to have a child or not before the have sex, not when the child is already formed. Use some common sense every now and then.

@ Kyle

The STATE government does have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your bodies. Take suicide for example. MOST state governments and by most I mean all except 2 or 3 make suicide illegal. That is telling you what you can and cannot do with your bodies. Also, the government tells you you cannot use certain drugs. That tells you what you can and cannot do with your bodies. You really need to have an open mind concerning every detail.

@ Markus

Obamacare only fines people when they don't have health care. How does this solve people not affording suregeries???

I do have an open mind, that's why I don't pledge to a particular party. No goverment should tell you what you can/can't do with your body. Yet, republicans are all anti-abortion. How does that make sense?

Regarding the war in Iraq, we shouldn't have even invaded it. They had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. Bush wanted to complete what his dad couldn't, with the cost of American soldiers.

Obamacare is a step in the right direction. It helps make healthcare available to all, or most people. The lower 20% of Americans make up 80% of healthcare costs. Make them healthy and healthcare drops drastically.

From: Kyle Undefined
From a failing country that Bush put into place, so Obama didn't add that ;)

I think well agree to disagree on this one. Previous debt from all time - 10 trill. New Obama debt - 5 trill. I don't think you can blame that on the previous leader when, until recently (last 2 or 3 months), unemployment was down and I didn't see much to do with decreasing the debt. Maybe I misse some stuff as I only depend on CNN phone updates for the most part

From: Wizzup?
Romney would be a complete disaster. Republicans are terrible for the deficit. Reagan messed up, Clinton recovered it, then Bush messed up again and Obama once again saved it. Romney is also quite rich and obviously very biased; it's ridiculous that millionaires pay only 14% tax where normal people over 20%. It's a shame that Obama was only able to properly do stuff in the first two years of his term due to House of Representatives messing up.

Obama is also good for international relations.

And republicans generally have no clue about most things that matter. It's a shame really.

Revenue is not the problem, spending is.

Your claims about past presidents are false. Reagan overhauled the tax code, lowed taxes for all in the process. At the same time, because the economy was doing so well, more revenue was taken in by the government because more people were paying taxes taxes. Clinton balanced the budget, a achievement I wish our current government could achieve. Sad thing is though, the democratic controlled senate has failed to submit any budget, let alone one that is balanced.

Taxing the wealthy is not the answer. If you actually calculate out how much revenue would be taken if Obama's "Buffet Rule" was passed its only a additional 50 billion dollars according to the congressional budget office. Last time I checked our government is currently running a deficit of over a trillion a year, so clearly that won't even help.

The majority of Americans actually don't even pay income tax. If you want to complain about someone, how about you complain about freeloaders who somehow have more say than people who actually pay income tax. i.e the Middle class.

The only way to get our fiscal house in order is to slash non essential programs, close loop holes in the tax system, and lower taxes in order to put more money in the hands of consumers.

The deficit under Obama has increased more in 4 years than it did in 8 years under Bush.

Your claim that "it's a shame that Obama was only able to properly do stuff in the first two years of his term due to House of Representatives messing up." is laughable. You do know that the founding fathers created the three branches of government in order to limit the powers each branch held. The republicans were able to wrestle control of the house because the american people hated what democrats were voting for in Washington, i.e Obama Care which isn't even constitutional which I won't go into.

I don't understand your claim that Obama is good for international relations. Nothing has changed since Bush. The US is still bumbling around in other countries business. Getting involved in wars that we have no business partaking in.

Edit: Just thought I would add this in. I don't like Romney either. But I would rather have someone that is pro business and is more likely to help get the economy going than a socialist like Obama who will continue giving hand out to people who are reliant on the government because they know no other way to live. There have always been poor people in the world. The only difference between them and the people now is that those people actually lived within their means and tried to better themselves. Now there is less reason to improve your lot in life because the government will look out after you.

From: m34tcode
Well, try this vid ;]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-of-boy-shocked-31-times-for-not-removing-coat-finally-released.html

Also, obama is trying to gain dictorial powers. He has issued a new tax. This tax is a punishment for all non islams. it is issued, so that the islams will 'tolerate' you.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-word-dhimmitude-is-found-in-the-new-health-care-bill-so-what-does-it-mean/question-2518005/

Thats just ONE thing. He is ruining us. We have let him.

Not sure if this was mentioned, but the Snopes article that is hot-linked in the article says it's false LOL.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

@ officialpubbing: Also it has to be stated that the marginal tax rate is the lowest it's been since the 1950s, so clearly LOWERING taxes on business isn't the answer either! We need to increase tax revenues moderately and also decrease spending. Even under Reagan (who you apparently think is the greatest president ever) the marginal tax rate was raised three times. Anyone who isn't being incredibly ridiculous knows that we need compromise to solve our issues in Washington. What we really need is a complete overhaul of the political and tax schemes which Citizens United has only made hundreds of times worse.

I don't think Reagan is the greatest president ever. Just wanted to point out what he did and for the most part it did work. Compromise is of course needed, but I fear that politicians lack the ability to do whats right. Its alot easier to raise taxes than it is to make significant cuts in social programs. Debt problems are crushing countries in Europe. Its not out of the realm of possibilities that it could and will happen here if we do nothing to fix the problem.

From: dude1994
@
Obamacare only fines people when they don't have health care. How does this solve people not affording suregeries???

It solves it completely! If everyone has healthcare everyone can afford threatment. If risks are spread among healthy and less-healthy, then for the lower income classes, who generally are less healthy because of lower living standards, healthcare becomes more affordable. Risk spreading is the entire point of insurances.
Also I'd like to point out that Mitt Romney, the only other serious candidate, introduced a very similar bill in Massacusetts. The highlights:

• Mandated insurance for all
• Free health insurance for the lowest incomes

Another reason it will make healthcare cheaper: currently the ER is used a lot by people who aren't insured (as they can't refuse people). ER is very very expensive, if you allow those resources to be used by the actual emergencies, you can drastically lower the costs of it thus again making healthcare more affordable.

