Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
bride76
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:53:47 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/4/2011
Posts: 12
i hope so..America can't afford another four years of Obama!! 6 trillion in debt, unemployment higher then it was 4 yrs ago and he wants to keep blaming bush?? I'm all for Romney/Ryan!!
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:29:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Setting aside all the partisan speechifying, the race will be decided in the swing states by people who enter the booth without being certain who they will vote for yet. At that time, they will vote for who they "like" the most. Among that group at the moment, I think it's too close to call. If you break it down by voting blocks, Obama has lost some support from the blocks he really dominated in against McCain. People were voting against Bush back then and Bush=Romney hasn't been a convincing argument. So it might come down to whether it's raining in enough swing states on election day.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
principessa
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:49:50 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,869
Location: Canada
Bill Clinton needs to give his seminar speech in every state and President Obama must explain where he will take the voters in language just as clear. Then the Dems will win.

Kitanica
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 1:17:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 882
Location: The Sprawl, United States
t-rex wrote:
Wow, every post is hating on Romney/Ryan. I hope they win. I am a guy who looks at every politician as a liar. They tell us what they think we want to hear so you will vote for them. Most are lawyers who learn how present a side of the argument that will make them or their party the greatest thing ever. Its sad to me that the USA has to pick between the candidates we have. Whether REP or DEM you got to admit they are both lame. However my choice is for making our country great again, having a leader who is proud to be AMERICAN and not apologetic for it. I feel that we have started down the path of socialism and I'm out on that plan. I'm out on making everyone even. If you work hard you get more, if you choose to sit a wait for someone tho give you something, well you get what you get. The entitlement mentality has to stop, we have ruined a generation of kids with it. Whether REP of DEM they need to be reminded they actually work for US and the rest of the knuckleheads who actually run the the place need to know that as well. I say term limits for every office and get rid of the career politicians. Oh well just my 2 cents.

Have a great day and GO ROMNEY/RYAN!!!!!! Sword Fight Sword Fight


Define socialism? Most people who say it's bad don't know what it is, same with communism.
And bride, king Midas couldn't have fixed the crap storm bush caused. It'll take longer to fix his problems then the period in which they were caused.

And we're nearly at the same point we were 4 years ago. unemployment is 8.1 with the last 96,000 jobs added, were close to breaking even. 8 years of descent. Stopped and rectified in 4. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it was burned and sacked in one day plunging the known world into darkness. It takes longer to build than it does to tear down and supporting mitt Romney will just tear down the progress we've slowly made and send America back into the hands of the corporate barbarians.

if bush hadn't caused this mess, we wouldn't have had to add so much debt from bailing out the banks that gambled with money and spent money lobbying for idiots like bush who deregulate our country so they can exploit there fellow citizens. but hey if you want to live in a country where 1% owns all of the wealth go ahead and vote for Romney. 1% already owns 85% of the country's wealth, so congratulations your well on your way to your goal. And worldwide?

98,000 people (less than 1/1000th of a percent) aka less than .001 of 6billion people.

actively control 9.8trillion dollars

and have an estimated 21trillion-31trillion dollars or more up to 40 stashed in untaxable offshore bank accounts.

that's more than Americas and Japans GDP combined. enough to fix the european debt crisis and buy Africa. and you think these people with their fortunes care at all about us? That's sad.
they care about money, money, and Ummm... oh! money!
sprite
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 1:19:03 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,595
Location: My Tower, United States
Garza wrote:


Define socialism?


anything that the Republicans don't like. drunken
asleep
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 1:40:56 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 2,797
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


anything that the Republicans don't like. drunken


lol lol lol WHAT SHE SAID

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/exit-33-trust.aspx

Kitanica
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 1:58:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 882
Location: The Sprawl, United States
sprite wrote:


anything that the Republicans don't like. drunken

evil4 True, there's nothing old angry white men hate more than equality.
(I would have replied sooner but I was elaborating on my post above^)
Guest
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 3:33:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Socialism per Webster- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


And didn't Bill Clinton get impeached?
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 4:20:25 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,168
Location: United States
[quote=HardNReady12]
We happened to put this rumor to bed somewhat recently in Nealz Nuze.

