U.S. Presidential Election page 34 (locked)

1843 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:
Programs the new Republican House has proposed cutting. I’m wondering, what is all of this doing in the budget in the first place? Notice Social Security and the military aren’t on this list.

An interesting list, but some of the items have been on the republican cutting list for a very long time. For example the cutting of Amtrak Subsidies has been proposed repeatedly since Regan but even when republicans ruled they were not implemented. Fact is many of the items on the list would not be cut under a republican government since there is no republican consensus for cutting them.

Also the math at times seems rather dubious. Taking the highest yearly spending in recent years as the base instead of the yearly average(for example Amtrax) or including non and underfunded programs. Like in the case of Rep. McKeons H.R. 2274. Which targets for the majority non funded programs. Programs that only exist on paper but do not and will not receive funding. Its like saying we planed to hire this worker but never came around to it nor will we in the foreseeable future, lets fire him to save the money were not spending on him.
For clarification i am all for deleting the programs out of law that don´t and will not receive funding, but i find it dishonest to claim that deleting them will save money except for the money spent on bureaucracy to keep them floating around while unfounded. Same goes for underfunded programs when you cut them, i find it dishonest to claim your saving the amount planed to be spent on them when the actual funding that is being cut and saved is way below that mark.

 
Flag Post
Beginning your argument with some of the ol’ misrepresentation. I haven’t “lingingly” wished for Romney dead. However, it is true that there are better Republicans out there whom would be able to serve better for America. There are also more Republicans who’d actually have a chance at winning the election.

Saying wouldn’t it be great if Romney died is the only way those words can be interpreted – your words speak for themselves. Again, stay classy. As for your last sentence, I don’t especially disagree with that.

I love this argument. I love how you are saying that as if it were a good thing, or at least that’s what I get from that statement. Trust, I will never go live in America; much less of a chance for me to become a citizen. I am a proud non-American. I am proud that my country doesn’t continue to overthrow democracies and massacre civilians.

What are you implying? Seemingly, you have a pride for the lack of free speech in your country. You can alledgedly say whatever you want, unless it is against the establishment of the government.

It’s not an argument, just a statement of fact. The Secret Service doesn’t mess around for public statements about the death of the President. Threats =/= free speech.

Again, France is becoming more and more powerful. Why not attack them? The UK is doing the same. As is North Korea; as is China; as is Japan. You know why? Because attacking any of those countries would essentially create a World War III. However, attacking Iran (one of three Shia countries, and the only powerful Shia country today) will be easy for Israel and the United States. Hardly anyone will come to the aid of that country—because it hardly has any allies. It becomes easy to attack them, since they will have no escape from the massacre; they will have no way of evading the United States’ plans for annihilation.

1) There is no strategic advantage to attacking France, UK (our best ally), NK, China, or Japan.

2) You’re right it would create WWIII, but again, that isn’t why we aren’t attacking WWIII. That’s like me blaming gravity for not being able to slam dunk (a travesty, I know). I mean, blaming gravity is technically true, but it has more to do with me being of very average height and having never possessed great hops.

Rightio, chap. Keep strawmanning as you are, mate.

So if a subtle jab at Bush wasn’t your reasoning for bringing up the faulty intel on WMDs in Iraq, what was the reason?

First of all, North Korea IS becoming more powerful by the day. The only reason America today will never attack North Korea is because China actually would have a chance at kicking the United States’ ass. North Korea has a VERY powerful ally. The thing here is: Iran does not. Hence, it is easy for the United States to annihilate them.

More so China holding our debt and pissing them off wouldn’t go over well I reckon.

Also, you completely missed the point. The United States will in no way or manner attack a country with powerful allies. Yet it feels compelled to destroy Iran. In interviews of Ahmadinejad in the American video his words will be cut or not fully aired in order to make the American public more easily disagree with him and his country. Why do you want another Iraq war? Honest question, since it will be very similar to Iraq. Except the fact that Iran is much more powerful and thus more American soldiers will die.

I don’t want another Iraq war. I’m saying that if/when Israel attacks Iran, the US will support them. We can debate whether it is a good or bad idea (preferably in another thread devoted to the issue to prevent this thread getting too cluttered), but that’s simply the fact of the matter what will happen. And again, the US doesn’t feel compelled to destroy Iran. It’s Iran who feels compelled to destroy Israel.