I'm not going to advocate taxing the wealth or having millionaires pay more than 15% tax (I pay 30% myself and don't make a lot of money, most 'rich' people pay close to 50% here). But if your country has more income inequality than Africa, and 1% controls 50% of wealth, something isn't really healthy right? The average high school teacher has same level of education as a wall street banker, yet the former makes 20 times less money.

From: officialpubbing
Revenue is not the problem, spending is.

Your claims about past presidents are false. Reagan overhauled the tax code, lowed taxes for all in the process. At the same time, because the economy was doing so well, more revenue was taken in by the government because more people were paying taxes taxes. Clinton balanced the budget, a achievement I wish our current government could achieve. Sad thing is though, the democratic controlled senate has failed to submit any budget, let alone one that is balanced.

Taxing the wealthy is not the answer. If you actually calculate out how much revenue would be taken if Obama's "Buffet Rule" was passed its only a additional 50 billion dollars according to the congressional budget office. Last time I checked our government is currently running a deficit of over a trillion a year, so clearly that won't even help. As for praising Clinton, you do realise Obama and Clinton share most of their ideas? There will hardly be a difference in the way they rule the country.

The majority of Americans actually don't even pay income tax. If you want to complain about someone, how about you complain about freeloaders who somehow have more say than people who actually pay income tax. i.e the Middle class.

I don't think my facts are false. Perhaps look at yakman's post?

I'm not saying you should tax the wealthy more than ordinary citizens, I'm saying they should be taxed at least equally if not more. And I'm talking percentages; not an equal sum of money, obviously. It's ridiculous to state that the wealthy should be taxed less than the poor. Yet, every republican does it, presumably because the wealthy ones are backing them.

From: officialpubbing

The only way to get our fiscal house in order is to slash non essential programs, close loop holes in the tax system, and lower taxes in order to put more money in the hands of consumers.

I see… So basically, make sure millionaires still pay a very low percentage of tax (14% vs 40% for normal citizens - just because millionaires have more money - right? Sounds legit), let most companies pipe to another country where they can pay a lot less tax… That's good for the companies now isn't it? Not so good for the people however.

From: officialpubbing

Your claim that "it's a shame that Obama was only able to properly do stuff in the first two years of his term due to House of Representatives messing up." is laughable. You do know that the founding fathers created the three branches of government in order to limit the powers each branch held. The republicans were able to wrestle control of the house because the american people hated what democrats were voting for in Washington, i.e Obama Care which isn't even constitutional which I won't go into.

I'm well aware of this fact, but that doesn't mean I can't think it's a shame. As for your great design; I feel that the separation of church and state is very blurry in the U.S.

From: officialpubbing

I don't understand your claim that Obama is good for international relations. Nothing has changed since Bush. The US is still bumbling around in other countries business. Getting involved in wars that we have no business partaking in.

Historians suggest that Obama is much better for international relations. They believe Romney and other republicans are not so good in diplomatics; especially not with for example Putin.

From: officialpubbing

Edit: Just thought I would add this in. I don't like Romney either. But I would rather have someone that is pro business and is more likely to help get the economy going than a socialist like Obama who will continue giving hand out to people who are reliant on the government because they know no other way to live. There have always been poor people in the world. The only difference between them and the people now is that those people actually lived within their means and tried to better themselves. Now there is less reason to improve your lot in life because the government will look out after you.

I laugh every time an american calls Obama a socialist. He's still pretty right wing, America just has much, much more extreme views on socialism.

As I have argued before - is it a bad thing if governments help the people? Aren't governments there FOR the people in the first place? It's completely up to you to improve your life. That doesn't mean it will work out for everyone. National healthcare is a great improvement for the welfare of the citizens of the U.S.

From: Markus
It solves it completely! If everyone has healthcare everyone can afford threatment. If risks are spread among healthy and less-healthy, then for the lower income classes, who generally are less healthy because of lower living standards, healthcare becomes more affordable. Risk spreading is the entire point of insurances.
Also I'd like to point out that Mitt Romney, the only other serious candidate, introduced a very similar bill in Massacusetts. The highlights:

• Mandated insurance for all
• Free health insurance for the lowest incomes

Another reason it will make healthcare cheaper: currently the ER is used a lot by people who aren't insured (as they can't refuse people). ER is very very expensive, if you allow those resources to be used by the actual emergencies, you can drastically lower the costs of it thus again making healthcare more affordable.

I'm not going to advocate taxing the wealth or having millionaires pay more than 15% tax (I pay 30% myself and don't make a lot of money, most 'rich' people pay close to 50% here). But if your country has more income inequality than Africa, and 1% controls 50% of wealth, something isn't really healthy right? The average high school teacher has same level of education as a wall street banker, yet the former makes 20 times less money.

I'd support it if they did it in a constitutional way. E.G. The state governments made their own health care programs. The federal government has no right to interfere in the lives of individuals. And I still think that health young people who are poor shouldn't be fined if they don't want health care, because there is a very small chance they would need surgery that would cost so much they couldn't get a loan for it. Its just another way the federal government sees as a source of income.

In the United States the taxes are already aimed enough at the rich. To be honest I believe income taxes should be removed. They had to change the constitution just so that they could tax people's incomes. Its not how the makers of our country intended it.

I'd also like to point out that EVERYONE in America has the opportunity to earn a decent wage and make a decent living. Its just that some people choose not too either because of laziness or they don't care.

From: dude1994
@ Wizzup

I support people being able to be independent. Social Security is not the way to do it. Instead of paying 8% of your income into social security every year people should be putting it in savings which they can manage on their own. I think you missed my point that the FEDERAL government should not do it. It is in the constitutional powers of the STATE government to do it.

What is the difference between everyone saving money and everyone saving money?

From: dude1994

In addition, how is 9 months not long enough??? Are you saying we should be having our troops in unfriendly territory for an extra 4 years now? We won the war with Iraq in little less than a month and we were rebuilding their country ever since and implementing democratic systems of government. We can't baby them like we babied Japan after WWII because of the economy of our country at the moment.