Nealz Nuze? Really? Is that the best reference you can come up with. Neal Boortz is a draft dodging, bigoted, spoiled Randite. He twists facts to suit his own arguments. He lies. He claims to be a Libertarian but he has never voted for anybody except Republicans. He is led around by the nose by corporate interests, and his radio show is right wing propaganda. We put something to rest on Nealz Nuze? Who is we? "We," indeed. Do you think Boortz and Limbaugh and the rest of those chicken hawk ass clowns care anything about you? You're living in a dream world. Try listening to something besides Fox News and right wing radio.

The truth is that Clinton left office with a budget surplus. You can deny that or lie about it to your master Boortz's hearts content, but it won't change the fact. Clinton left Bush a surplus and he turned it into a massive deficit. Bush policies destroyed the economy and lost 7,900,000 jobs. Clinton policies produced a 14.7% increase in real income. Bush policies only produced 1.6%. The majority of Bush era tax cuts went to the richest Americans. The middle class only shared 7% of the tax breaks. That's a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top.

According to American's for Responsible Taxes, "President Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that went from 111 million jobs in August of that year (the month Clinton’s budget plan passed, including the increase in taxes) to 129 million jobs six years later—an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts.”

Learn to think for yourself. Boortz isn't smart enough to even think for himself, much less all the people who listen to him.
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 4:21:28 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,168
Location: United States
t-rex wrote:
Socialism per Webster- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


Can you explain to us exactly what is wrong with the workers owning the means of production?
Kitanica
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 4:23:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 882
Location: The Sprawl, United States
t-rex wrote:
Socialism per Webster- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


And didn't Bill Clinton get impeached?


You had to look up the actual definition? if you use the word you should already know it and not need webster to define in it for you. A point I've already made, I'm sure your against china.. Cuba.. And Russia as well?

Basically your admitting you hate equality and shared responsibility?
what's wrong with everyone having a fair share?
oh and Didn't Nixon think he was above the law, and break the law? which is why he quit before he could get impeached? Way to add a pointless element to your argument to try and misdirect. Typical.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 5:04:52 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,212
Location: Cakeland, United States
HardNReady12 wrote:

In 2000 there was never a surplus, Clinton didn't leave W with a surplus. The CBO PROJECTION, that's all it was, a projection was based things the can't and haven't ever happened.


And about Clinton eliminating the deficit. Time for a little painful truth. The surplus? It never existed. It was never there. The surplus was nothing more than a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office in 2001 as to what was going to happen over the next 10 years. This prediction was based on several assumptions. First, the economic growth of the late 1990s and the growth in the Dow would continue generating record tax revenues. Second, the surplus prediction was based on the improbable idea that discretionary spending would fall to levels last seen in the 1930s. The CBO prediction also failed to take into account terrorist attacks and the resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


President Elect Bush said there was a surplus when he took office and he was going to give people tax rebates and temporarily cut taxes. In 2001 and 2002, I received an extra $300 check from the federal gubmint, courtesy of George Bush 'using that surplus' to give us all (well some of us all) tax rebates.

Unfortunately, the CBO prediction didn't take into account the monumentally greedy stupidity of the Bush era temporary tax cuts (the same ones the Republicans hammered Obama with, when he mentioned repealing them), so Obama has allowed those tax cuts to remain in place.

$2,500,000,000.00 between 2001 and 2010...lost to federal revenues (increasing the deficit gift Bush was going to hand off to the next US administration)... McCain or Obama, one of them was going to get it. Just like those two forever wars.



Your job creators have really done a fantastic job between 2001 and 2009. Bush could've given a fuck less about employment stats...he was The War President, protecting America from another 9/11.

Fuck yeah... I want more of that kind of fiscal austerity. I miss those halycon days of September/October 2008, when the financial world was collapsing all around us and because of the Republican initiated bailout of Wall Street... the rest of us were told to go pack sand.

