• 150 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@bluedabadee said:

he said he wants to change social security, which means your parents might get screwed if they are over 55 years old. Does anyone here know specifically what Ron Paul's plans with social security are?

Umm, the math alone shows that Social Security is insolvent long-term (and the "payroll tax cut" that was such an issue a month ago was the FICA tax which is the main means of financially supporting Social Security which only means the problems upcoming will be coming sooner).

If you don't want to change the system, you advocate ending Social Security. Because if nothing happens, it will cease to exist.

#102 Posted by FreakAche (2938 posts) -

I am five Ron Paul. I win.

#103 Posted by ThePickle (4149 posts) -

I think he wants to make it optional.

#104 Posted by Butler (376 posts) -

The research I've been doing on the candidates so far has lead to me the decision that I will vote for Ron Paul.

I disagree with some of his stances particularly on abortion, but I do agree with his proposal to make it up to the individual state to decide whether it is legal or not. I'm a hundred percent pro-abortion, the woman in question should have the right to choose. If we can't get that nationwide than at least statewide it would be legal.

I also like his foreign policy. Pulling out of this war is what we need, it's what the world needs. All the other Republican noms can't understand that America is the bad guy.

#105 Posted by Xeirus (1279 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

He wont even get elected by his party, All the big banks are investing in Romney and the Republican party will do their best so he will win. Hes all over the place with his policy 1: No abortions for rape victims 2. Legalize herion 3.No minimun wage. 4.No more wars, he seem to take the most radical Policys from the left and right. Obamas gonna clean up this election, hes created more jobs even after being elected into a economic crisis, his govt killed Bin Laden and they pulled out of Iraq, now hes just got to figure out the US health system and he would of made good on most of his promises and even during a Republican congress trying to stop everything he does, plus as a non-american I can say my respect for USA has risen during his Presidency and it was shattered during the Bush years.

I'm not really reading this entire thread, but don't list "no more wars" as a strike against Ron, that's just common sense. Our people need to stop dying, enough said.

Also Bin Laden would have been killed no matter who was in office, Obama happened to be there when it happened, don't be naive.

#106 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

He wont even get elected by his party, All the big banks are investing in Romney and the Republican party will do their best so he will win. Hes all over the place with his policy 1: No abortions for rape victims 2. Legalize herion 3.No minimun wage. 4.No more wars, he seem to take the most radical Policys from the left and right. Obamas gonna clean up this election, hes created more jobs even after being elected into a economic crisis, his govt killed Bin Laden and they pulled out of Iraq, now hes just got to figure out the US health system and he would of made good on most of his promises and even during a Republican congress trying to stop everything he does, plus as a non-american I can say my respect for USA has risen during his Presidency and it was shattered during the Bush years.

Let's go, sentence-by-sentence.

1) Accurate

2) False. Democrats have gotten more from Wall Street...for a while now. Obama is SWIMMING in Wall St cash.

3) You've incorrectly stated his positions.

4) Obama is not likely to win. His job creation is the worst after any economic downturn in recorded history. The unemployment rate is now below 9% because the employed population has dropped heavily since Obama took office --- which means the people were unemployed for over 2 years. The Iraq pull out was created by Bush with an agreement signed in December 2008 with Iraq.

5) Your opinions on America are horribly inaccurate and you liking us better because you don't know what you're talking about seems to be of little use.

I also read something about past (and possibly current?) administrations borrowing money from the social security fund and tying them up in complicated investments. Everything above is second-hand knowledge, by the way, I'm trying to keep opinions out of it.

It's actually put directly into the General Fund, which is used to pay for the government. FICA taxes have been cut under Obama heavily which exacerbates the problem of funding.

#107 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Butler said:

The research I've been doing on the candidates so far has lead to me the decision that I will vote for Ron Paul.

I disagree with some of his stances particularly on abortion, but I do agree with his proposal to make it up to the individual state to decide whether it is legal or not. I'm a hundred percent pro-abortion, the woman in question should have the right to choose. If we can't get that nationwide than at least statewide it would be legal.

I also like his foreign policy. Pulling out of this war is what we need, it's what the world needs. All the other Republican noms can't understand that America is the bad guy.

I think when it comes to abortion I make it a non-issue in my book. Too many people try to make it "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" and get around in this weird rhetoric that doesn't get to the heart of the actual debate. Is it okay to kill a human being in certain circumstances? People vary wildly on that discussion, and I try not to hold their views against them for it, especially politicians.

The only thing I really don't care for about Ron Paul is his ideas of switching to gold-backed currency. Our country can no longer operate within such a rigid financial system, and gold has had a bad tendency to fluctuate far more wildly that the typical ebbs from inflation.

#108 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

He wont even get elected by his party, All the big banks are investing in Romney and the Republican party will do their best so he will win. Hes all over the place with his policy 1: No abortions for rape victims 2. Legalize herion 3.No minimun wage. 4.No more wars, he seem to take the most radical Policys from the left and right. Obamas gonna clean up this election, hes created more jobs even after being elected into a economic crisis, his govt killed Bin Laden and they pulled out of Iraq, now hes just got to figure out the US health system and he would of made good on most of his promises and even during a Republican congress trying to stop everything he does, plus as a non-american I can say my respect for USA has risen during his Presidency and it was shattered during the Bush years.

Let's go, sentence-by-sentence.

1) Accurate

2) False. Democrats have gotten more from Wall Street...for a while now. Obama is SWIMMING in Wall St cash.

3) You've incorrectly stated his positions.