Uh. In my previous post I already explained why it wasn't enough. It's not about babysitting. You owe the people there to rebuild their country which your country so kindly destroyed under the command of mr bush.

From: dude1994

Furthermore, when did I say I was a Catholic? You assume because I know a lot about them that I am a Catholic? I am looking at things completely from an economic and political point of view here, not taking religion into consideration at all. If you find God then thats good for you, and if you choose to not investigate the possibilities then that is up to you.

Well, as far as I know you asked me if ``I was even a Catholic at all''. That implies that you think anyone who is not a catholic can't talk religion; and you were talking religion. So that implies that you're one. This entire paragraph of yours is very … silly. It seems to me you are religious but are trying to evade admitting it somehow.

From: dude1994

Regarding abortion, are you aware of the psychological suffering mothers go through after an abortion??? Immediately after doing the procedure they are immediately taken to a psychiatrist. They could just give the child up for adoption if they don't want to raise it. Abortion causes just as much if not more pain and suffering as birth. I have an essay which I have written on why abortion is wrong, going through laws going back to greek and roman times, and the pharoahs. Apparently you don't know that only up until the early 1900's to mid 1900's has it become popular. The parents decide whether they want to have a child or not before the have sex, not when the child is already formed. Use some common sense every now and then.

I am; and so are they when they make the decision not to have a child.

However you're greatly exaggerating the consequences of abortion. Science does not back up the remarks you just made. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by your local media? :)

That and it is not up to you. You can't make the decision for them. (You feel that the government can't force you into social security but can force women into having a baby?)

E:

From: dude1994
The federal government has no right to interfere in the lives of individuals

So how can you feel different about abortion?

The rich should be taxed harshly, for they did not acquire their fortune fairly.

The evidence shows most of them got their wealth not because of hard work but because of some kind of inheritance, parents paying for private school, parents giving start up capital, insider trading, war, speculation. Almost all of newly rich people became so due to real estate, insurance or finance, in other words they did nothing truely productive.

Here's a page of analysis and evidence.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

Even conservatives who believe in meritocracy inadvertently acknowledge the importance of childhood social factors. One of the hottest topics today among the richest 1 percent is finding top-quality private schools for their children. But if they truly believed that merit is everything, and that social factors do not explain or promote individual success, then they should be satisfied with sending their kids to public or even inner-city schools. Of course, the very idea would horrify them – which provides eloquent testimony as to the importance of the environment even as appraised by wealthy conservatives.

From: Wizzup?
What is the difference between everyone saving money and everyone saving money?

The difference is the FEDERAL government does not have the right to force people to save money. But people should do it on their own. Especially because people will learn how to take care of themselves and be independent through this, and not rely on the FEDERAL government all the time.

From: Wizzup?
Uh. In my previous post I already explained why it wasn't enough. It's not about babysitting. You owe the people there to rebuild their country which your country so kindly destroyed under the command of mr bush.

I did not support the war in Iraq at all. I believe it was completely frivolous. We took over Iraq in 1 month. Under Bush's paper we would have been helping them rebuild for some 3 and a half years. When I said 9 months I was talking about an extra 9 months past Bush's term.

From: Wizzup?
Well, as far as I know you asked me if ``I was even a Catholic at all''. That implies that you think anyone who is not a catholic can't talk religion; and you were talking religion. So that implies that you're one. This entire paragraph of yours is very … silly. It seems to me you are religious but are trying to evade admitting it somehow.

Maybe I did sound a bit silly here. But would I be wrong in assuming you only listened to what the media has to say about Catholicism? Or do you actually go through the work to look into matters on your own.

From: Wizzup?
I am; and so are they when they make the decision not to have a child.

However you're greatly exaggerating the consequences of abortion. Science does not back up the remarks you just made. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by your local media? :)

That and it is not up to you. You can't make the decision for them. (You feel that the government can't force you into social security but can force women into having a baby?)

There are many widespread studies that have been done on this. However the media refuses to put the information out there. Here is a link on it. http://www.dianedew.com/trauma.htm Surely the Department of education doesn't lie about it.

From: Wizzup?
That and it is not up to you. You can't make the decision for them. (You feel that the government can't force you into social security but can force women into having a baby?)
E:
So how can you feel different about abortion?

When I say abortion should be illegal I mean on the state level. The Federal government should not be interfering in it. The federal government should also not force people into Social Security. However if the State governments wanted to I am fine with that. Sorry I didn't clarify.


@Yakman

The rich shouldn't be taxed harshly. Just because some get rich because of luck doesn't mean you have to be mad at them. My mom went to college and got the top scores in her class and now makes a decent living. She did this by trying hard. My cousin went to a the top aerospace engineering college in the country without any help financially from his parents. He studied hard and finished top in his class also, and now he too is also pretty rich. You can't say all rich people did not work for their money.

Almost all of newly rich people became so due to real estate, insurance or finance, in other words they did nothing truely productive.

Well since you know how to become rich you should start working on it. I'd advise you not to invest in real estate though. Word has it the housing market is plummeting.

From: dude1994

@Yakman

The rich shouldn't be taxed harshly. Just because some get rich because of luck doesn't mean you have to be mad at them. My mom went to college and got the top scores in her class and now makes a decent living. She did this by trying hard. My cousin went to a the top aerospace engineering college in the country without any help financially from his parents. He studied hard and finished top in his class also, and now he too is also pretty rich. You can't say all rich people did not work for their money.

I can name thousands of people who work really hard, only to see most of their labour be given to some CEO who got his job using his daddy's connections.


If social factors like education don't mean anything, then why do wealthy people send their kids to private schools?

Here's the link again. Your anecdotes do not win against my evidence.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

From: Yakman
I can name thousands of people who work really hard, only to see most of their labour be given to some CEO who got his job using his daddy's connections.


If social factors like education don't mean anything, then why do wealthy people send their kids to private schools?

Here's the link again. Your anecdotes do not win against my evidence.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

There will always be CEO's who own earn a disproportional amount of money as compared to their employee's. That's life.

