View Full Version : so who are you voting for?
Steve2383
12-02-2007, 10:30 PM
Duncan Hunter.
He is the only person who's name I have seen on bills that needed to pass things on such important issues like border fences and stuff.
And he's a good guy.
duritz76
12-02-2007, 11:35 PM
I like Ron Paul, but I'm not sure if he has any real chance. He seems like he will make some needed changes
Luck_e
12-03-2007, 06:14 AM
voting on who for what and why?
for me - ron paul because he is one of the few that actually seems to examine the cause of a problem before trying to propose a solution. ron paul because he has a record like no one ever has held in congress and may hold again. ron paul because he argues with logic and historical precedent rather than appealing to emotion and fear. ron paul because he's the only one that seems to understand the fiscal changes going on now and ron paul because he makes sense on all the issues i find important, and most of the ones that i don't.
duritz i think he's the only republican that has a chance, and the only one that is going to give this country a chance at turning itself around!
steve, a bunch of them are for a fence. tancredo is a big border guy too. my boy wants to avoid putting up a fence but use the military to patrol the border.
Steve2383
12-04-2007, 12:28 AM
I know mike, But however, I have only seen 1 name on any bill thats passed which demanded a border fence.
Anyone can say they want a border fence. But Dammit, show me one!!!!
I like Ron Paul on a lot of issues, however, foreign policy is not one of them.
true dat and it sounds like the fence has done well.
and i would advise taking a read of these... http://www.amazon.com/Educating-Rudy-Paul-reading-list/lm/RJML1CA9L0NCZ/ref=cm_lmt_srch_f_2_rsrsrs0
Steve2383
12-07-2007, 01:02 AM
Thanks but Ill pass......
I would advise a couple tours of duty in the middle east.
Luck_e
12-08-2007, 03:07 AM
who cares...they'll be voted in take money from rich big name corporates or special interests groups rape and pillage their communities and then leave when their done.all politicians are lying theiving crooked snakes.
Thanks but Ill pass......
I would advise a couple tours of duty in the middle east.
i'll pass on that one but have plenty of friends who have told me they are not pleased to be nation building.
Steve2383
12-08-2007, 05:27 PM
Right, we do not have a nation building army. We didn't have the manpower after too many years of Clinton.
Wether or not you believe going was the right thing to do, is of course, a matter of opinion.
However, leaving now will just cause us more problems.
danny76
12-08-2007, 08:27 PM
Being a 31 year old disabled american with Spina Bifida., tell me something that a republican will do for me that a democrat wont? Clinton did so much for people like me. He gave me the chance to go back to work while keeping my social security benefits. The only thing that Bush has done is dictate other countries to be like him. He has caused our gas prices to rise out of sight. He has caused the cost of living to go out of sight. He is killing hundreds of our soldiers by sending them to a country that has no desire to change. What those people are going through is their problem, not ours.
if leaving now is a bad idea, i'd in the least like to see some real indication of a plan of actually leaving. this thing is a perpetual war, and so is the "war on terror" ambiguously defining whoever we want to be terrorists. are we safer today than before it started? i certainly do not think so.
danny, health care is a problem but i don't believe uhc is the answer. it is certainly not as rosey as moore makes it out to be in sicko. the republicans want a situation where health care is earned and not given, and want to take steps towards making it more affordable for those who can't get it today. the democrats want to move to a system where it is merely given. anywhere uhc is in place today, free market/private solutions are stepping it to fill the gap in quality/availability it leaves. i'd rather see a private market like ours as the fundamental system, and a patch with a social program where it left off - not the other way around as is seen in canada and france and such.
your only real strong anti-nation building/pro-peace candidates are ron paul and a few democrats; kucinich and gravel. not sure about the others. paul is the strongest anti-iraq war candidate in terms of polling to my knowledge. he also has the backing of several experts, and IMO is the strongest anti-iraq war debater - youtube "freedomfest" to watch a very impressive 7 part debate of arguments for/against iraq. it really is quite excellent.