How old are you? If you are nearly 18 or between 18 and 25 you will possibly be killed. That’s your government’s plan for you. I do, however, recommend two things: a) stop jingoistically supporting the United States militarily and voice your opposition for the killings of American soldiers (something which can be evaded by not being involved or commencing a war); b) go to your local fast food restaurant and eat like crazy (if you’re overweight and unfit you won’t become involved yourself in the war).

Yep, a draft is really going to come back.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=67d_1349230061
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/iraq-wmd-poll-clueless-vast-majority-republicans_n_1616012.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9GAqVT_C_U&feature=related

Oh, you misunderstood. I meant legit sources, not Russian state media, a liberal OP-Ed, and the rhetoric of an anti-war candidate at a debate. Those aren’t sources silly.

Israel does pretty much the same, except for Palestine. You have also many Israelis against Iran and anything Islamic.

Goodness, I missed Israel saying they want to eliminate anything Islamic. Could you direct me to that?

You forget that Iran won’t attack Israel unless Israel attacks them. Israel rejoices in the Middle East. Israelis live much better and safer lives than nearby Middle Eastern countries.

Nope, they just want to wipe them off the map. But don’t take my word for it, let’s go to my old buddy Mahmoud:

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

That’s my good buddy Mahmoud, who also denies the Holocaust and is President of Iran. He’s a peach.

 
Flag Post

Just wanted to make the point that, if not in stated policy, at least in action over the last few decades, it would be pretty east to assume Israel is anti-Islam.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Just wanted to make the point that, if not in stated policy, at least in action over the last few decades, it would be pretty east to assume Israel is anti-Islam.

Dude that’s like saying the united states was anti Asian because of why it entered world war two. Wait bad example, it created internment camps and so on. Quick did Israel create internment camps? no. was it attacked first? yes. Well it’s ahead of world war II era united states at least. Oddly enough. lets see here: has atomic bomb? US yes. Israel yes. used atomic bomb? Israel no. USA? yes twice, both times on Japan. now to be fair Japan at that time was willing to send people to its death as human bombs. wait why does that sound familiar?. I’ve lost track of the point I was trying to make, and I have no idea what I just argued.

 
Flag Post
The best choice for America is neither Obama nor Romney. But your electoral system does not allow for a true democracy. It never will unless you fix your constitution. Something American politicians of neither political party will do.

Man you people are so stubborn. We are not, nor did we choose pure Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. It is our chosen form of government. It would be like us coming to your country and telling you your form of government sucks and you would be better off being a different type of government. Don’t come on here and tell us we need to do away with our form of government because you don’t like it.

We have several party’s that run for president, but only two strong party’s. One of these two will be president. It’s obvious that we like our form of government so stop telling us we need to change it. I will admit we need to curb the corruption, but I’m betting your country has just as much, if not more, corruption. Yet here you are, complaining about our country. Amazing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by lock_of_fear:
Originally posted by Darear:

Facts and truths coming from an Obama supporter? I’m getting really tired of arguing here. Darkruler, I listed why Obama has failed. You never asked for Romney’s record. I will leave with this. Romney’s record at Massachusetts Governor, lowered unemployment from 5.6% to 4.7%, had the best education in the nation under his tenure, got to a balanced budget without taxing the middle class, and left a surplus. Massachusetts was actually rated 50th in job creation when Romney first got elected and 28th when he left. Pretty big improvement. 47th is the average of those years, we gave Obama a pass the first year so we have to give Romney a pass the first year as well.

I’ll stop arguing on this boring topic now. By the way, large post doesn’t mean right.

I get the feeling you just said Obama supporters never tell the truth or use facts and my post and JohnnyBeGood’s post are not only tl;dr but, in fact false because they are long. You didn’t actually say any of that, but that’s my take away impression from reading this post.

Let’s just say, Obama supporters seem to overlook a lot. they overlook the economy getting weaker, the unemployment figures, Home foreclosures, etc. BTW, didn’t I tell you the unemployment figure would go down just before the election? Well, it did. This is caused by manipulation of the figures to make Obama look better. Now watch the GDP growth spike shortly. More manipulation to make Obama look good. I quite believing these things long ago.