I've never attended private school so I can't tell you whether or not they receive a better education, but I can tell you that public education is good if you actually try. It served me well and I'm now in a masters program at a state university. It served my father well, first person in his family to go to college.

If people…

1. Don't get pregnant, get a girl pregnant before they can afford it.
2. Actually try hard in high school, go to college and complete their education.
3. Stay out of trouble i.e don't do drugs, serve jail time ect.

they can advance their lives and earn more money. Anyone saying other wise are just saying excuses as to why their lives suck. Our government gives loans out to people who can't afford college.

People can cite family issues, health reasons, ect. But in the end, its a excuse. You hear all the time of success stories of people who wanted something and they went out and EARNED it. Sadly I think people have become dependent on others to succeed and want everything handed to them.

Edit: I just looked at your link and honestly just stopped reading. Besides the CEO pay part, which I agree with but will never change, the rest is a Boohoo story. You do get ahead in life by trying hard. If you don't like it here, go live in china and work in a sweat shop where they are all equal. Believe it or not we do have it great here in America. If it wasn't great, people wouldn't be immigrating here constantly.

Edit:Edit: Just thought I would throw my two cents in on the abortion subject.

Abortion should be handled on the state level. Not federal.

Disclaimer: I'm not one of those crazy people who hand out fliers and scream outside of abortion clinics, I don't go to church, I consider myself a Libertarian.

When you preform a abortion, your killing a life. Anyone that says other wise are kidding themselves. If that thing in your stomach stays there for 9 months, a newborn baby will be born. That being said, I support a woman's choice to make that decision within a certain time frame. Its a very blurry line and certainly one that is debatable. Ive never been in a situation that I had to make that call, and hope I never do.

But if women have the right to end a life because its their body, surely the government would have to allow all drugs to be consumed, because everyone has a right to do what they want with their body now if abortion is allowed.

Edit:Edit:Edit @Yakman

Do you know the difference between military spending and defense spending? I agree that we need to cut military spending. i.e. The US needs to stop nation building, not be stationed in countries in Germany, Japan, South Korea. The US currently has troops stationed in a crazy amount of countries, and it makes us no safer. If a country threatens us, carpet bomb them and beat them into submission like we did the Germans and Japanese.

National DEFENSE however should be upheld at all costs however and not a nickle should be taken from it.

More people should read Marx's works tbh

From: dude1994
The difference is the FEDERAL government does not have the right to force people to save money. But people should do it on their own. Especially because people will learn how to take care of themselves and be independent through this, and not rely on the FEDERAL government all the time.

I don't really understand the difference between goverment per state or just federal in this context. However, are you sure that it is completely mandatory? Here in the Netherlands you generally save up for your old days, but you can choose not to - depending on where you work. (Mostly you can choose not to)

In a sense the government is providing guidelines and not completely forcing you to save your money.

From: dude1994

I did not support the war in Iraq at all. I believe it was completely frivolous. We took over Iraq in 1 month. Under Bush's paper we would have been helping them rebuild for some 3 and a half years. When I said 9 months I was talking about an extra 9 months past Bush's term.

I can't really comment on this any more. I just don't believe Obama is doing the wrong things by keeping troops there for an extended period of time. I don't know if I Bush would have done it any differently nor do I think that it would be good to redraw the troops too quickly.

From: dude1994

Maybe I did sound a bit silly here. But would I be wrong in assuming you only listened to what the media has to say about Catholicism? Or do you actually go through the work to look into matters on your own.

Yes, I've done quite some study when it comes to religion and science. the fact that I referenced a book ( yeah, I could reference multiple :p ) could have given that away. I have however, never read the bible itself because I see no point to do so. I know most of the points by reading other books.

From: dude1994

There are many widespread studies that have been done on this. However the media refuses to put the information out there. Here is a link on it. http://www.dianedew.com/trauma.htm Surely the Department of education doesn't lie about it.

Quoting Wikipedia here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Mental_health):

Mental health
Main article: Abortion and mental health

The current scientific consensus holds that there is no causal relationship between abortion and mental-health problems.[71] While women most frequently feel relieved after the procedure,[34] some factors in a woman's life, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of social support, or pre-existing psychiatric illness increase the likelihood of experiencing negative feelings after an abortion.[72] The American Psychological Association has concluded that a single abortion is not a threat to women's mental health, and that women are no more likely to have mental-health problems after a first-trimester abortion than after carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.[73][74] Similarly, abortions performed after the first trimester because of fetal abnormalities are not thought to cause mental-health problems.[75]

Some studies have disagreed with above conclusions; other researchers and professional organizations have noted that such studies typically fail to use appropriate comparison groups, do not adequately account for confounding variables, and improperly account for pre-existing mental health complications.[note 3] Some proposed negative psychological effects of abortion have been referred to by anti-abortion advocates as a separate condition called "post-abortion syndrome", which is not recognized by any medical or psychological organization.[76]

And more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health):

The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy.[1][2] Expert groups have found no scientific evidence of a causal relationship between abortion and poor mental health. For women with unplanned pregnancies, the risk of mental-health problems is equal whether they carry the pregnancy to term or undergo an abortion.[3][4][5] Pre-existing factors in a woman's life, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of social support, pre-existing psychiatric illness, and conservative views on abortion increase the likelihood of experiencing negative feelings after an abortion.[6][7][8]

I'm not sure if you can blame the media for ``not letting people know about the risks'', as it's implied that there are very little mental risks. If there simply are no risks (even though you may or may not believe so), the media shouldn't report that there are.

From: dude1994

When I say abortion should be illegal I mean on the state level. The Federal government should not be interfering in it. The federal government should also not force people into Social Security. However if the State governments wanted to I am fine with that. Sorry I didn't clarify.

I'm not sure I follow the difference that it makes. Should I compare to Europe? Where the EU is the federal government and the states are individual countries?