cost of living is a problem because of geopolitical tensions as well as plain old spending, much for the war. paul is the only candidate addressing inflation or monetary/fiscal policy at all. if the gov doesn't get enough money through taxes, it borrows money - we owe china many many billions for the war so far. when we still don't have enough, the fed simply makes it. these newly made dollars are not newly made wealth - their wealth is created by stealing a little bit of purchasing power out of every existing dollar. we do enough of this and you have inflation. people who create the new money don't get hard as people on the bottom (the poor) who create little and instead just feel the effects that all the extra money has once the system has adapted to it - which means prices were raised. if you got a 3% this year but inflation was also 3%, you have more dollars this year but they buy you the same amount of stuff this year. inflation on a personal level is different for everyone and is determined by what you actually spend your money on. governments around the world lie about their inflation levels, and it is in their best interest to do so. i think the us statistic (cpi) is fiddled with plenty itself to be reported unrealistically low. shadowstats.com keeps track of what they think inflation is really running at - personally i feel this method may be archaic and too high but nonetheless is of interest. inflation is basically a stealthily collected tax on anyone holding a dollar. our strong inflation now is causing other countries to consider getting rid of their dollar assets. or pegs to the dollar in countries with fixed exchange rates. the dollar internationally is losing a lot of purchasing power lately - technically there's no reason right now for it to do anything but go lower. domestically it is also not much better. it is depcreciating badly enough to make the current stock market look like it's booming when in terms of real value, it's really not changing much at all.
i personally have been buying gold/silver to hedge against this, both of which have gotten pretty good news lately. geopolitical tensions push the prices of these as well. if we bomb iran we'd be well on our way to $200 oil, i don't think anyone is stupid enough to do that right now. ok giuliani pry is. his foreign policy advisor is certainly nuts. the fed can also make the mistake of setting the price of money too low, at least per austrian economic thought - which creates bubbles such as the .com and housing bubbles. paul is an austrian economist and wants to get rid of the fed and moved to a gold based standard. he wants to do this a pretty ingenious way; by removing taxes on gold and letting it operate as a competing currency.
your USD needs to at least earn interest at the rate of actual to you inflation this year for it to be able to buy you the same amount of stuff next year as you can today. with gold you should merely be able to buy the same amount; 1 oz of gold today should buy you the same amount of widgets today as 1 oz of gold will buy you in 10 years - regardless of whatever the price is. the belief is that over time the free market/people will choose to hold their money in this gold backed currency vs. hold it in dollars, up to the point where the federal reserve is no longer needed and can be abolished.
cuckoldedkid
12-10-2007, 02:07 PM
Well, being a democrat...It's come down to Obama or Hillary. Lovely choices. Hell, living in Arizona...I WOULD have voted for McCain, even if he is a Republican. But it seems like here lately, he'll say or do anything to be elected. I guess I'd have to say Hillary. (I know I know), Obama's just a lil' too inexperienced right now. BUt I guess anyone one but the Current Occupent would be fine by me.
cuckoldedkid
12-10-2007, 02:18 PM
Steve, I have to politely agree to disagree with you. When Clinton was in office, we didn't really need a nation building army. (And I'm an air force brat.) What he screwed up on was information gathering. Too many satellites, not enough real spies. And as far as Iraq goes, I don't think we need to be there, but as you said it's just an opinion. As far as Afghanistan goes, I think we were justified in going there. As far as staying in Iraq, you know that no matter how long we stay there, the minute the troops leave it'll all go to hell. The history of that region has always been violence. And I'm not trying to be racial when I say that. You look at the history of the whole Middle East, and somebody's ALWAYS at war with somebody. Iraq/Iran. Libya, Syria and don't forget they all still hate Israel. I just think get the Fu*k outta Iraq and use those forces in Afghanistan. And if you tell me I'm a crackpot, so be it. LOL
cuckold... you do not seem excited by obama or hillary, so why leave yourself to a partisan choice? and vote for mccain because he's in arizona??
anyone but the current occupant isn't fine for me, i think hillary and rudy are both worse!!
i ask you to take a look at ronpaullibrary.org and ask yourself if these comments on issues you are interested in make sense. plenty of seeing the man speak available on youtube as well.
i liked billy clinton because he was a conservative democrat. the totally liberal guys i think are crazy.