4) Obama is not likely to win. His job creation is the worst after any economic downturn in recorded history. The unemployment rate is now below 9% because the employed population has dropped heavily since Obama took office --- which means the people were unemployed for over 2 years. The Iraq pull out was created by Bush with an agreement signed in December 2008 with Iraq.

5) Your opinions on America are horribly inaccurate and you liking us better because you don't know what you're talking about seems to be of little use.

I also read something about past (and possibly current?) administrations borrowing money from the social security fund and tying them up in complicated investments. Everything above is second-hand knowledge, by the way, I'm trying to keep opinions out of it.

It's actually put directly into the General Fund, which is used to pay for the government. FICA taxes have been cut under Obama heavily which exacerbates the problem of funding.

2.WRONG!!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?pagewanted=all

4. The Republicans would of never pulled out of Iraq, the big budget military contracts in companys they were heavily invested in. Like Cheneys big stakes in Haliburton and General Electric, And the date you mentioned was AFTER Obama was elected into office, it would of been a different story had Palin\McCain got elected and you know it. Plus I think America shouldnt be allowed to leave Iraq for atleast 20 years with the shitstorm they turned that country into.

#109 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

He wont even get elected by his party, All the big banks are investing in Romney and the Republican party will do their best so he will win. Hes all over the place with his policy 1: No abortions for rape victims 2. Legalize herion 3.No minimun wage. 4.No more wars, he seem to take the most radical Policys from the left and right. Obamas gonna clean up this election, hes created more jobs even after being elected into a economic crisis, his govt killed Bin Laden and they pulled out of Iraq, now hes just got to figure out the US health system and he would of made good on most of his promises and even during a Republican congress trying to stop everything he does, plus as a non-american I can say my respect for USA has risen during his Presidency and it was shattered during the Bush years.

Let's go, sentence-by-sentence.

1) Accurate

2) False. Democrats have gotten more from Wall Street...for a while now. Obama is SWIMMING in Wall St cash.

3) You've incorrectly stated his positions.

4) Obama is not likely to win. His job creation is the worst after any economic downturn in recorded history. The unemployment rate is now below 9% because the employed population has dropped heavily since Obama took office --- which means the people were unemployed for over 2 years. The Iraq pull out was created by Bush with an agreement signed in December 2008 with Iraq.

5) Your opinions on America are horribly inaccurate and you liking us better because you don't know what you're talking about seems to be of little use.

I also read something about past (and possibly current?) administrations borrowing money from the social security fund and tying them up in complicated investments. Everything above is second-hand knowledge, by the way, I'm trying to keep opinions out of it.

It's actually put directly into the General Fund, which is used to pay for the government. FICA taxes have been cut under Obama heavily which exacerbates the problem of funding.

2.WRONG!!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?pagewanted=all

4. The Republicans would of never pulled out of Iraq, the big budget military contracts in companys they were heavily invested in. Like Cheneys big stakes in Haliburton and General Electric, And the date you mentioned was AFTER Obama was elected into office, it would of been a different story had Palin\McCain got elected and you know it. Plus I think America shouldnt be allowed to leave Iraq for atleast 20 years with the shitstorm they turned that country into.

2) Obama has YEARS of massive Wall St fundraising the other candidates are trying to come back from. Obama's fundraising now is WAY below what it was in 2008 (below Bush in 2004, to be honest) so all of it is suffering, but he has made a ton off of Wall St. More than anybody else in any election season in US history (2008 election).

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Obama worked hard to get troops to remain and Iraq said no to him. And mentioning ties to GE while praising Obama is endlessly amusing.

#110 Posted by Butler (376 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

@Butler said:

The research I've been doing on the candidates so far has lead to me the decision that I will vote for Ron Paul.

I disagree with some of his stances particularly on abortion, but I do agree with his proposal to make it up to the individual state to decide whether it is legal or not. I'm a hundred percent pro-abortion, the woman in question should have the right to choose. If we can't get that nationwide than at least statewide it would be legal.

I also like his foreign policy. Pulling out of this war is what we need, it's what the world needs. All the other Republican noms can't understand that America is the bad guy.

I think when it comes to abortion I make it a non-issue in my book. Too many people try to make it "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" and get around in this weird rhetoric that doesn't get to the heart of the actual debate. Is it okay to kill a human being in certain circumstances? People vary wildly on that discussion, and I try not to hold their views against them for it, especially politicians.

The only thing I really don't care for about Ron Paul is his ideas of switching to gold-backed currency. Our country can no longer operate within such a rigid financial system, and gold has had a bad tendency to fluctuate far more wildly that the typical ebbs from inflation.

I agree with you there. I was just trying to reference one of this issues that I disagree with him on. More specifically an issue that was brought up to me recently by someone trying to dissuade my support. Even though that particular issue, and others such as gay marriage etc are non issues in my book as well, since they can be solved by common sense, I felt I should add some of my criticisms of him. I'm not the most familiar with the pros and cons of a gold back standard vs a non one, so I'll have to research that more.

#111 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@MikeinSC: Why what Weapons manufactors is Obama heavily invested in, Like I said I wish that America did stay in Iraq as it was the responsible thing to do after shitting all over that country. But America wanted a easy out and they got it and this is why they will vote for Obama, you cant seriously say with a straight face you were proud to have George Bush as your President? His Govt. is almost single handedly responsible for the 2008 recesio plus a failed war with over a 100000 death toll.

#112 Posted by Moreau_MD (402 posts) -

POLITICS, VIDEOGAMES, FORUMS...none of these things mix apart from two...can you guess which?

#113 Posted by Ihmishylje (379 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

Governments, formed by a ruling class of business owners, seems to ignore any issues with the ruling class or businesses? Surprise!.