From: dude1994

The rich shouldn't be taxed harshly. Just because some get rich because of luck doesn't mean you have to be mad at them. My mom went to college and got the top scores in her class and now makes a decent living. She did this by trying hard. My cousin went to a the top aerospace engineering college in the country without any help financially from his parents. He studied hard and finished top in his class also, and now he too is also pretty rich. You can't say all rich people did not work for their money.

The point is not being mad at them, the point is that they're treated differently by having to pay a lot less tax!

From: dude1994
I'd also like to point out that EVERYONE in America has the opportunity to earn a decent wage and make a decent living. Its just that some people choose not too either because of laziness or they don't care.

Lol'd. How about someone without limbs.

From: Markus
Lol'd. How about someone without limbs.

Who lost them because he was hit by a drunk millionaire in his car. He also got no money because the millionaire had much better lawyers.
E: And had no health insurance because he didn't think he needed one and rather got that iPhone.

From: Echo_
More people should read Marx's works tbh

Which of these countries do you want to go live in?

The following countries had governments at some point in the 20th century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism:[27] Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Grenada, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam. In addition, the Indian states of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal have had Marxist governments, but change takes place in the government due to electoral process. Some of these governments such as in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Moldova and parts of India have been democratic in nature and maintained regular multiparty elections.

From: Wizzup?
Who lost them because he was hit by a drunk millionaire in his car. He also got no money because the millionaire had much better lawyers.
E: And had no health insurance because he didn't think he needed one and rather got that iPhone.

Lol. Stupid Apple. I knew you could be my only weakness!!!!!

On topic though I don't think he could take care of himself with health care. Unless somehow that millionaire was nice an bought him robotic limbs

From: dude1994
Lol. Stupid Apple. I knew you could be my only weakness!!!!!

On topic though I don't think he could take care of himself with health care. Unless somehow that millionaire was nice an bought him robotic limbs

My health care insurance covers practically everything. I make heavy use of it. I'm chronically ill (nothing terminal; it's a skin disease) and if I had to pay for all the medicine myself I'd probably be living on the streets by now. It's a hereditary disease btw. Can't help it. :)

Aww. I'm sorry man. I'm not against health care lol. Just health care forced by the federal government. Technically its not even here yet so I'll get this back on topic?

I think it will be hard for anyone to beat Obama.

From: officialpubbing
Which of these countries do you want to go live in?

The following countries had governments at some point in the 20th century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism:[27] Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Grenada, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam. In addition, the Indian states of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal have had Marxist governments, but change takes place in the government due to electoral process. Some of these governments such as in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Moldova and parts of India have been democratic in nature and maintained regular multiparty elections.

A lot of the countries you mentioned were either Stalinist or Maoist. You have to keep in mind that a lot of these countries improved greatly since their revolutions, I'll use China and Cuba as an example.

Cuba has a great healthcare system, they have the one of the highest life expectancies in the Third World. They are also one of the first third world countries to be able to participate in a military conflict overseas, they sent troops to Africa to help out there.

China has also improved, they are taking over the market and may even take the United States' place as "the country on top".

I consider myself more of a Trotskyist anyways…

From: Echo_
A lot of the countries you mentioned were either Stalinist or Maoist. You have to keep in mind that a lot of these countries improved greatly since their revolutions, I'll use China and Cuba as an example.

Cuba has a great healthcare system, they have the one of the highest life expectancies in the Third World. They are also one of the first third world countries to be able to participate in a military conflict overseas, they sent troops to Africa to help out there.

China has also improved, they are taking over the market and may even take the United States' place as "the country on top".

I consider myself more of a Trotskyist anyways…

If its so great to live in Cuba why do they risk their lives to sneak out on ghetto ships and try to deliver children in american waters so they have anchor babies?

And if it's so good in China, why does the government sensor everything? Surely the people in China must know they have it going great and would shun western ways if they were exposed to them.

The rich commit far more crime than the lower classes. Street criminals stole $15.3 billion[1] in 1993, but white collar-criminals embezzled $200 billion[2]. Street criminals murdered 23,271 people that year, but the decisions of profit-driven corporations murdered at least 318,368 (through pollution, consumer and worker safety violations, etc.) Corporations deserve blame for these deaths because they lobby for and enact policies which drive up these death rates. Virtually all other rich countries have higher safeguards and lower death rates.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-poorcrime.htm

It's disgusting we let the rich get away with these crimes, if a lower class person did them they would be banged up in prison so fast.
Yet even in this thread we see people willing to help the rich screw up America even more (even though they themselves are not rich.)

Here are the references (for I've noticed many of you don't scroll to the bottom to see the citations to evidence)
[1] U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Population-at-Risk Rates and Selected Crime Indicators, 1993. Does not include figures for vandalism; white collar equivalent of vandalism would be pollution.
[2] Steve Albrecht, "Fraud in Governmental Entities: The Perpetrators and the Types of Fraud," Government Finance Review 7 (6), 1991, pp. 27-30.

It pains me to say this, but I will not be voting in this next presidential election. I personally do not agree with a lot of Obama's issues, but Romney isn't a saint himself. I find it very sad that the best republican candidate to emerge was Mitt Romney… and the democrats said they needed change….

The rich commit far more crime than the lower classes. Street criminals stole $15.3 billion[1] in 1993, but white collar-criminals embezzled $200 billion[2]. Street criminals murdered 23,271 people that year, but the decisions of profit-driven corporations murdered at least 318,368 (through pollution, consumer and worker safety violations, etc.) Corporations deserve blame for these deaths because they lobby for and enact policies which drive up these death rates. Virtually all other rich countries have higher safeguards and lower death rates.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-poorcrime.htm

It's disgusting we let the rich get away with these crimes, if a lower class person did them they would be banged up in prison so fast.
Yet even in this thread we see people willing to help the rich screw up America even more (even though they themselves are not rich.)

Why do you have such a huge problem with the richer people? White collar doesn't mean rich. It just means administrative/managerial.

From: Yakman

It's disgusting we let the rich get away with these crimes, if a lower class person did them they would be banged up in prison so fast.
Yet even in this thread we see people willing to help the rich screw up America even more (even though they themselves are not rich.)