cuckoldedkid
12-10-2007, 02:42 PM
You know...I like Ron Paul, but he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. Anybody with integrity never does. And as I said I'm a democrat, but I'll vote for the best man or woman, regardless of politics. You know I think Hillary is demonized a lot for having a set of balls and playing where the big boys play. Is she perfect..? No. Are any of us..? As I said, I liked McCain. even voted for him back when he was running against Bush. (Didn't like Gore. Too wooden.) But the "outlaw" conservative is just turning out to be another one of the phonies. And I won't even get into Rudy. Foreign policy..? 9/11. Domestic Security..? 9/11. Everything he does. 9/11. Hell, he wants to prove how much he loved New York, maybe he should gotten the walkie talkies fixed, so they could of got the firefighters out before the towers fell. you know the same ones that didn't work the first time the bombed the WTC. (Sorry about the rant.)
i liked how mccain used to sound, he sounded good in the docu why we fight too. but he appears to have changed. any of the dems i actually gravitate towards liking more *really* have no chance. paul does have a chance - your impression of him not is only based on polls, not issues, am i correct?
polls are quite susceptible to manipulation, and shouldn't be taken account for who you're voting for anyway. if you want gravel then pick gravel. supporting real candidates is the only way we'll ever have any change. did you know kerry was polling 5-15% this time last year? yet he got the nomination. primary polling is a poor predictor. not only that, but the field is very dilluted now, many republicans are disenfranchised, and much polling only calls people who voted in the last primary - primarily bush voters!
here are 2 things you should consider for "doesn't have a chance" ron paul -
1. primaries are significantly about voter turnout - many people are still undecided or barely convicted to a candidate. polls have shown that the paul supporters are the most convicted to their candidate as a whole - if you research paul grassroots for 30 seconds this is actually obvious. paul supporters ARE going to be there. this matters a lot, especially in such a dilluted field.
2. fundraising support is certainly an indicator of support. Q3 rudy raised 10.258 mil (the most) for the primaries from many rich rich guys. paul today, still has an uphill battle with name recognition. paul has 10.85 million as i'm typing this, many from little guys. you may have heard that we are having a tea party on the 16th (and you're invited!) - paul WILL be setting the all-time fundraising record for a 24 hour period.
duritz76
12-11-2007, 11:11 AM
so what would it take to make Ron Paul a viable candidate?
read up on him, donate, talk to your friends; if you can convince 2 and they can convince 2 there ya go... i don't think it is difficult convincing a majority of people to vote for him, but he does need help having people made aware of him. almost everybody that knows me knows i am for him that is for sure!
xsmokinbodyx
12-11-2007, 10:33 PM
for me - ron paul because he is one of the few that actually seems to examine the cause of a problem before trying to propose a solution. ron paul because he has a record like no one ever has held in congress and may hold again. ron paul because he argues with logic and historical precedent rather than appealing to emotion and fear. ron paul because he's the only one that seems to understand the fiscal changes going on now and ron paul because he makes sense on all the issues i find important, and most of the ones that i don't
i agree :ditto:
no one!!! hahaha jk i really dont know i dont pay attention!!!!
BelowFrosty
12-12-2007, 04:24 PM
Not voting dont complain so dont worry bout me complaining about the person thats in.
Cinjun
12-12-2007, 11:20 PM
So far I like Obama.
no one!!! hahaha jk i really dont know i dont pay attention!!!!
you should start, people being apathetic is what gets us into trouble! and you need to clean your mirror btw ;p
btvphotography
12-14-2007, 09:25 AM
I'm just gonna sit back and let everyone else decide for me and then I'm gonna bitch about the shitty decision everyone made.......:twoup:
So far I like Obama.
what appeals to you about obama? i liked his comeback to the hillary cackle advisor question in the last debate. :)
Steve2383
12-20-2007, 01:27 AM
Steve, I have to politely agree to disagree with you. When Clinton was in office, we didn't really need a nation building army. (And I'm an air force brat.) What he screwed up on was information gathering. Too many satellites, not enough real spies. And as far as Iraq goes, I don't think we need to be there, but as you said it's just an opinion. As far as Afghanistan goes, I think we were justified in going there. As far as staying in Iraq, you know that no matter how long we stay there, the minute the troops leave it'll all go to hell. The history of that region has always been violence. And I'm not trying to be racial when I say that. You look at the history of the whole Middle East, and somebody's ALWAYS at war with somebody. Iraq/Iran. Libya, Syria and don't forget they all still hate Israel. I just think get the Fu*k outta Iraq and use those forces in Afghanistan. And if you tell me I'm a crackpot, so be it. LOL
Your not a crackpot.
