One wants to abolish FEMA, one doesn’t. One denies global warming, one doesn’t. One supports equal pay for women, one doesn’t. One believes that Jesus will return to a rural area of north Missouri, one doesn’t. Yep, totally alike.
These comments simply show the lack of knowledge in the real issues facing our country.
Setting the country back 50 in regards to policy wouldn’t be a bad thing! Pretty sure we were thriving back then, were considered a super-power by the rest of the world, had lot’s of American jobs, especially in the manufacturing industry.
I know i’m border-line trolling but the amount of sheer stupidity and lack of understanding of the general public just amazes me and I had to say something.
Like my comment or hate it, it’s my opinion, and I live in a country that allows me to freely express my opinion.
Let’s see, fifty years ago segregation was commonplace, women could essentially only work as secretaries, and gay people had to remain closeted. I’m guessing tank203 is a white male, and one who’s never paid any attention to civil rights at that. Well, at least we had “lot’s” of American jobs, and we were considered a superpower.
Also, foreign relations weren’t so great — have you heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? The Cuban Missile Crisis? The Vietnam War?
Furthermore, as I’m fairly sure you’re one of the Romney supporters who’s never even cracked a history book, recall that one of Mittens’ chief talking points is lowering the top tax rate. Well, do you know what the top tax rate was 50 years ago? 70%. Do you know what it is now? 35%. And he wants to lower it further.
That’s the problem with this widespread penchant for oversimplifying things — real life is nuanced and complex. Your argument, we had “lot’s” of jobs, therefore everything was great, is something a talking head would say to try to sway someone’s opinion via a sound bite.
I never said that we should apply all of the policies from 50 years ago, obviously there have been many lessons learned in the past 50 years.
My point is simply that I personally don’t like where this country is headed or where it currently stands in regards to jobs, taxes and fiscal responsibility/debt among others.
Why does the government need to pay for PBS?
And how does it make me a moron to be worried about a communist country owning most of America’s debt?
If i spend more money than I make, then I run out of money. Same with the government. The government needs to cut its spending. PBS is an example of one of the many things the government pays for that it doesn’t need to.
PBS will be perfectly fine if they aren’t receiving their weekly allowance from Daddy government each month. Just their sales from marketing alone (toys, books, etc.) already give them $350 million a year.
I’m with tank on this one. Barack is a complete joke.
Great point, and there are a lot more programs like this that don’t necessarily need government funding in order to run. Some can be taken over by the private sector, some can stand just fine on their own, and some will just have to be killed off. Some will be easier to deal with that others, but when your budget is as far off as this government’s is, you need to make those tough calls. We cannot spend our way out of debt, and Obama talks about “investing” into this and that, well investing means spending, and we do NOT have the money. Cutting spending is the only way out of this mess.
LISTEN TO ME, YOU FUCKING MORONS.
Don’t just latch on to my mention of PBS, read THE REST of what I said.
Do you actually believe Romney will be able to find 7 TRILLION DOLLARS in spending cuts over 10 years, to offset the tax cuts and the additional military spending he want??
If your answer is yes, you are A FUCKING MORON. End of story.
the rest of the world can have em…
Romney may not be able to find 7 trillion $ in spending cuts over the next 10 years, but at least his direction is better than Obama’s.
Obama has added $5 Trillion to the deficit in 4 years, this was the same person who ridiculed Bush for spending $4 trillion in 8 years.
Obama is not fiscally responsible, is Romney the perfect choice? the answer to all our problems? of course not, but I think he could do better if elected than Obama has.
And all you said in the rest of that post was that it was idiotic and you called me a moron… I chose to ignore the insult and tied the “idiotic” comment to the part about PBS. Unless there was another post I didn’t see, I don’t see anything else to comment on.
“Obama has added $5 Trillion to the deficit in 4 years, this was the same person who ridiculed Bush for spending $4 trillion in 8 years.”