If people commit crimes, they should be punished. My agreement with you ends there.

From my point of your view, you hate success. You hate the idea of someone getting ahead by using their money in a way to benefit themselves and their families. You hate the idea that those individuals would try to keep as much of that money to themselves.

If I had that much money, I would do the same thing. I would horde the hell out of my cash, and set my family up for the foreseeable future. I would try my best to see my children be wealthy when they come of age. If I wanted a life of helping people, I would work for a terrible salary as a social worker or join the peace core.

The biggest laugh out of all of this however is that despite all of your general ranting against people with wealth and republicans, Obama is accepting the same cash from wealthy individuals and large corporations to fund his re-election campaign. If you want to rage about something, go rant about our politicians who follow the money, instead of voting for their constituency back at home whom they represent.

On President Obama and the constitution. Your rights that you have lost since he has taken office.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/pr...al-violations/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...ervatives.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2847870/posts

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/more-obam...ion-shredding/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-ov...ution-surging/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-ov...ution-surging/

Read more people. Please I beg you all to read and actually think about what's getting jacked up in our country before it's too late. I also didn't even cover the Trespassing Act passed in Feb 12 which takes away more freedom of speech. Or the state of emergency that the president declared based on the Iran nuclear weapons program. Under NDAA which was signed on DEC 31(Really on new years eve) allows him to send us to war without congress consent. This with the Korean and syrian issues popping up. You want an end to Afghan war well say hello to the next 3 wars if we continue in this direction.



RON PAUL 2012

While I really like that Ron Paul actually speaks about important issues that other politicians are too scared to address, there's no way he'll become the President at the moment. I don't know if I'd prefer him to Obama or not honestly, but I think his campaign has been a breath of fresh air, since politics in general infuriates me.

I just wish more people who actually care about the state of the country would run for office and try to actually act on the issues that are important. Instead we have a Congress filled with lifetime politicians who won't make decisions on polarizing issues (social security, anyone?) because it could affect their reelection and instead try to pass bills backed by large, powerful lobbyist groups that will negatively affect Americans without fully understanding what the consequences are (SOPA/PIPA/CISPA?). And the majority of our current batch of presidential candidates are incredibly out of tune with the majority of Americans and seem like greedy and selfish people. It's quite sad to see that someone like Santorum could get any headway in the political process at all. Sorry that I went slightly off topic, but man politics can get me worked up…

I agree with many of the people going against Obama. I will be very disappointed if he gets re-elected.

For one is the health care which everyone knows about.

Another big reason that I don't think anyone mentioned was the stimulus package that Obama and his advisers came up with at the beginning of his term. It was one of the worst governmental decisions I have ever witnessed. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on studies and researches that were very insignificant to helping the mass people. Also the jobs it did create were mostly governmental jobs. What about the small business owners and private business sectors?
Now it threw us in a debt 3x of what it was if not more. So much for the next generation, who is going to be screwed with massive taxes.
There are so many more points why he shouldn't serve another two years and so very few why he should.
That's just my 2cents.

Definitely better than Romney. And btw, he's 11% black.

Yachoman can rejoice: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html?_r=2

In an election that is all but certain to turn on the slowly recovering economy and its persistently high jobless rate, Mr. Obama&#8217;s stand nonetheless injects a volatile social issue into the campaign debate and puts him at even sharper odds with his presumptive Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage and favors an amendment to the United States Constitution to forbid it.

Once again, global welfare profits from same sex marriage. How can anyone be against it? It's none of the opponents business.

California outlawed same sex marriage with a vote of the people. So obviously most of the liberals in California are against it. But then one judge decided he could over turn the vote of the PEOPLE. Where is this country heading??? One ruled by the judicial branch? I thought we were a republic.

From: dude1994
California outlawed same sex marriage with a vote of the people. So obviously most of the liberals in California are against it. But then one judge decided he could over turn the vote of the PEOPLE. Where is this country heading??? One ruled by the judicial branch? I thought we were a republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

PS: People outlawing same sex marriage seems to violate the principles of freedom to me. How's that for the American dream?
PPS: Vote of the PEOPLE somehow sounds socialistic… :p

From: dude1994
Why do you have such a huge problem with the richer people? White collar doesn't mean rich. It just means administrative/managerial.

Managerial people don't lobby congress so that their corporations will be allowed to pollute our planet, poison our air, cause climate chaos with CO2.
Corporations deserve blame for many workplace deaths because they lobby for and enact policies which drive up these death rates. Virtually all other rich countries have higher safeguards and lower death rates.

Management might literally wear white collars, but in my view they're just as working class as everybody else because they are still forced to live by selling their labour, in return they still get less than what their labour is worth.

I have a problem with the rich (although I'd prefer to call them capitalists or the bourgeois but not many people know what that means) because they have huge amounts of unaccountable power. Their interests do not align with most people's. They want higher profits for them and lower wages for us, they want longer working hours, less environmental regulation, they want education and healthcare only open to those who can pay.

Rich people should be taxed on their WEALTH, not their income.

Also, people saying that the healthcare proposal will fine you. Yeah, they will, but in the proposal they made it a non criminal offense and the government can't force you to pay. So basically it's like a parent telling a child to stop jumping on the sofa and that's it. The IRS won't hold anything against you, can't throw you in jail, nothing will happen to you if you don't pay.

From: officialpubbing

From my point of your view, you hate success. You hate the idea of someone getting ahead by using their money in a way to benefit themselves and their families. You hate the idea that those individuals would try to keep as much of that money to themselves.

Thank you for telling me what I think.

From: officialpubbing

If I had that much money, I would do the same thing. I would horde the hell out of my cash, and set my family up for the foreseeable future. I would try my best to see my children be wealthy when they come of age. If I wanted a life of helping people, I would work for a terrible salary as a social worker or join the peace core.

It seems to me you're quite selfish and greedy. No surprise really, capitalism facilitates and glorifies and celebrates greed.
You qualify "If I had that much money", which means you're probably in the same economic situation as almost everybody else. It's quite sad you don't realise the rich want different things to you and me, they don't want any of us to become successful, they only want us to work ghastly long hours in shitty jobs while drawing as low a salary as possible.