Listen, in the next 12-15 months information is going to come out that is gonna change the way you look at this war.
If I was president right now, and for the last 6 years, Foreign policy wise, I would do moslty the same as Bush.
Domestically, No. No NAFTA, NO Amensty, and a big border fence. and I would be able to stand my ground and be able to respond to the illegitimate left that has take over the Democratic party (JFK, god bless his soul, is spinning in his grave.). He has failed on those which is why he only has a 30% approval rateing.
The president faild to understand the first rule of Washington. That is... People are policy! He has not been able to recover since. Maybe be a better man would have.
Davey
12-20-2007, 10:54 AM
Hrmm I'm voting for Edwards. He seems like he won't screw us over that much. In the Imortal words of Cheech Martin- All politicians are lying cocksuckers.
what do you think will happen in the next 12-15 months that would make someone change how they look at the war?
even if we "win" - which i don't think is possible since that is so ambiguously defined, we'll have paid a retarded amount of money, owe many billions and billions more to china, have lost american lives, and i don't think will be any safer. we were attacked because of our intervention and military presence in the region. now we've had more intervention and an even greater presence with the massive permanent base they are building. you don't expect any "blowback" from that?
kempenstein
12-20-2007, 09:10 PM
Duncan Hunter 08!!!
Steve2383
12-21-2007, 03:38 PM
what do you think will happen in the next 12-15 months that would make someone change how they look at the war?
even if we "win" - which i don't think is possible since that is so ambiguously defined, we'll have paid a retarded amount of money, owe many billions and billions more to china, have lost american lives, and i don't think will be any safer. we were attacked because of our intervention and military presence in the region. now we've had more intervention and an even greater presence with the massive permanent base they are building. you don't expect any "blowback" from that?
Tell you what, you can find out about 1. Ahmed Chalabi, the real story about him, good luck finding it. Your not going to find it on Wikipedia.
2. The INC, and how how it got screwed by CIA Agents and State department officals that directly sabatoged our war and reconstruction efforts.
3. All the liars and scumbags in Congress, Dick Durbin, Ted Levin...ect
4. All the "agents like Valrie Plame ,and Joe Wilson who are liars, and they are protected by the Elite Media.
5. And finally, most importantly, who benefits the most from an instabile Middle East.
Blowback?
Chalmers Johnson knows about Jack and Shit about what we did in foreign country's to help them, or sometimes unintenionally hurt them in the longrun.
And let me tell you what, Jack left town.
Here we have a fundamental disagreement Mike.
As far China and our Debt.......Agreed.
Too much government spending. Aside from the war effort, just in General.
As abstract as you might think it is, the price of "loseing," will still be far greater then the price of "winning".
we will see how this eventually ends, and what it does to our economy, our reputation, our friends/enemies abroad. i don't know when it will end but i'd bet that it will ultimately end similar to vietnam. i also expect some blowback some time due to our intervention - not because i'm eating apple pie and watching baseball. time will most certainly tell.
Steve2383
12-22-2007, 03:46 PM
we will see how this eventually ends, and what it does to our economy, our reputation, our friends/enemies abroad. i don't know when it will end but i'd bet that it will ultimately end similar to vietnam. i also expect some blowback some time due to our intervention - not because i'm eating apple pie and watching baseball. time will most certainly tell.
Fair enough.
If you are so concerned about "Blowback". Just remember, Doing nothing also has its consequences.
RakeDaLeaves
12-28-2007, 10:42 AM
RON PAUL 08!
WHY:
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
He is leading all candidates in donations from current military employees.