Just because a current government is rotten, doesn't mean governments by definition are rotten.

Never said all governments are rotten. I just don't act surprised that the US, a federal representative democracy built by elites and business magnates and for the focus of businesses, fails to act on pressing public matters and instant act in the interest of corporate powers.

I don't act surprised either. It's the same in my country as well, just on a smaller scale, like everything else here. I do believe in democracy and I do believe in government, in principle, but I don't believe in current politicians or their power to make any significant changes as long as we aim to please the business elite in order to survive within the current global economical climate. It's a system put in place by people and it's a system people can change, but it seems people don't have the will to do anything about it. The tragedy is that people are ultimately content with how things are, because changing the entire basis upon which the global economy is based on (i.e. stock exchange) would require tremendous effort from all parties involved.

#114 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Ihmishylje said:

I don't act surprised either. It's the same in my country as well, just on a smaller scale, like everything else here. I do believe in democracy and I do believe in government, in principle, but I don't believe in current politicians or their power to make any significant changes as long as we aim to please the business elite in order to survive within the current global economical climate. It's a system put in place by people and it's a system people can change, but it seems people don't have the will to do anything about it. The tragedy is that people are ultimately content with how things are, because changing the entire basis upon which the global economy is based on (i.e. stock exchange) would require tremendous effort from all parties involved.

I believe the only way to obtain true democracy is through bloodshed.

#115 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: Why what Weapons manufactors is Obama heavily invested in, Like I said I wish that America did stay in Iraq as it was the responsible thing to do after shitting all over that country. But America wanted a easy out and they got it and this is why they will vote for Obama, you cant seriously say with a straight face you were proud to have George Bush as your President? His Govt. is almost single handedly responsible for the 2008 recesio plus a failed war with over a 100000 death toll.

He's in bed with GE as completely as humanly possible.

As compared to the empty suit dunce in the WH presently? Outside of James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, I have a hard time thinking of a worse President. When Jimmy Carter is thinking "Thank God for HIM!" to save his brutal legacy, you have an abysmal Presidency.

Anybody who thinks Obama is a good or even competent President doesn't know what they're talking about. A disaster with an abysmal human rights record.

It's ironic that it took the Democratic takeover of Congress to kill the economy, isn't it? And given that Obama has made the recession markedly worse than if he had done absolutely nothing, these problems are all his.

But it's not ME saying that. The yapping poodle who runs the DNC said the economy is ALL Obama's now.

#116 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: Why what Weapons manufactors is Obama heavily invested in, Like I said I wish that America did stay in Iraq as it was the responsible thing to do after shitting all over that country. But America wanted a easy out and they got it and this is why they will vote for Obama, you cant seriously say with a straight face you were proud to have George Bush as your President? His Govt. is almost single handedly responsible for the 2008 recesio plus a failed war with over a 100000 death toll.

He's in bed with GE as completely as humanly possible.

As compared to the empty suit dunce in the WH presently? Outside of James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, I have a hard time thinking of a worse President. When Jimmy Carter is thinking "Thank God for HIM!" to save his brutal legacy, you have an abysmal Presidency.

Anybody who thinks Obama is a good or even competent President doesn't know what they're talking about. A disaster with an abysmal human rights record.

It's ironic that it took the Democratic takeover of Congress to kill the economy, isn't it? And given that Obama has made the recession markedly worse than if he had done absolutely nothing, these problems are all his.

But it's not ME saying that. The yapping poodle who runs the DNC said the economy is ALL Obama's now.

Dude theres other channels than Fox News lol, The Bush problems with the economy started the year he was elected with less regulations on wall st, with the big banks being able to take more risks and answer less questions at the same time, also being able to give mortgages to anyone even if they couldnt pay them back, we all know how that ended up. If Obama did nothing the economy would be in a shambles right now, Jobs are on the rise last I heard.

And weres you proof about Obama and GE? Sounds like a Bill O'reilly exclusive.

#117 Posted by mlarrabee (2760 posts) -

@bluedabadee: Social Security has been a pathetic failure since day-one. Any other Investment opportunity is more lucrative. Any.

#118 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: Why what Weapons manufactors is Obama heavily invested in, Like I said I wish that America did stay in Iraq as it was the responsible thing to do after shitting all over that country. But America wanted a easy out and they got it and this is why they will vote for Obama, you cant seriously say with a straight face you were proud to have George Bush as your President? His Govt. is almost single handedly responsible for the 2008 recesio plus a failed war with over a 100000 death toll.

He's in bed with GE as completely as humanly possible.

As compared to the empty suit dunce in the WH presently? Outside of James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, I have a hard time thinking of a worse President. When Jimmy Carter is thinking "Thank God for HIM!" to save his brutal legacy, you have an abysmal Presidency.

Anybody who thinks Obama is a good or even competent President doesn't know what they're talking about. A disaster with an abysmal human rights record.

It's ironic that it took the Democratic takeover of Congress to kill the economy, isn't it? And given that Obama has made the recession markedly worse than if he had done absolutely nothing, these problems are all his.

But it's not ME saying that. The yapping poodle who runs the DNC said the economy is ALL Obama's now.

Dude theres other channels than Fox News lol, The Bush problems with the economy started the year he was elected with less regulations on wall st, with the big banks being able to take more risks and answer less questions at the same time, also being able to give mortgages to anyone even if they couldnt pay them back, we all know how that ended up. If Obama did nothing the economy would be in a shambles right now, Jobs are on the rise last I heard.

And weres you proof about Obama and GE? Sounds like a Bill O'reilly exclusive.