If everyone does this, your children won't have a world worth living in. With climate change reducing the number of people this planet can support, they'll find it much more difficult to live, they certainly won't enjoy the standard of living many of us have today.

From: officialpubbing

The biggest laugh out of all of this however is that despite all of your general ranting against people with wealth and republicans, Obama is accepting the same cash from wealthy individuals and large corporations to fund his re-election campaign. If you want to rage about something, go rant about our politicians who follow the money, instead of voting for their constituency back at home whom they represent.

Indeed, Obama is hardly better than the rest of them. I've never said otherwise and I'll tell anyone who'll listen. The capitalist system has corrupted your democracy.

From: dude1994

I'd also like to point out that EVERYONE in America has the opportunity to earn a decent wage and make a decent living. Its just that some people choose not too either because of laziness or they don't care.

Are you from America!? If so you must be blind. Honestly, sad to see many Americans arguing with 'non-americans', especially since the latter group is 'right', IMO anyways.

I'm 21 years old with a 4 year old son and girlfriend that I support. I work 60+ hours a week for $8.50 an hour, no paid overtime (yes it's illegal, but he doesn't tax my overtime). That's the best possible thing I can find right now. Maybe you come from a wealthier area than I, or perhaps just an all around more fortunate area than I; regardless, do not say "EVERYONE" has an equal opportunity at employment.

I could go off for ~1 hour about how sick it makes me people still look down on others with tattoos and how many jobs I haven't gotten because of that, but that's another story..


One last thing; if Mitt Romney wins this election, I am leaving the U.S. with my family without a doubt. I have never seen such a clueless 'pawn' who is the definition of a "follower" with no mind of his own and has absolutely no place running this country. I'll stop my self there.


Ron Paul 2012!

From: dude1994

I'd also like to point out that EVERYONE in America has the opportunity to earn a decent wage and make a decent living. Its just that some people choose not too either because of laziness or they don't care.

Yep, that's what causes recessions. Huge worldwide bouts of laziness!

I don't know about the re-election though…
Now with his release of support of Gay Marriage, (TBH COULD CARE LESS)
but think about it, are there more gay couples than hardcore protestants/rednecks?
They have no faith in Obama anymore!
Personally I'd still re-elect but this could have been a rough shot…

From: Yakman
Yep, that's what causes recessions. Huge worldwide bouts of laziness!

the fedaral reserve system is what caused recession, it gave private banks the rights to print money for the government. so when the government needed money they borrowed from the private banks. So basically the government borrows money from them to fund the gorvernment and then has to pay intrest. So to pay these intrests the government then inposes TAX on the american people and the circle carries on, they keep borrowing and we the people have to keeping paying.

From: NCDS
Are you from America!? If so you must be blind. Honestly, sad to see many Americans arguing with 'non-americans', especially since the latter group is 'right', IMO anyways.

I'm 21 years old with a 4 year old son and girlfriend that I support. I work 60+ hours a week for $8.50 an hour, no paid overtime (yes it's illegal, but he doesn't tax my overtime). That's the best possible thing I can find right now. Maybe you come from a wealthier area than I, or perhaps just an all around more fortunate area than I; regardless, do not say "EVERYONE" has an equal opportunity at employment.

I could go off for ~1 hour about how sick it makes me people still look down on others with tattoos and how many jobs I haven't gotten because of that, but that's another story..


One last thing; if Mitt Romney wins this election, I am leaving the U.S. with my family without a doubt. I have never seen such a clueless 'pawn' who is the definition of a "follower" with no mind of his own and has absolutely no place running this country. I'll stop my self there.


Ron Paul 2012!

I am American.

I would love Ron Paul to win. I would definitely vote for him over any of the other republicans.

America's minimum wage is much higher than most other countries.

From: Gillzo
the fedaral reserve system is what caused recession, it gave private banks the rights to print money for the government. so when the government needed money they borrowed from the private banks. So basically the government borrows money from them to fund the gorvernment and then has to pay intrest. So to pay these intrests the government then inposes TAX on the american people and the circle carries on, they keep borrowing and we the people have to keeping paying.

Nice to know the Right are unified, first they claim laziness causes unemployment and recessions, then they claim it was the Fed.


The Fed was founded in 1913, so according to your theory there should be no recessions before 1913.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
I count no less than 28 recessions(!) between the years 1797 and 1913.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.



Video from June 2010
[YOUTUBE]qOP2V_np2c0[/YOUTUBE]

@yakman i meant to say inflation not recession i get them mixed up lol.

people need to wake up and stop being drones!

[YOUTUBE]N3NA17CCboA[/YOUTUBE]

Ill stick with the system that got us #1 in the world. Going down the same path Europe has with their cradle to grave mentality has done them wonders.

From: officialpubbing
Ill stick with the system that got us #1 in the world. Going down the same path Europe has with their cradle to grave mentality has done them wonders.

If by that you mean our constitution and how things were before the terrorists became a "problem" then I agree. Our current system is not what lead us to being a prosperous nation… If you didn't notice the trend, the opposite is happening right now… Do you really think currency comes out of nowhere? You can print as much of it as you want but eventually it will lose value, our economy will crash and the the defecation will hit the oscillation. Too many people are living in a fantasy world and think these things will never happen. The Obama administration doesn't care, they're just going to blame previous administrations and leave the problems for the next one to try to deal with. If you really think Mitt Romney is going to cut spending or reduce government you are sorely mistaken. On top of that, I highly doubt he cares about your rights/civil liberties.

From: Saiga
If by that you mean our constitution and how things were before the terrorists became a "problem" then I agree. Our current system is not what lead us to being a prosperous nation… If you didn't notice the trend, the opposite is happening right now… Do you really think currency comes out of nowhere? You can print as much of it as you want but eventually it will lose value, our economy will crash and the the defecation will hit the oscillation. Too many people are living in a fantasy world and think these things will never happen. The Obama administration doesn't care, they're just going to blame previous administrations and leave the problems for the next one to try to deal with. If you really think Mitt Romney is going to cut spending or reduce government you are sorely mistaken. On top of that, I highly doubt he cares about your rights/civil liberties.