He raised over 4.3 million dollars setting the record for most money raised by a republican in one day.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
He has delivered over 4,000 babies
GOOGLE RON PAUL
kolpaz
12-29-2007, 12:31 PM
interesting, rakedaleaves, well I'm off to google ron paul.
i'd only vote for you as vp sorry!
Personally I'd love to see Ron Paul become President of your Country. Bush has destroyed your Economy and that effects us up here since we are your biggest trading partner. Ron Paul knows numbers and understands taxes.
If I was to pick a Dem I would pick Obama or Edwards, because they both seem genuine, even if they lack experience. Clinton would just be a tool to the Corporations like Bush, that I am certain.
ewww i dont want a girl president.....i dont think they can make decisions like guys when it comes to war and bombing
Brandi
01-06-2008, 05:37 PM
haha funny roxy. i am really torn on who to vote for
looking like you won't have to worry about it... at least i hope hillary doesn't get the nomination. i'd like to see paul vs. obama
Irish21
01-08-2008, 05:10 PM
looking like you won't have to worry about it... at least i hope hillary doesn't get the nomination. i'd like to see paul vs. obama
i dont think paul will win the nomination...i hope obama does though
i'm hoping he does well enough to go independent. we'll see how he does in NH. i hope obama wins the dem nomination and it looks like he's on the way there. if there's no paul in the general election obama will get my vote. hopefully this will spur the republicans to rediscover what true republicanism is.
Steve2383
01-08-2008, 09:04 PM
i'm hoping he does well enough to go independent. we'll see how he does in NH. i hope obama wins the dem nomination and it looks like he's on the way there. if there's no paul in the general election obama will get my vote. hopefully this will spur the republicans to rediscover what true republicanism is.
I dont agree with you on that much.
However, Paul's domestic policies would definatly help right now.
We are becoming a welfare state. With open borders, that will combine to destroy the US as we know it.
i see the dems taking us further there with UHC. i like that obama lets you opt out of his plan.
drshmoo11
01-10-2008, 12:03 AM
I agree a lot with Ron Paul on many things. He is a very good candidate. However I agree a lot with Mike Huckabee as well. You can say what you want, but I find him very likable and have watched / read a lot pertaining to him. As long as either Ron Paul or Huckabee win nomination I am pleased. As long as Hilary doesn't win nomination I am also pleased.
i find huckabee likeable, but because he is a good speaker and appeals to emotion well. when i use my thinkbone i wonder how someone can be in the republican party while raising taxes so much.
Steve2383
01-10-2008, 10:44 PM
i find huckabee likeable, but because he is a good speaker and appeals to emotion well. when i use my thinkbone i wonder how someone can be in the republican party while raising taxes so much.
the only justification is to curb government spending.
G.H.W. Bush raised taxes on his term.
all these guys are big gov. i really like paul's answer here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk
tAtIAnA
01-11-2008, 03:26 AM
I don't like how we say "take money from rich" and everyone's like, ohh, that's needed! But really "rich" is someone making like 200,000/yr. That's really not "rich". People making 200/yr need that money and work hard for it. We are at no liberty to take that from them.
Steve2383
01-11-2008, 09:29 PM
I don't like how we say "take money from rich" and everyone's like, ohh, that's needed! But really "rich" is someone making like 200,000/yr. That's really not "rich". People making 200/yr need that money and work hard for it. We are at no liberty to take that from them.
absolutely.
What right does anyone have to take money away from people who work hard for it.
And to rely on Goverment to have it, No Friggin Way!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk
i like when he gets going at the end, because the idea really does sound so absurd.
dsim1733
01-12-2008, 01:58 PM
I will probablly vote for barack obama, because i like what hes talkin about. And of course hate Hillary Clinton!!!
i was settling for obama for 2nd but he's becoming a more distant 2nd now. i don't like a lot of his viewpoints but at least a few i thought were in the right direction, although i'm wondering more what change he can initiate it and if it's really any good/better.
Jeannie
01-14-2008, 09:26 PM
I'm Canadian, so i won't be voting for anyone...but I do confess to being somewhat fascinated by the entire process.
drshmoo11
01-14-2008, 10:36 PM
I really like that the people here realize that socialist taxes are a terrible idea.