Maybe we can even start a war with Iran by next January's inauguration day!

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 5:36:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
Obama said:

He would cut the debt in half by re-election, it's over 16 trillion up from 10 trillion when he took office.

If we passed the " stimulas " unemployment would halt at 8% and be 6% by re-election. Currently it at 8.3%.

Middle class in income would rise under his administration, It's fallen 28% in 3 years.

There are "shovel ready" jobs just waiting on his " stimulas package", a year after the package was passed he said; "um, yeah, those jobs weren't so shovel ready after all."

He has created or saved 4.5 million jobs. The New York Times can only find about 400 thousand.

We can unit now. We have a more division between class and minorities that ever.

He would protect our southern border. Instead he sued Arizona for trying.

He would close " getmo". Still open.

Be the most open transparent President. He's used "executive privilege" and "executive order" more in his 4 years than the evil Bush did in eight.

If he can't make his campaign promises good in his first four years then this will be a one term presidency.

...... Let us try to make that last statement correct and that way he will have kept at least one campaign promise.


The election is now Romney's to lose or win. especially after that flat speech the President gave last night.

RM



"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 6:01:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Can you explain to us exactly what is wrong with the workers owning the means of production?


Such societies stagnate because they don't reward innovation or creativity. They fail to compete against other societies and the best and the brightest leave to get the benefits not available in the workers' paradise, which causes "reforms" toward the totalitarian end of the control scale.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
RumpleForeskin
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 6:17:08 PM

Rank: The Right Rev of Lush

Joined: 7/3/2009
Posts: 2,836
Location: Lost in the ozone somewhere east of Luckenbach Tx,
Can Romney win? Sure.

Will Romney win? Probably not.

glasses8

Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwords. - ROBERT HEINLEIN

REUNITINGhis need, her want, in a cab -- my contest entry

FROM:
Becky -- FOR: Matt -- With Love:
a Festive contest winner – honest

HOW HUMANS DO IT: a fish-eye view of sex an Editor's Pick - no kidding
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:37:29 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,168
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


Such societies stagnate because they don't reward innovation or creativity. They fail to compete against other societies and the best and the brightest leave to get the benefits not available in the workers' paradise, which causes "reforms" toward the totalitarian end of the control scale.


Why? Why can't worker owned businesses reward innovation or creativity? If individuals can go to banks and other holders of capital to get financing, why shouldn't a group of workers be able to do the same? Why does there have to be an ownership class siphoning off profits? The "best and brightest," aren't necessarily the people who are born with the most money.

The Russian and Chinese revolutions weren't really aimed at capitalism anyway. Russia was still almost a feudal society, and China was ruled by warlords and emperors. The effect of both of them was to kick start capitalism. Neither was ever a worker's paradise. There has never been a worker's paradise. Some people work and other people get rich off their labor. The top people in the USSR and China lived off the sweat of the workers just as much as 19th century robber barons.

Do you think we're living in a free market economy now? The game is fixed. The world is made to work to benefit the few. The majority are boot licking fools who think they'll get rich one day despite the fact that the rules are made to keep them from succeeding. Things like abortion and gay marriage are used to distract people from the fact that the wealthy are redistributing wealth to themselves. Things have gotten a whole lot better for the owners and a whole lot worse for the workers, and we're still headed for totalitarianism.
LeadDog
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 8:01:01 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 6/12/2012
Posts: 44
Location: United States
More likely will be a week or so BEFORE the election. And we won't start it - or put differently, we will merely indirectly drive others to start it due to our lack of backbone in clearly setting redlines and conveying/coordinating int'l plans and mutually agreed/understood policies. And by "we" and "our"... I mean the current administration. The sharp pols in this crowd can have fun with THAT prediction... and where it would lead the next (probably different) administration. Sword Fight

WellMadeMale wrote:



Maybe we can even start a war with Iran by next January's inauguration day!
Buz
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 8:25:11 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,156
Location: Atlanta, United States
Approximately 35-37% of the American voters are diehard Democrats and will vote for anyone who has that party's nomination, likewise, about 35-37% of the voters are diehard Republican and will vote for anyone with that nomination. The political battle is for the middle, and they can be swayed either way. If the majority of the middle think Obama has failed on his campaign promises and if they are still unemployed, haven't had a pay raise, struggling, and are unhappy, you bet they might vote the other way. Incumbent Jimmy Carter lost 49 out of 50 states in his re-election bid for that reason, though he was probably had more integrity and honesty of any president in 100 years. He also had one of the highest IQs of any US president in history. You just never know what circumstances will deliver.