5 trillion was added to the debt because of 2 wars that weren’t paid for and millions going on unemployment and food stamps due to the worst economic collapse since the great depression, combined with federal tax revenues being slashed to lows not seen in a generation.
Obama was directly responsible for 800 billion of that 5 trillion, due to his stimulus. Other than that, anyone who happened to be in office would have seen the same huge deficits these last four years.
At least you guys are discussing the economy instead of just Michelle’s fucking wardrobe or her arm toning exercises. Or, God forbid, what Mittens said about American car manufacturing. But you’re still caught in that trap where you think you only have two candidates… And that’s why you’ll end up with the government you deserve.
Neither Obama nor Romney have an economic plan that will work.
Neither Obama nor Romney have plans to end the “war on terror”.
Neither Obama nor Romney have plans to end the “war on drugs”.
Neither Obama nor Romney think that it’s ethically corrupt to bomb people with drones.
Neither Obama nor Romney think the internet should remain uncensored or unrestricted.
Neither Obama nor Romney want to protect American citizens’ civil liberties (and definitely not those brown people who look like they could be terrorists; we might lock them away indefinitely. You know, for the sake of our freedoms).
ms_riot, the rest of the world does NOT want Obama; we just don’t hate him quite as much as we hate Romney. But they’re just different shades of the same corporate puppet, aren’t they? A vote for Democrat or Rebublican is a vote for Goldman Sachs! Hooray.
Here, go fill this in and find out who you really side with: www. isidewith.com/
I bet most of you will be in line with Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
Tick tock, time is running out.
Bacchante, the trouble with Johnson and Stein is this: 90% of the country will simply say, “Who the fuck are they?” Even after we educate them, the majority of the people will choose the one they saw on TV the most. Therefore, as Prumo implied, I’m shocked that someone could make so much money doing internet masturbation videos.
Bacchante, exactly! I keep trying to remind everyone I know that there are more than two candidates. You don’t *have* to choose either Romney or Obama!
I think a big reason why a lot of people don’t even think about other candidates is that they don’t get as much press coverage and/or people think that voting for someone who isn’t one of the two major players is like throwing away their vote. Either way, it’s an extremely depressing state of affairs.
Goldman Sachs? Try David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Vote Romney if you actually want a job after your “free” education; vote Obama if you want to raise corporate tax past 35% and then bitch about how no one is hiring.
I’ll just sit here patiently while you all call me a racist and tell me it’s Bush’s fault.
And the reason that Obamney gets an inordinate amount of coverage is because they’ve bought the media outlets and the Debate Commission… with corporate funding that will mean your new (most likely re-elected) president owes favours to thousands of companies whose only concern is profit over people.
Did you know that the 2012 POTUS campaign expenditure has topped $6 billion now?
No one knows who Gary Johnson is because he hasn’t been bought (and in my high opinion of the man, he can’t be bought). What would the point be in donating millions of dollars to a man who wants a truly free market?
^ That’s what Jessi was saying. See, the majority of the people here don’t educate themselves on the issues and the things that matter. They simply listen to the TV and radio ads, and believe that rhetoric. And then they discuss it amongst themselves and it gets totally discombobulated because they don’t really understand the deeper issues. People like Stein and Johnson aren’t even mentioned in the discussions.
Oh, and also for those losers talking about the wars. Obama escalated in Afghanistan by deploying more troops, all the while cutting their pay, taking their benefits and even taking away hot meals. Started a war in Libya, then ignored when the same people we help cripple the Liybian government murder four Americans(sworn enemy of American AL Qaeda same people he’s supporting in Syria). And while their “Jihad” that we supported spreads from Liyba to the rest of Africa creating civil wars all throughout the continent. Now he wants war in Syria, wasting more lives and tax payer money.. And by the way obummers drone strikes kill more civilians every day, and it’s completely ignored.”259 strikes for which he is ultimately responsible killed between 297 and 569 civilians, of whom at least 64 were children.”