You are aware that regulations weren't reduced under Bush at all, right? In fact, they skyrocketed under Bush. Sarbanes/Oxley --- which was as useless as expected --- came into being under Bush. There was LITERALLY no reduction in regulations. At all. Bush and McCain BOTH tried to handle the problems with the mortgage industry and Democrats like Barney Frank said there was no problem and the concerns were racist. As far as giving mortgages to undeserving people, look up the CRA. That started the ball rolling.

If Obama did nothing, we'd be in far better shape than we are now. Government interference has never worked (lord knows the New Deal made the Depression worse) --- but they will keep trying and failing.

As far as Obama and GE: He tapped the CEO to lead his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. He's the top recipient of GE money. He was the top in 2008. They tend to give heavily to Democrats. They OWN Barack Obama almost as much as unions do.

#119 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: Why what Weapons manufactors is Obama heavily invested in, Like I said I wish that America did stay in Iraq as it was the responsible thing to do after shitting all over that country. But America wanted a easy out and they got it and this is why they will vote for Obama, you cant seriously say with a straight face you were proud to have George Bush as your President? His Govt. is almost single handedly responsible for the 2008 recesio plus a failed war with over a 100000 death toll.

He's in bed with GE as completely as humanly possible.

As compared to the empty suit dunce in the WH presently? Outside of James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, I have a hard time thinking of a worse President. When Jimmy Carter is thinking "Thank God for HIM!" to save his brutal legacy, you have an abysmal Presidency.

Anybody who thinks Obama is a good or even competent President doesn't know what they're talking about. A disaster with an abysmal human rights record.

It's ironic that it took the Democratic takeover of Congress to kill the economy, isn't it? And given that Obama has made the recession markedly worse than if he had done absolutely nothing, these problems are all his.

But it's not ME saying that. The yapping poodle who runs the DNC said the economy is ALL Obama's now.

Dude theres other channels than Fox News lol, The Bush problems with the economy started the year he was elected with less regulations on wall st, with the big banks being able to take more risks and answer less questions at the same time, also being able to give mortgages to anyone even if they couldnt pay them back, we all know how that ended up. If Obama did nothing the economy would be in a shambles right now, Jobs are on the rise last I heard.

And weres you proof about Obama and GE? Sounds like a Bill O'reilly exclusive.

You are aware that regulations weren't reduced under Bush at all, right? In fact, they skyrocketed under Bush. Sarbanes/Oxley --- which was as useless as expected --- came into being under Bush. There was LITERALLY no reduction in regulations. At all. Bush and McCain BOTH tried to handle the problems with the mortgage industry and Democrats like Barney Frank said there was no problem and the concerns were racist. As far as giving mortgages to undeserving people, look up the CRA. That started the ball rolling.

If Obama did nothing, we'd be in far better shape than we are now. Government interference has never worked (lord knows the New Deal made the Depression worse) --- but they will keep trying and failing.

As far as Obama and GE: He tapped the CEO to lead his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. He's the top recipient of GE money. He was the top in 2008. They tend to give heavily to Democrats. They OWN Barack Obama almost as much as unions do

No! You are so wrong, Bush stepped in to Power when the country were the Clinton govrt. left a $200 Billion surplas, he left it in $2,1 Trillion Defecit and you blame the democrats who werent even in power. Bush cut taxes for everyone, went to 2 wars you could never "win", if Obama did nothing after inheriting the Recession your country would be way worse now, none of the big banks would exist pretty much every mortgage in the country would fall through and the unemployment rate would of sky rocketed plus the rest of the world would of been fucked aswell.

#120 Edited by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: Why what Weapons manufactors is Obama heavily invested in, Like I said I wish that America did stay in Iraq as it was the responsible thing to do after shitting all over that country. But America wanted a easy out and they got it and this is why they will vote for Obama, you cant seriously say with a straight face you were proud to have George Bush as your President? His Govt. is almost single handedly responsible for the 2008 recesio plus a failed war with over a 100000 death toll.

He's in bed with GE as completely as humanly possible.

As compared to the empty suit dunce in the WH presently? Outside of James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, I have a hard time thinking of a worse President. When Jimmy Carter is thinking "Thank God for HIM!" to save his brutal legacy, you have an abysmal Presidency.

Anybody who thinks Obama is a good or even competent President doesn't know what they're talking about. A disaster with an abysmal human rights record.

It's ironic that it took the Democratic takeover of Congress to kill the economy, isn't it? And given that Obama has made the recession markedly worse than if he had done absolutely nothing, these problems are all his.

But it's not ME saying that. The yapping poodle who runs the DNC said the economy is ALL Obama's now.

Dude theres other channels than Fox News lol, The Bush problems with the economy started the year he was elected with less regulations on wall st, with the big banks being able to take more risks and answer less questions at the same time, also being able to give mortgages to anyone even if they couldnt pay them back, we all know how that ended up. If Obama did nothing the economy would be in a shambles right now, Jobs are on the rise last I heard.

And weres you proof about Obama and GE? Sounds like a Bill O'reilly exclusive.

You are aware that regulations weren't reduced under Bush at all, right? In fact, they skyrocketed under Bush. Sarbanes/Oxley --- which was as useless as expected --- came into being under Bush. There was LITERALLY no reduction in regulations. At all. Bush and McCain BOTH tried to handle the problems with the mortgage industry and Democrats like Barney Frank said there was no problem and the concerns were racist. As far as giving mortgages to undeserving people, look up the CRA. That started the ball rolling.

If Obama did nothing, we'd be in far better shape than we are now. Government interference has never worked (lord knows the New Deal made the Depression worse) --- but they will keep trying and failing.