 
Flag Post

Obama
Romney is crazy

Let’s just say, Obama supporters seem to overlook a lot. they overlook the economy getting weaker, the unemployment figures, Home foreclosures, etc.

i doubt it would have been any better if Romney was voted that term.

First of all, North Korea IS becoming more powerful by the day. The only reason America today will never attack North Korea is because China actually would have a chance at kicking the United States’ ass.

and that they have alot of weapons and would make everyone regret the U.S. attacking NK.
Plus NK has a new leader, he might be alot cooler with the rest of the world then its last ruler.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by lock_of_fear:
Originally posted by Darear:

Facts and truths coming from an Obama supporter? I’m getting really tired of arguing here. Darkruler, I listed why Obama has failed. You never asked for Romney’s record. I will leave with this. Romney’s record at Massachusetts Governor, lowered unemployment from 5.6% to 4.7%, had the best education in the nation under his tenure, got to a balanced budget without taxing the middle class, and left a surplus. Massachusetts was actually rated 50th in job creation when Romney first got elected and 28th when he left. Pretty big improvement. 47th is the average of those years, we gave Obama a pass the first year so we have to give Romney a pass the first year as well.

I’ll stop arguing on this boring topic now. By the way, large post doesn’t mean right.

I get the feeling you just said Obama supporters never tell the truth or use facts and my post and JohnnyBeGood’s post are not only tl;dr but, in fact false because they are long. You didn’t actually say any of that, but that’s my take away impression from reading this post.

Let’s just say, Obama supporters seem to overlook a lot. they overlook the economy getting weaker, the unemployment figures, Home foreclosures, etc. BTW, didn’t I tell you the unemployment figure would go down just before the election? Well, it did. This is caused by manipulation of the figures to make Obama look better. Now watch the GDP growth spike shortly. More manipulation to make Obama look good. I quite believing these things long ago.

Note: I don’t like the economy more then you do, but Romney who has proposed a budget he says will balance (when it wont). doesn’t give me any more hope for the future. Parties using the figures that make them look best is nothing new. are you saying he’s falsified the numbers? or has tinkered with the economy to give it a politically well timed boost? If you don’t believe in unemployment statistics, and GDP statistics what do you believe in by the way? this isn’t just a case of the numbers don’t agree with me so they must be wrong is it?
that’s a bit worse then the usual bipartisan attitude of the facts don’t agree with me so they must be unimportant.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
The best choice for America is neither Obama nor Romney. But your electoral system does not allow for a true democracy. It never will unless you fix your constitution. Something American politicians of neither political party will do.

Man you people are so stubborn. We are not, nor did we choose pure Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. It is our chosen form of government. It would be like us coming to your country and telling you your form of government sucks and you would be better off being a different type of government. Don’t come on here and tell us we need to do away with our form of government because you don’t like it.

We have several party’s that run for president, but only two strong party’s. One of these two will be president. It’s obvious that we like our form of government so stop telling us we need to change it. I will admit we need to curb the corruption, but I’m betting your country has just as much, if not more, corruption. Yet here you are, complaining about our country. Amazing.

AND,
jake-o is extreeeeemely overly “sensitive” to criticism. We’re NOT talking about him personally. We’re talking about the nation in which he lives. Of course, I think he actually lives in a “nation-in-his-head” where EVERYONE, EVERYTING, etc is to his liking and is therefore—by default—HIM.

Why else would he take such a stance when rational criticism is laid at the U.S.‘s feet? He rants about how “reverse criticism” could be leveled at their nations…..yet, he doesn’t do any and assumes he has “won” that issue. How idiotic. How childishly naive to believe that personal assumption “OBVIOUSLY” equates to reality.
I’m an American,
I say the fucking Electoral Collage is the stoooopidest method of electing anything in this age of instant data. It goes against the very essence of “We the People…”,,,,as if THAT wasn’t already so severely damaged as to make the whole election process little more than a drunken debacle.

There is a whooooole lot more about America that needs “fixing”,,,,
but, it’s ppl like HIM that keeps it from getting done.
All one need do to see this is just go to his posts and start reading (click on his post count).

 
Flag Post

I would vote for Obama of course.

 
Flag Post

Let’s establish a more comprehensive series of choices firstly.