I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

Donte
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 8:44:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 9/20/2011
Posts: 80
As a Lifelong Democrat who voted for Obama. I must say I am very upset with him he campaigned on School choice. The Schools in the inner city are dooming those kids to poverty forever. I went to School in Wilmington Delaware and was lucky enough to get bussed out of the neighborhood. Some of my friends did not and they are dead, druggies, or have no hope of success. Obama needs to do something to give the kids the option of getting out of the inner city schools.

I will vote for Romney this time even though I disagree with him mostly, but that is too important.
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:02:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Why? Why can't worker owned businesses reward innovation or creativity?


Now you're talking about worker owned businesses instead of workers owning the means of production. And you derived that from ownership by the community as a whole. How does a group of workers even acquire ownership of a business, except by being given it by a government? And how does that happen?

The bugaboo in socialism is control. who owns the capital and who decides how it is invested and what are their incentives? When you don't have venture capitalists, shareholders, stakeowners and the profit motive, your society doesn't keep up. If you're giving the businesses to the workers, you won't have those.

Quote:
If individuals can go to banks and other holders of capital to get financing, why shouldn't a group of workers be able to do the same?


Workers can get a loan to buy an established business. Then they can have incentive programs for business improvement. They're still motivated by profit and they're still going to have to find a way to hire the right people and fire the people who need to go.

Quote:
Why does there have to be an ownership class siphoning off profits?


Because they take the risks. Without risktakers businesses don't get created, expanded, merged to efficiency, etc. Somebody has to have enough skin in the game for the bankers to trust them to start and then manage the business. But in case you weren't aware, the biggest shareholder groups in many businesses are public employee pension funds and charitable trusts. That's your "ownership class siphoning off profits".

Quote:
The "best and brightest," aren't necessarily the people who are born with the most money.


When the people who are born with the money aren't competent investors, their money ends up back in the economy before their kids inherit it.

Quote:
The Russian and Chinese revolutions weren't really aimed at capitalism anyway. Russia was still almost a feudal society, and China was ruled by warlords and emperors. The effect of both of them was to kick start capitalism. Neither was ever a worker's paradise. There has never been a worker's paradise. Some people work and other people get rich off their labor. The top people in the USSR and China lived off the sweat of the workers just as much as 19th century robber barons.


Two examples of why centralized government and group rights is inferior to distributed government with strong protections for individual rights.

Quote:
Do you think we're living in a free market economy now?


No, we never got fully out of mercantilism before we got diverted into crony socialism where the government uses labor regulation and tax policy to prevent the existence of a free market economy. We made the mistake of centralizing too much instead of letting states compete with each other. We never should have centralized labor policy, SS or Medicare.

Quote:
The game is fixed. The world is made to work to benefit the few. The majority are boot licking fools who think they'll get rich one day despite the fact that the rules are made to keep them from succeeding. Things like abortion and gay marriage are used to distract people from the fact that the wealthy are redistributing wealth to themselves. Things have gotten a whole lot better for the owners and a whole lot worse for the workers, and we're still headed for totalitarianism.


The politicians in both parties know that they can't afford to alienate the wealthy. So they do something like Obamacare, an assault on the middle class sold as an assault on the rich. If they really assaulted the rich, the supply of OPM would dry right up.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:15:30 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,212
Location: Cakeland, United States
medicman wrote:
I guess i have to jump into this bleeding heart liberal, Bush bashing post with both feet.