As far as Obama and GE: He tapped the CEO to lead his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. He's the top recipient of GE money. He was the top in 2008. They tend to give heavily to Democrats. They OWN Barack Obama almost as much as unions do

No! You are so wrong, Bush stepped in to Power when the country were the Clinton govrt. left a $200 Billion surplas, he left it in $2,1 Trillion Defecit and you blame the democrats who werent even in power. Bush cut taxes for everyone, went to 2 wars you could never "win", if Obama did nothing after inheriting the Recession your country would be way worse now, none of the big banks would exist pretty much every mortgage in the country would fall through and the unemployment rate would of sky rocketed plus the rest of the world would of been fucked aswell.

The "surplus" under Clinton is a myth (the overall debt increased every single year which would be mathematically impossible if we REALLY ran a surplus. You can check out the actual US debt online and verify that if you'd so like). It was also helped by corporate accounting fraud to a level never before seen. Bush came in as the dotcom bubble burst, NASDAQ melted down, and Enron's issues first came to light. As far as Bush's deficits --- you're aware that Obama overspends in a single month more than Bush's deficits for an entire year before the Dems regained Congress, right? Bush's bad deficits were with a Dem Congress.

If none of the big banks existed --- FINE. We'd make it regardless. Capitalism is punishment for when you screw up. Bailing out banks didn't fix the problems --- it DID make Wall St a ton of money, but the economy is still in the crapper to a degree not seen since the Depression.

Heck, with the Senate Dems violating law by not passing a budget in about 989 days or so --- the deficits are MUCH higher since the "one time" stimulus of 2009 (which failed, miserably) are written into the baseline, so the spending increases every year with that factored into the equation.

#121 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
@Xeirus

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

He wont even get elected by his party, All the big banks are investing in Romney and the Republican party will do their best so he will win. Hes all over the place with his policy 1: No abortions for rape victims 2. Legalize herion 3.No minimun wage. 4.No more wars, he seem to take the most radical Policys from the left and right. Obamas gonna clean up this election, hes created more jobs even after being elected into a economic crisis, his govt killed Bin Laden and they pulled out of Iraq, now hes just got to figure out the US health system and he would of made good on most of his promises and even during a Republican congress trying to stop everything he does, plus as a non-american I can say my respect for USA has risen during his Presidency and it was shattered during the Bush years.

I'm not really reading this entire thread, but don't list "no more wars" as a strike against Ron, that's just common sense. Our people need to stop dying, enough said.

Also Bin Laden would have been killed no matter who was in office, Obama happened to be there when it happened, don't be naive.

You missunderstood my comment, I am for Ron Paul as the opposition to Obama I was just stating I can't see him getting the vote because of his radical views from left and right as republicans really don't like change they want their candidate to always be the same as the last one, I really hope Ron Paul gets nominated as he might use Jesse Ventura as his running mate one of the people I most respect.
#122 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
@MikeinSC If you think the 1st six years of the bush years had nothing to do with the lead up to the recession, you are sadly biased and you believe the republicans can do know wrong. The "failed" war of Iraq cost about 3 trillion dollars, that's about 30,000 dollars each tax payer has spent on that war, but in reality America has been paying for these wars by borrowing money off China at obscene interest rates that Americans will be paying off for generations. But go find one of your Glenn Beck articles to prove me wrong.
#123 Posted by LOZZAT (252 posts) -

The same problems will apply no matter who's face is glaring at you from posters. Even if they (the presidential candidates) have radically different views from one another there's only so much they can do after taking office before their powers are seriously limited by factors other than their personal views, of which there are many important ones.

#124 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC If you think the 1st six years of the bush years had nothing to do with the lead up to the recession, you are sadly biased and you believe the republicans can do know wrong. The "failed" war of Iraq cost about 3 trillion dollars, that's about 30,000 dollars each tax payer has spent on that war, but in reality America has been paying for these wars by borrowing money off China at obscene interest rates that Americans will be paying off for generations. But go find one of your Glenn Beck articles to prove me wrong.

If you think the last 5 years of Democratic control of Congress and 3 years of Obama's horrible policies aren't major drains on the economy, you're sadly biased and believe the Democrats can do no wrong.

The TOTAL cost of the Iraq War, start to finish, was between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. Admittedly a lot. And that's if you assume that all costs for anybody every stationed in Iraq for the rest of their natural lives is a cost of the War.

Obama has wasted money at levels never before imagined possible. The Iraq War was a temporary expense. Obama has no plans to spend LESS than 1 or so trillion a year more than we take in. Add in the working population dropped about 2 million since he took office (if the working population was the same size as it was under Bush, unemployment would be nearly 11% presently). Going from 66.4% of all adults having a job or looking for one to 64.2% today is abysmal and embarrassing.

I really hope Ron Paul gets nominated as he might use Jesse Ventura as his running mate one of the people I most respect.

Oh --- so you're a total clown. Thanks for clarifying. You actually support a Truther moron as somebody you respect the most?