Ron Paul 2012 :spot:

Ron Paul!!!!!

I think Obama has done some good things, but he's also made a lot of mistakes. I think every president has messed something up. I don't like the fact he's changing his views just to get the public's vote, which is why I would vote for Romney.

Who's Obama?

Lol. Obama would be the president of the united states of america

From: Epicness
I think Obama has done some good things, but he's also made a lot of mistakes. I think every president has messed something up. I don't like the fact he's changing his views just to get the public's vote, which is why I would vote for Romney.

What makes you think he changed his views? He was simply forced into making a choice, now. By Romney and the media.

Yakman I love those videos. :)

They always make me smile.

inb4romneywinsandpeoplerealizehedoesnomorethanobama

considering most of you think obama did nothing

From: Gillzo
the fedaral reserve system is what caused recession, it gave private banks the rights to print money for the government. so when the government needed money they borrowed from the private banks. So basically the government borrows money from them to fund the gorvernment and then has to pay intrest. So to pay these intrests the government then inposes TAX on the american people and the circle carries on, they keep borrowing and we the people have to keeping paying.

Yup ,Obama is Wall Street's puppet. And he involved USA into over 800 bilions dept just to give it to banks ,and no one there cares ,lol.

That bug in your sig drives me insane lol. But on topic I hope Ron Paul gets the republican nomination

http://youtu.be/bBx2Y5HhplI

the guy who talked about gay marriage, you are actually wrong, right after Obamas speech he lost north Carolina which was a big state for him last election, he will have Cally no matter what but still their are more conservative states then their are democratic. and its about time a rich man ran this country cause they are rich for a reason, its because they know how to use money.


by the way how do i get image bbc for my sig?

From: superbuster4
the guy who talked about gay marriage, you are actually wrong, right after Obamas speech he lost north Carolina which was a big state for him last election, he will have Cally no matter what but still their are more conservative states then their are democratic. and its about time a rich man ran this country cause they are rich for a reason, its because they know how to use money.


by the way how do i get image bbc for my sig?

Lol, you have no clue what you're talking about. Yeah, they're rich because they either inherited it, or stole it from us.

No one wants the Republican. Asides from the rednecks.

From: Gillzo
the fedaral reserve system is what caused recession, it gave private banks the rights to print money for the government. so when the government needed money they borrowed from the private banks. So basically the government borrows money from them to fund the gorvernment and then has to pay intrest. So to pay these intrests the government then inposes TAX on the american people and the circle carries on, they keep borrowing and we the people have to keeping paying.

inflation is not bad - modern economics revolves around controlling the rate of inflation to keep a stable market.
deflation is terrible - you don't want a liquidity trap (see: 1990's japan)

From: Saiga
If by that you mean our constitution and how things were before the terrorists became a "problem" then I agree. Our current system is not what lead us to being a prosperous nation… If you didn't notice the trend, the opposite is happening right now… Do you really think currency comes out of nowhere? You can print as much of it as you want but eventually it will lose value, our economy will crash and the the defecation will hit the oscillation. Too many people are living in a fantasy world and think these things will never happen. The Obama administration doesn't care, they're just going to blame previous administrations and leave the problems for the next one to try to deal with. If you really think Mitt Romney is going to cut spending or reduce government you are sorely mistaken. On top of that, I highly doubt he cares about your rights/civil liberties.

the basis of paper money is trust.
you trust that you can wake up and your currency will still be good. you trust that others will accept your money. the 'full faith and credit' of the united states government is behind the money - there is simply no reason to believe that the government will default on its debt.
of course this does raise a whole basket of issues, not least the fiscal cliff and us hitting the debt ceiling…but the bonds you buy will be fine.

From: Epicness
I think Obama has done some good things, but he's also made a lot of mistakes. I think every president has messed something up. I don't like the fact he's changing his views just to get the public's vote, which is why I would vote for Romney.

romney hasn't changed his views because of public opinion? that's hilarious!
today's doonesbury sums romney's flipflops up pretty well:
he's a politician who enacted universal healthcare, supported gay rights when running for senate, recently supported gay adoption for less than a day, supported the assault weapons ban, and now has no recollection of his previous actions.

From: superbuster4
and its about time a rich man ran this country cause they are rich for a reason, its because they know how to use money.

rich (quite disproportionately white) men don't run this country? wow that's a shocker

The rich don't steal their money from anyone. You just need a good idea that goes viral, and have a good understanding of business to become rich. Occasionally, there may be some guy who steals a lot of money, but just because one person in a particular class does it doesn't mean they all do it. For example Steve Jobs, Bill Gates…they all earned their money by being smart.

No one who has ran for president in the past.. like 16 years deserves even 4 years, including our current president.

From: dude1994
The rich don't steal their money from anyone. You just need a good idea that goes viral, and have a good understanding of business to become rich. Occasionally, there may be some guy who steals a lot of money, but just because one person in a particular class does it doesn't mean they all do it. For example Steve Jobs, Bill Gates…they all earned their money by being smart.

there are various types of business - you are thinking of entrepreneurship.

romney is a different breed of capitalism - private equity and hedge funds are not above fucking you or the bought out workers over for an extra 10% in ROI. read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout

you contradict yourself with your 1st and 3rd sentences regardless. PE is the 'sexiest' profession on wall street, with annual comp easily $1 m+ for mid-level employees, and perhaps up to a $1b for the very best.
assets under management for the entire industry total $2.4 trillion

romney-era rank-and-file bain employees have ira funds worth more than anything you own. this i can virtually guarantee (via some class a/b stock sorcery in how they took over companies).
what innovation did dimon make? rajaratnam? vikram? blankfein? and yet they are rich beyond measure

basically, your statement is patently false. turn your post around - just because the occasional inventor makes a great idea doesn't mean the rich all did.

Ron Paul.