You know something Terd? If you and the rest of your ilk of entitlement bashing, wanting-something-for-nothing-hating, welfare whining, self sufficient bootstrappers/ leeches actually wanted your thoughts to be considered with any sort of depth...

You'd pay your $50 a year to join the website and support the community. Oh fuck...did I say that socialist word - community?

But no...

You guys (and you know, I've looked you all up - none of you are paying jackshit to spew your vulgarities on this privately owned website) you're just wasting bandwidth like the typical loud mouthed free loaders you are and have always been.

You were publicly educated, enjoy the fruits of publicly funded roads, utilities, freedoms and civil rights (while non-stop babbling about your self sufficiency and your being taken advantage of by others)... all while you take advantage of someone elses world class internet services.

That's a fucking riot! evil4

And you Terd...this is your second account in what... four years? You're double dipping and flip flopping.

You lame ass guys have some fucking gall. You're all relegated to the ditch where you can sniff each other's nut sacks, back slap one another for spitting out Limbaugh talking points and self congratulate your skin-flinted self sufficient camaraderie.

Alone. In the fierce make-believe wilderness of your own minds.

6

You tight asse$ make this too easy. Don't you have some shit you can stir over at NealzNuze.
I suppose perving over here at nubile teens (mostly other 40 year old men roleplaying) wanting Daddies doesn't fly in the face of your religiosity?

evil4

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 7:33:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
Barack Obama, Less Bad > More Bad. The Daily Show

A little humor to start your weekend.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
CleverFox
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 8:05:23 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 463
Location: United States
The Republican Party has offered nothing but unspecific platitudes to us at their convention. They have said if you want to see specific plans that we should look at their website. I did check the website and it offers no specifics. All I have heard from Romney and Ryan is how they are going to fix everything and put us back in the right direction but no specifics.

I know the Republican plan is nothing more than tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and deregulation for all of the corporations. Guess what? That is what had the economy about to collapse in 2008 and we the taxpayers had to bail out the too big to fail corporations. Would those same corporations have shared their profits with us if they had made money? I think not.

If the Republicans want to control this country they should do more then just say "No!" to any plans Obama submits to congress.

I have seen John Beoner saying in 2010 that the Republicans' job for the next two years is to make sure Obama is a one term president.

If the Republicans want my vote they have to get off of their collective lazy fat asses and give me a plan that will work, not the same old and tired "Tax cuts create jobs" bullshit because it hasn't worked.

It is time for the people of the USA to tell the Party of "No!" to hit the road.

I do miss Eisenhower, the only Republican in the second half of the 20th century not to have his head up the ass of the corporate world.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 8:19:28 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,212
Location: Cakeland, United States
CleverFox wrote:


I do miss Eisenhower, the only Republican in the second half of the 20th century not to have his head up the ass of the corporate world.


And he was a life-long Democrat, recruited to run against Truman. The two of them didn't get along, so...Ike jumped ship. Back in those days...there wasn't the blatant acrimony or hating. There was back room deals in cigar smoke choked rooms, backstabbing setups and (gasp) conspiracies hatched and carried out. But...

There wasn't any Grover fucking Norquist blackmail going on. Rush Limbaugh was still picking his nose and performing arm farts to impress what few male friends wanted to hang out with him. The American Media wasn't owned lock stock and barrel by 6 world wide conglomerations and the Supreme Court wasn't dominated by Corporatists posing as gift accepting lobbyist lackeys.

Ike warned us with his farewell speech to America...but times were pretty good for the white majority in America...and nobody even heard his not very cryptic warnings.

Old school 1940s-1960s Republicans would shit the bed (and many did in 2008...they even voted for Obama!) at the thought of Sarah Palin being one heart attack from the Oval Office.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 9:46:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CleverFox wrote:
It is time for the people of the USA to tell the Party of "No!" to hit the road.


The party not in power is always the party of "No!". From 2001-2007 it was the Dems that were the party of "No!", using their filibusters (and the threat of them) to derail reforms they didn't like, sometimes before they even read the proposals. When the only "compromises" offered to the minority party are compromises that will cost them reelection, the only answer they'll give is "No!". That's just politics.