#125 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
@MikeinSC I think it's funny as your making all these statements and don't even know that the republicans currently control the house of representatives. The War does cost atleast 3 trillion and counting as this includes the interest gained since the loan from china inundate 2003 plus the ongoin medical costs of the 1000s of injured us veterans of the war. Also Obama had to spend all that money for the stimulus package to keep the banks afloat so people's mortgages didn't become defaulted and creating jobs after a recession these things is what the country should be spending money on instead of sending teenagers to fight a war ibiraq that benefits America in no way. Plus criticizing Jesse Ventura for seeking answers for the biggest terrorist attack on Americas soil that was during a republican Presidency is really stupid by you. Dont you want answers why so many reports picked up by the CIA was ignored by George Bush into the lead up of 9/11, and why there was so many inaccuracies in the official 9/11 report. How can you hold that against Jesse Ventura for seeking the truth?
#126 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC I think it's funny as your making all these statements and don't even know that the republicans currently control the house of representatives. The War does cost atleast 3 trillion and counting as this includes the interest gained since the loan from china inundate 2003 plus the ongoin medical costs of the 1000s of injured us veterans of the war. Also Obama had to spend all that money for the stimulus package to keep the banks afloat so people's mortgages didn't become defaulted and creating jobs after a recession these things is what the country should be spending money on instead of sending teenagers to fight a war ibiraq that benefits America in no way. Plus criticizing Jesse Ventura for seeking answers for the biggest terrorist attack on Americas soil that was during a republican Presidency is really stupid by you. Dont you want answers why so many reports picked up by the CIA was ignored by George Bush into the lead up of 9/11, and why there was so many inaccuracies in the official 9/11 report. How can you hold that against Jesse Ventura for seeking the truth?

The Dems ran the Congress from 2007 - 2011. The Dems in the Senate are now not doing anything (the House has passed a lot of bills AND a budget --- funny the Dems in the Senate can't follow the law and do the same). The War is not the cause of the massive deficits --- Democratic overspending is the single biggest cause (the last completely Republican budget had a deficit of, roughly, $150B. Obama beats that ten times over every year).

And Obama didn't have to spend the money. If we didn't bail them out, then they would have sold their toxic assets for a loss rather than forcing the taxpayers to buy them off of them for a profit. Obama paid off his owners.

Obama has spent money on giving money to his friends when not engaging in acts that directly lead to arming drug cartels, laundering money for drug cartels, getting US government agents killed in the line of duty, and pressuring a company to not fire employees it is giving money to until after an election is over.

As far as 9/11 --- if you can find actionable intel in "OBL wants to attack the US. Federal buildings in NYC have been checked out" knock yourself out. Keep in mind, it would require harsher tactics than the things people like you whined about being done after 9/11. Why was Jamie Gorelick on the investigation of the incident when she was a major cause of it.

As far as Jesse Ventura, the SEAL wannabe is a clown. Nobody takes him seriously outside of people who don't know what they're talking about.

#127 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@MikeinSC: You give people shit for wanting to know the truth about the biggest attack on American civilians and then you put forward all these outrageous claims that Obamas arming the cartel. I bet if the Democrats were incharge during 9\11 you would be all for knowing about what happened that day and the lead up. I am 100% sure a Boeing aircraft did not hit the Pentagon that day, theres been a major coverup of all the footage showing what looks like a unmaned aircraft crashing in to it, this is not a conspiricy these were the official pictures the bush admin, released. Heres an article that goes into depth the warning signs leading to 9\11 and no waterboarding was needed http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html#_Toc9410685. With that I end this conversation with you as I continue to dismiss your claims with facts and you just ignore it in your reply, Obama inherited a govt. crippled by a recession and you blame everything on him, you too biased to understand, Have you ever said a bad thing about your beloved Republicans or are they always doing the right thing?

#128 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: You give people shit for wanting to know the truth about the biggest attack on American civilians and then you put forward all these outrageous claims that Obamas arming the cartel. I bet if the Democrats were incharge during 9\11 you would be all for knowing about what happened that day and the lead up. I am 100% sure a Boeing aircraft did not hit the Pentagon that day, theres been a major coverup of all the footage showing what looks like a unmaned aircraft crashing in to it, this is not a conspiricy these were the official pictures the bush admin, released. Heres an article that goes into depth the warning signs leading to 9\11 and no waterboarding was needed http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html#_Toc9410685. With that I end this conversation with you as I continue to dismiss your claims with facts and you just ignore it in your reply, Obama inherited a govt. crippled by a recession and you blame everything on him, you too biased to understand, Have you ever said a bad thing about your beloved Republicans or are they always doing the right thing?

Obama arming Mexican drug cartels isn't an outrageous claim. It was specifically called Operation Fast & Furious (you can Google it) --- which didn't track guns at all, nor did it advise the Mexican government of what was happening, and it was so blatantly improper that the gun dealers forced to participate by the DoJ demanded proof in writing that they were asked to do it. Holder lied under oath when he learned of it. And, to go ahead and head this off, Bush tried a similar program called Operation Wide Receiver, except they DID try to actually track the guns and did coordinate with the Mexican government and Holder himself said they really weren't the same program.

As far as 9/11, again, what EXACTLY was Bush supposed to do? Deport the hijackers who, up to that point, had done nothing illegal? Racially profile people going on airplanes (which, mind you, is vigorously opposed today after the fact)? Shut down the Eastern Seaboard PERMANENTLY since we had no idea when it was going to happen? You need to realize there is a major difference between information and actionable information. Heck, all of the info we had was acted upon as best as possible. No federal buildings in NYC were attacked that day.

I am 100% positive an aircraft hit the Pentagon that day. Sorry if common sense and logic is so lost on you. I'll take Popular Mechanics view of the opinion over a crank on the internet, so come back with a CREDIBLE source for your asinine claims.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

#129 Posted by Andorski (5111 posts) -

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: You give people shit for wanting to know the truth about the biggest attack on American civilians and then you put forward all these outrageous claims that Obamas arming the cartel. I bet if the Democrats were incharge during 9\11 you would be all for knowing about what happened that day and the lead up. I am 100% sure a Boeing aircraft did not hit the Pentagon that day, theres been a major coverup of all the footage showing what looks like a unmaned aircraft crashing in to it, this is not a conspiricy these were the official pictures the bush admin, released. Heres an article that goes into depth the warning signs leading to 9\11 and no waterboarding was needed http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html#_Toc9410685. With that I end this conversation with you as I continue to dismiss your claims with facts and you just ignore it in your reply, Obama inherited a govt. crippled by a recession and you blame everything on him, you too biased to understand, Have you ever said a bad thing about your beloved Republicans or are they always doing the right thing?