Barack Obama (Democrat)
Mitt Romney (Republican)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Jill Stein (Green)

These are the 4 candidates who are on enough ballots to potentially win presidency without write-ins, in descending order of current polling popularity. Virgil Goode, of the Constitution party, is the most prominent candidate that can win only with write-ins (his potential electoral gains are still 13 votes under the number required to win).

The reason why I bring this up is I’ve been well aware of the “bleak” state of affairs our election process is in. It seems like the sentiment of tiredness from the two party system, who are felt to have very uninspired policies, is popular. So, for all of you who are tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils, note that there are 2 other candidates this year who still have the electoral potential to win presidency. Third party candidates are only unelectable because people aren’t voting for them. This is bad. So, let’s have people be aware of the other policies out there, as America easily has the potential to have a multi-party system, as it did before. Here is a general overview of the policies that each candidate promotes:

Obama:
-Higher taxes, especially on capital gains and the rich
-Eventual withdrawal from the middle east
-Promoting economy via stimulus and bailout banks
-Subsidizing green energy, oil and farmers
-Increased enforcement of war on drugs
-Acceptance of controversial laws such as SOPA and NDAA
-Minor cuts on defence(?), overall federal expansion; does not stress the debt crisis

Romney:
-Lower taxes for all income brackets; primarily middle and upper class
-Likely increased presence in the middle east
-End stimuluses and bailouts
-Likely keep subsidies the same
-Increased enforcement of war on drugs
-Acceptance of controversial bills like SOPA, including potential bills that could outlaw abortion or gay marriage on a federal level
-Cuts on medicare and other entitlements, education, and other public services; outlines national debt as major problem

Johnson:
-Lower taxes for all classes
-ASAP withdrawal from middle east, gradual withdrawal from occupied countries like Germany and other locations of US bases (likely not those in E. Asia); normalize relations with formerly hostile countries
-End stimuluses and bailouts
-End or reduce subsidies for most businesses and individuals
-Decreased enforcement of current drug policy, ultimate goal to legalize all drugs
-No acceptance of controversial bills like SOPA and NDAA
-43% cut on nearly all federal expenditures with exception of SS and veterans benefits; eliminate certain programs and areas of spending

Stein:
-Higher taxes, especially on the rich; redistribution of wealth
-Eventual withdrawal from middle east, normalize relations with formerly hostile countries
-More stimulus, less bailout
-End subsidies for “unclean” business practices, continue/expand green subsidies
-Decreased involvement in war on drugs; legalization of marijuana
-No acceptance of controversial bills regarding internet, bills undermining 2nd amendment likely accepted
-Decrease defense budget, increase budget for stimulus, green energy and entitlements, especially SS

A nice thing that we have now is that for each point I addressed with each candidate, there are at least 2 contrasting ideas, and all 4 seem to have unique views on how government should operate. These choices are therefore much more representative of the differing politics of Americans, and each platform should be considered by anyone who will vote come November.

I personally will vote for Gary Johnson, because I have trouble finding a policy of his I don’t support at least 70%. Taxes on all groups are becoming a burden, and the tax code needs to be reformed. Our foreign policy has unnecessarily bloated our defense spending and strained our diplomatic relations. The stimuluses and bailouts have only seen the hands of bankers and other rich, and are not helping to end the wealth gap and economic recession. Subsidies are unfair ways of the government artificially promoting one business over the other and usurping the principles of popular consumership. The war on drugs has, like 20th century prohibition, yielded not only a rise in drug use but a black market and gang culture that is undermining the security of this country. Bills like SOPA are unwarranted and unacceptable breaches on the freedom and privacy of US citizens and should not be tolerated, even if the proposed intention is good. And finally, nearly all aspects of federal spending are bloated and wasteful, and part of governmental reform should include substantial cuts in the size of federal government. These are policies that he and I agree on, these are among the policies I deem most important in a candidate, and so I will vote for him. And for those who say voting 3rd party is a wasted vote, then let me just say that there is no greater waste of a vote than using your democratic right to endorse the lesser of two evils when a platform you agree with exists and is tangible.

 
Flag Post

Im just cutting in here. If you fall off a cliff with vines hanging along it, you got two choices 1. keep falling to your doom (like the economy) or 2. reach for the vines and it will save you. It might just slow your fall. or it will break and you keep falling. The way I see it. Obama is the first choice and Romney is the second.