And insisting on a plan from a Presidential candidate ignores that it's the President's job to preside over what Congress sends him. Presidents have visions, not plans, because they have no authority to implement their plans, except as they can through executive orders.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
elitfromnorth
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 11:50:50 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,588
Location: Burrowed, Norway
HardNReady12 wrote:

What you say is true, to a point, they are supposed to work for us, but as Valarie Garrett said in Nov '08, "we are ready to rule." That's the way the Proggies feel, they are rulers not public servants. Yes we are on the path of socialism, both parties want that, but the Proggies have extended the safety net to new highs of "taking care" of more and more, bailing out the UAW, spending billions and billions for what? Employment has risen, less people are in the work force now than during Carter's years. We have gone backward for 4 years, and don't tell me it's all W's fault, Barry came into office, gas was $1.84, 15 million fewer people were on food stamps and we owed $6T less. We need to support Mitt and get Barry out of the White House.


Yes, you are indeed on the road to socialism.... if the road is route 66, socialism is in LA and you just got in your 1973 VW Beetle that has a max speed of 50 mph and it has a dodgy engine. That is how far from socialism you lot are. The parties in our parliment that distance themselves from anything the socialist parties stand for are closer to socialism than the democratic party will ever be, not to mention the republican party. So don't think that you're on the path to socialism, because that's right wingers scaremongering you.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
CleverFox
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 1:49:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 463
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


The party not in power is always the party of "No!". From 2001-2007 it was the Dems that were the party of "No!", using their filibusters (and the threat of them) to derail reforms they didn't like, sometimes before they even read the proposals. When the only "compromises" offered to the minority party are compromises that will cost them reelection, the only answer they'll give is "No!". That's just politics.

And insisting on a plan from a Presidential candidate ignores that it's the President's job to preside over what Congress sends him. Presidents have visions, not plans, because they have no authority to implement their plans, except as they can through executive orders.


From 2001-2007 the Democratic party had to be the party of "No!" because the Republican majorities in both houses of congress didn't even give the Democrats a chance to compromise. The Republicans wouldn't even let the Democrats use conference rooms to hold hearings.

The Republicans today are the party of "No!" and the party of "No Compromise!". Even Ronald Reagon compromised with Tip O'Neil when push came to shove.
AGreyFoxxx
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 2:27:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/20/2011
Posts: 191
Location: In your panties, ladies!, United States
This election is WAAAY too close to call. Obama/Biden have the advantage of incumbency, but that isn't the guarantee it used to be (just ask George Bush Sr- 'it's the economy, stupid') Romney/Ryan has the advantage of a sluggish economy, but even that is no guarantee of electability.
What will ultimately win this election is the female vote! If Romney/Ryan keep pandering to the right wing radicals of the Republican party they can kiss the election goodbye! If they can move toward the middle of the road, they won't piss off that segment of the population, and might even endear themselves to the social moderates. They can, however, afford to piss off the right wing and still win (Who are they going to vote for- Obama? or write in Ron Paul? or stay home? That will only insure anotherr four years of a democrat in the White House)
In spite of the negative ads we will have to suffer through, it should prove to be an interesting election
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 2:42:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CleverFox wrote:
From 2001-2007 the Democratic party had to be the party of "No!" because the Republican majorities in both houses of congress didn't even give the Democrats a chance to compromise.


Sounds exactly like 2007-2011 with the names changed to protect the guilty.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 1:39:36 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,212
Location: Cakeland, United States
Let's re-elect the same philosophies and strategies which caused the 2008 financial collapse, started one war of choice which has cost us several thousand dead and maimed, brought us the Righteous War, which is still ongoing.

Gave us the Patriot Act, Homeland Insecurity and renditions with Gitmo (we got all that re-enforced under Obama & his GOP buddies).

Vote Obama and get Bush light. Vote Romney and get Bush - accelerated.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.