Obama arming Mexican drug cartels isn't an outrageous claim. It was specifically called Operation Fast & Furious (you can Google it) --- which didn't track guns at all, nor did it advise the Mexican government of what was happening, and it was so blatantly improper that the gun dealers forced to participate by the DoJ demanded proof in writing that they were asked to do it. Holder lied under oath when he learned of it. And, to go ahead and head this off, Bush tried a similar program called Operation Wide Receiver, except they DID try to actually track the guns and did coordinate with the Mexican government and Holder himself said they really weren't the same program.

As far as 9/11, again, what EXACTLY was Bush supposed to do? Deport the hijackers who, up to that point, had done nothing illegal? Racially profile people going on airplanes (which, mind you, is vigorously opposed today after the fact)? Shut down the Eastern Seaboard PERMANENTLY since we had no idea when it was going to happen? You need to realize there is a major difference between information and actionable information. Heck, all of the info we had was acted upon as best as possible. No federal buildings in NYC were attacked that day.

I am 100% positive an aircraft hit the Pentagon that day. Sorry if common sense and logic is so lost on you. I'll take Popular Mechanics view of the opinion over a crank on the internet, so come back with a CREDIBLE source for your asinine claims.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Pfft... you can easily see those pictures are photoshopped.

#130 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Andorski said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: You give people shit for wanting to know the truth about the biggest attack on American civilians and then you put forward all these outrageous claims that Obamas arming the cartel. I bet if the Democrats were incharge during 9\11 you would be all for knowing about what happened that day and the lead up. I am 100% sure a Boeing aircraft did not hit the Pentagon that day, theres been a major coverup of all the footage showing what looks like a unmaned aircraft crashing in to it, this is not a conspiricy these were the official pictures the bush admin, released. Heres an article that goes into depth the warning signs leading to 9\11 and no waterboarding was needed http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html#_Toc9410685. With that I end this conversation with you as I continue to dismiss your claims with facts and you just ignore it in your reply, Obama inherited a govt. crippled by a recession and you blame everything on him, you too biased to understand, Have you ever said a bad thing about your beloved Republicans or are they always doing the right thing?

Obama arming Mexican drug cartels isn't an outrageous claim. It was specifically called Operation Fast & Furious (you can Google it) --- which didn't track guns at all, nor did it advise the Mexican government of what was happening, and it was so blatantly improper that the gun dealers forced to participate by the DoJ demanded proof in writing that they were asked to do it. Holder lied under oath when he learned of it. And, to go ahead and head this off, Bush tried a similar program called Operation Wide Receiver, except they DID try to actually track the guns and did coordinate with the Mexican government and Holder himself said they really weren't the same program.

As far as 9/11, again, what EXACTLY was Bush supposed to do? Deport the hijackers who, up to that point, had done nothing illegal? Racially profile people going on airplanes (which, mind you, is vigorously opposed today after the fact)? Shut down the Eastern Seaboard PERMANENTLY since we had no idea when it was going to happen? You need to realize there is a major difference between information and actionable information. Heck, all of the info we had was acted upon as best as possible. No federal buildings in NYC were attacked that day.

I am 100% positive an aircraft hit the Pentagon that day. Sorry if common sense and logic is so lost on you. I'll take Popular Mechanics view of the opinion over a crank on the internet, so come back with a CREDIBLE source for your asinine claims.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Pfft... you can easily see those pictures are photoshopped.

Not seen any actual credible evidence of that.

#131 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
@MikeinSC Well the evidence was enough for Condi Rice to ring her friends not to fly that day...
#132 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
@MikeinSC I read the popular mechanics article it is all backed up by facts apart from their take on the Pentagon which is all just hear say, for a Boeing aircraft to hit the side of that building as perfect as it did would take the best 1% of pilots in the world your telling me some terrorist with a few lessons in flying attempted that, plus they only released 4 snapshots of what happened that day and I can't make out a jet. The most heavily guarded place in America only has that footage yeah right
#133 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC Well the evidence was enough for Condi Rice to ring her friends not to fly that day...

...which is a myth, but that won't slow you down.

I read the popular mechanics article it is all backed up by facts apart from their take on the Pentagon which is all just hear say, for a Boeing aircraft to hit the side of that building as perfect as it did would take the best 1% of pilots in the world your telling me some terrorist with a few lessons in flying attempted that, plus they only released 4 snapshots of what happened that day and I can't make out a jet.

Lee Harvey Oswald managed to hit a moving target 3 out of 4 times with a bad rifle with a poorly aligned sight while being a less than impressive marksman. Hitting one of the largest buildings in the world is not exactly a tough shot to hit, even for a rookie pilot.

And the Pentagon isn't really considering the possibility of kamikaze attacks from aircraft. Most of our defenses are dealing with attacks from outside --- not kamikaze issues from the inside. That is why things like the Ft Hood massacre can happen but an outright assault on the fort would likely have gone exceptionally poorly.

#134 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@MikeinSC: "Lee Harvey Oswald managed to hit a moving target 3 out of 4 times with a bad rifle with a poorly aligned sight while being a less than impressive marksman. Hitting one of the largest buildings in the world is not exactly a tough shot to hit, even for a rookie pilot."

CANT TELL IF SERIOUS?!?!