 
Flag Post

Dude that’s like saying the united states was anti Asian because of why it entered world war two. Wait bad example, it created internment camps and so on.

Yeah. Glad you sorted that out on your own.

Quick did Israel create internment camps? no. was it attacked first? yes. Well it’s ahead of world war II era united states at least. Oddly enough.

Erm, you haven’t noticed the forced re-settlement of all those Palestinians, I take it?

lets see here: has atomic bomb? US yes. Israel yes. used atomic bomb? Israel no. USA? yes twice, both times on Japan.

Right. Got it. Where is this going?

now to be fair Japan at that time was willing to send people to its death as human bombs. wait why does that sound familiar?. I’ve lost track of the point I was trying to make, and I have no idea what I just argued.

Are…are you trying to be clever here?

 
Flag Post
Quick did Israel create internment camps?

The status of the west bank and Gaza is not a step up. Israel has violated property laws and civilian freedoms in their acquisition and maintenance of those territories. Here’s one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Israel yes. used atomic bomb? Israel no.

This should not be used to deter the fact that Israel 1. Has an estimated 400+ nukes which are purposefully unreported, 2. Israel is one of 4 countries in the world to not sign the NPT, and 3. Israel has implied the threat of a nuclear strike on its enemies (see: “whatever means necessary”). The US has way more nukes but does report them, has signed the NPT and is depleting its stockpile, and has not used the threat of nuclear strike as agressively as Israel since the 1960’s, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I have no doubt that any country that acquired nukes first during WW2 would have used them, so the whole “we were the only ones to use them” is a moot point.
wait why does that sound familiar?

I’d like to see the references to these Palestinian attacks stop. Not because I don’t acknowledge them, but because they are too often used out of proportion to justify Israel’s often criminal actions. The fact of the matter is that both sides have committed atrocities, which is why one shouldn’t be held as a moral standard for the other.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
The best choice for America is neither Obama nor Romney. But your electoral system does not allow for a true democracy. It never will unless you fix your constitution. Something American politicians of neither political party will do.

Man you people are so stubborn. We are not, nor did we choose pure Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. It is our chosen form of government. It would be like us coming to your country and telling you your form of government sucks and you would be better off being a different type of government. Don’t come on here and tell us we need to do away with our form of government because you don’t like it.

We have several party’s that run for president, but only two strong party’s. One of these two will be president. It’s obvious that we like our form of government so stop telling us we need to change it. I will admit we need to curb the corruption, but I’m betting your country has just as much, if not more, corruption. Yet here you are, complaining about our country. Amazing.

Canada also uses first past the post. We have three major national parties, but only two have ever been elected leader. It’s a bad system. Many Canadians acknowledge it; the problem is that it takes a constitutional debate to actually change it, which is way too much work for most politicians.

Sound familiar? It’s ridiculous to slap down foreigners who criticize your form of government, when many Americans are well aware of how dreadful it is – In fact, I’m certain you feel the same way. Think about it: if you could vote for a more conservative candidate than Romney, that wouldn’t be just a throwaway vote, wouldn’t you?

I’d like to see the references to these Palestinian attacks stop. Not because I don’t acknowledge them, but because they are too often used out of proportion to justify Israel’s often criminal actions. The fact of the matter is that both sides have committed atrocities, which is why one shouldn’t be held as a moral standard for the other.

You know the amusing thing about these online israel/palestine debates is just how over-the-top they are. Sometimes I think that, aside from the settler jews and Hamas, all the crazy ideologues on both sides come from outside Israel / palestine. Most ordinary palestinians i’ve met were hugely cynical about the ability of the PA / Hamas to do anything to help make things better. They’re also, for the most part, not as badly treated by the Israelis – at least those arabs who live inside Israel proper. In fact, a number of them are Members of the Knesset. The Israelis, on the other hand, have a surprisingly free press – I’d put Ha’aretz near the top of the best newspapers in the world. They criticize government policy all the time, and most of the backtracking Israel’s had to do over the years (except for the peace flotilla stunt) was because the ordinary Israeli citizens got pissed and demanded inquiries.

Sometimes i think we ought to just let ‘em be. Except we’ve been doing that for sixty years and the assholes in charge on both sides keep screwing things up.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by stormtrooper261:

Im just cutting in here. If you fall off a cliff with vines hanging along it, you got two choices 1. keep falling to your doom (like the economy) or 2. reach for the vines and it will save you. It might just slow your fall. or it will break and you keep falling. The way I see it. Obama is the first choice and Romney is the second.

Or secret option number 3) realise that vines tend to not support that much weight, and there’s actually large body of water not too far below.

And, just a wild question here, which of the two candidates’ policies have we seen work before, or something similar to their policies work?

 
Flag Post

Obamas policies haven’t worked, nor as he kept to his promises. (There’s no secret option, the bottom now has acid :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by stormtrooper261:

Obamas policies haven’t worked,

Not exactly what I asked, but I’ll take whatever slanted “answers” I can get.

nor as he kept to his promises.

And that’s entirely his fault?

(There’s no secret option, the bottom now has acid :)

You completely missed my point, didn’t you?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by stormtrooper261:

Im just cutting in here. If you fall off a cliff with vines hanging along it, you got two choices 1. keep falling to your doom (like the economy) or 2. reach for the vines and it will save you. It might just slow your fall. or it will break and you keep falling. The way I see it. Obama is the first choice and Romney is the second.

Yeah except things can get worse. believe me. The 2nd vine could be explosive, which is where the analogy falls apart. because seriously who mines a vine? besides the economy is recovering, just slowly.

 
Flag Post

Not trying to be a dick, but do you think it’s recovered because of obama, or just the way of things?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by lock_of_fear:
Originally posted by stormtrooper261:

Im just cutting in here. If you fall off a cliff with vines hanging along it, you got two choices 1. keep falling to your doom (like the economy) or 2. reach for the vines and it will save you. It might just slow your fall. or it will break and you keep falling. The way I see it. Obama is the first choice and Romney is the second.

Yeah except things can get worse. believe me. The 2nd vine could be explosive, which is where the analogy falls apart. because seriously who mines a vine? besides the economy is recovering, just slowly.

The 2nd (option) vine is would likely be a slow-death-by-strangulation…..due to being shackled to tasking to make the rich even richer.

I’d rather have an economy built SLOWLY AND BUILT RIGHT than have it in the shitter and sinking even deeper as it ALWAYS will when the wealthy have their “boyz in the hood”.

It takes time to RECOVER from the total DEREGUATED cluster-fuck that Twig left us.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Not trying to be a dick, but do you think it’s recovered because of obama, or just the way of things?

A good question. Only a fool would say it was all Obama’s doing. Just as it’s damn stooopid to say it was ALL Bush’s fault. It takes a consortium of greed & avarice to cause such a mess. It takes a particular kind of greed to set it right again.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by lock_of_fear:
Originally posted by stormtrooper261:

Im just cutting in here. If you fall off a cliff with vines hanging along it, you got two choices 1. keep falling to your doom (like the economy) or 2. reach for the vines and it will save you. It might just slow your fall. or it will break and you keep falling. The way I see it. Obama is the first choice and Romney is the second.

Yeah except things can get worse. believe me. The 2nd vine could be explosive, which is where the analogy falls apart. because seriously who mines a vine? besides the economy is recovering, just slowly.

Maybe, as long as you don’t mean that job wise

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by stormtrooper261:

Maybe, as long as you don’t mean that job wise

I’m sooooo very happy that ya brought up jobs. The GOPers luv to tout just how much unemployment there still is after four years. I ask: how many of those jobs lost are because of Obama’s causing or of his failing? I ask: how many of those jobs were lost FOREVER….having been sent “overseas” (Mexico included) before Obama took office. How many of them were a direct result of those lost jobs….the domino effect? Obama can’t put ppl back to work at jobs that aren’t there. If given a chance, as Pres., he will “encourage” American businesses to “bring home” those jobs. Do ya really, SERIOUSLY think a Republican is going to do something that is atypical for Big Business?

How hard is it to understand that a dollar means much, MUCH more to a rich guy than does the livelihood of a “47%er”.

 
Flag Post

Then why do the democrats talk about all these jobs being created? Are they coming out of thin air? because, like you said, we are losing jobs forever.

 
Flag Post

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-october-4-2012-bill-o-reilly
lol bill o reilly is hilarious.