Im just gonna leave this here, good to hear a pilots POV on the incident.

#135 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: "Lee Harvey Oswald managed to hit a moving target 3 out of 4 times with a bad rifle with a poorly aligned sight while being a less than impressive marksman. Hitting one of the largest buildings in the world is not exactly a tough shot to hit, even for a rookie pilot."

CANT TELL IF SERIOUS?!?!

Im just gonna leave this here, good to hear a pilots POV on the incident.

I see no reason to further correspond with, well, a raving lunatic. I'd suggest psychotic meds first before attempting to make a point in the future.

#136 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: "Lee Harvey Oswald managed to hit a moving target 3 out of 4 times with a bad rifle with a poorly aligned sight while being a less than impressive marksman. Hitting one of the largest buildings in the world is not exactly a tough shot to hit, even for a rookie pilot."

CANT TELL IF SERIOUS?!?!

Im just gonna leave this here, good to hear a pilots POV on the incident.

I see no reason to further correspond with, well, a raving lunatic. I'd suggest psychotic meds first before attempting to make a point in the future.

LOL how dare I use science to respond to your claims. Why am I a raving lunatic? Because I dont believe the far fetched "official story". Ill take that you have no response to this video as a win to me. Did you even watch it?

#137 Posted by MysteriousBob (6273 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: "Lee Harvey Oswald managed to hit a moving target 3 out of 4 times with a bad rifle with a poorly aligned sight while being a less than impressive marksman. Hitting one of the largest buildings in the world is not exactly a tough shot to hit, even for a rookie pilot."

CANT TELL IF SERIOUS?!?!

Im just gonna leave this here, good to hear a pilots POV on the incident.

I see no reason to further correspond with, well, a raving lunatic. I'd suggest psychotic meds first before attempting to make a point in the future.

LOL how dare I use science to respond to your claims. Why am I a raving lunatic? Because I dont believe the far fetched "official story". Ill take that you have no response to this video as a win to me. Did you even watch it?

Hi, I think you're either a complete moron or just a major asshole.

Just going to leave this here for people who are sane:

#138 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
@MysteriousBob I fail to how me asking legitimate questions of what happened to the pentagon makes me a complete asshole/moron? Care to elaborate?
#139 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
@MysteriousBob also I'm not saying any conspirisies am I, I thinking anyone would question the official report of what happened to the pentagon, those guys in the video bring up valid points. It's not like in saying the world was created in 7 days or the origin of Wonan was created from adams rib, I think I am being completely logical on the topic.
#140 Posted by Aaron_G (1603 posts) -

If Ron Paul was elected president America would cease to be America. He is too libertarian for America.

#141 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MikeinSC: "Lee Harvey Oswald managed to hit a moving target 3 out of 4 times with a bad rifle with a poorly aligned sight while being a less than impressive marksman. Hitting one of the largest buildings in the world is not exactly a tough shot to hit, even for a rookie pilot."

CANT TELL IF SERIOUS?!?!

Im just gonna leave this here, good to hear a pilots POV on the incident.

I see no reason to further correspond with, well, a raving lunatic. I'd suggest psychotic meds first before attempting to make a point in the future.

LOL how dare I use science to respond to your claims. Why am I a raving lunatic? Because I dont believe the far fetched "official story". Ill take that you have no response to this video as a win to me. Did you even watch it?

Using science would be lovely. You might want to look up what science is. Heck, why don't you tell me how fire cannot melt steel?

I fail to how me asking legitimate questions of what happened to the pentagon makes me a complete asshole/moron?

You seem to confuse "asinine theories" with "legitimate questions".

#142 Posted by MikeinSC (889 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@MysteriousBob also I'm not saying any conspirisies am I, I thinking anyone would question the official report of what happened to the pentagon, those guys in the video bring up valid points. It's not like in saying the world was created in 7 days or the origin of Wonan was created from adams rib, I think I am being completely logical on the topic.

No, you're just theorizing that the 64 people who were on the flight actually DIDN'T die but just, somehow, vanished. That is totally logical. You don't recognize how much your belief in this stuff is a pathetically sad little religion.

#143 Posted by Mageman (352 posts) -

Does the man even have a realistic chance of beating Romney ?

Also someone fill me in on that whole pentagon crap. If a plane didn't hit it then what the fuck happened and why has no one seen it ?

#144 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2661 posts) -

I vote Massachusetts for secession, please.

#145 Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1 (1782 posts) -

Ron Paul =/= 9/11 videos. What has happened?

@Rolyatkcinmai: I second that vote, I never liked Massachusetts politics, anyway.

#146 Posted by KingRedWing (44 posts) -

I'll just leave this here

#147 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -
@Mageman

Does the man even have a realistic chance of beating Romney ?

Also someone fill me in on that whole pentagon crap. If a plane didn't hit it then what the fuck happened and why has no one seen it ?

You'd think a camera would of picked up a plane aswell but strangely no
#148 Posted by Lind_L_Taylor (3960 posts) -
@bluedabadee said:
he said he wants to change social security, which means your parents might get screwed if they are over 55 years old. Does anyone here know specifically what Ron Paul's plans with social security are?
 
Ron Paul is over 55 years old too. He's basically trying to fuck himself over.  Ain't senility a bitch, huh?
#149 Posted by gorkamorkaorka (430 posts) -

Someone probably called the guy a racist somewhere in here. He changed his opinion on the death penalty because it unequally affected minorities so that says a lot. I just wander through sometimes...

#150 Posted by _Zombie_ (1462 posts) -

People keep making the mistake of thinking that Ron Paul can actually fulfill the changes he promises. In reality, he'll be lucky to get one or two, maybe three.