RakeDaLeaves
01-21-2008, 10:11 AM
VOTE RON PAUL!
psychiria
01-21-2008, 03:24 PM
Why don't you all do what most other people seem to be doing and vote for whoever shares the same religion that you do?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/blackwomen.voters/index.html
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
god forbid they look at issues rather that make that difficult choice of deciding to vote for someone because of race or gender! fucking ridiculous
KurtDK
01-22-2008, 03:25 PM
I don't like how we say "take money from rich" and everyone's like, ohh, that's needed! But really "rich" is someone making like 200,000/yr. That's really not "rich". People making 200/yr need that money and work hard for it. We are at no liberty to take that from them.
I agree totally, earning $200.000 a year dosnt make you rich, you have to earn much more than that to be considered rich.
obama wants to up capital gains taxes...
also i think up them on anyone making more than 90k a year which certainly is not rich either.
Steve2383
01-24-2008, 10:04 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/blackwomen.voters/index.html
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
god forbid they look at issues rather that make that difficult choice of deciding to vote for someone because of race or gender! fucking ridiculous
But thats ABSURD!!! (Sarcasim)
and why?
have to wait, I usually toss a coin and see who wins ;) :grin61:
SketchballEd
01-25-2008, 10:36 PM
obama wants to up capital gains taxes...
also i think up them on anyone making more than 90k a year which certainly is not rich either.
speak for yourself, i barely pass $10k. this is just me but i believe that if your income surpasses 100,000 a year you should be obligated to have a third of it go towards a tax that will go towards school funding, social security (so that it still exists ten years from now), and anything else currently swirling the bowl. and for every person who has an additional 100k the same applies. you get a million for an income, you pay roughly $330,000 since beyond your basic living essentials (and i don't mean porsches and thousand dollar martinis) and enough to cover some expense who needs that much money? i mean christ, if i do manage to become a film maker and make a shit-ton of money i'm gonna wind up giving a way a large sum of it since really i don't find it necessary to just have it lying around, put it to good use. it's ridiculous the calloused greedy fuckers roll around in the cotton slips when people are getting the boot from their homes. to pull a quote from jean-paul sartre, "when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die."
EDIT: if the people that make this obscene amount of money work hard for it then they shouldn't have much problem giving some of it in hopes it'll get put to good use. they bust their balls to get that much there shouldn't be any issue getting their hands more dirty.
anyways... as for who i'm voting for, i'll vote for whoever can ask a question truthfully and thoroughly since everything i've heard thus-far is the same tiresome style -- hollowed and vague.
"I plan to lower taxes and utilizing many of our own systems to help increase our economy."
"Excuse me, how do you plan to do that?"
"Pardon?"
"How do you plan to do such a thing?"
"... Fuck."
Steve2383
01-26-2008, 02:39 PM
speak for yourself, i barely pass $10k. this is just me but i believe that if your income surpasses 100,000 a year you should be obligated to have a third of it go towards a tax that will go towards school funding, social security (so that it still exists ten years from now), and anything else currently swirling the bowl. and for every person who has an additional 100k the same applies. you get a million for an income, you pay roughly $330,000 since beyond your basic living essentials (and i don't mean porsches and thousand dollar martinis) and enough to cover some expense who needs that much money? i mean christ, if i do manage to become a film maker and make a shit-ton of money i'm gonna wind up giving a way a large sum of it since really i don't find it necessary to just have it lying around, put it to good use. it's ridiculous the calloused greedy fuckers roll around in the cotton slips when people are getting the boot from their homes. to pull a quote from jean-paul sartre, "when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die."
EDIT: if the people that make this obscene amount of money work hard for it then they shouldn't have much problem giving some of it in hopes it'll get put to good use. they bust their balls to get that much there shouldn't be any issue getting their hands more dirty.
anyways... as for who i'm voting for, i'll vote for whoever can ask a question truthfully and thoroughly since everything i've heard thus-far is the same tiresome style -- hollowed and vague.
"I plan to lower taxes and utilizing many of our own systems to help increase our economy."
"Excuse me, how do you plan to do that?"
"Pardon?"
"How do you plan to do such a thing?"
"... Fuck."
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Who the fuck are you take money away from people who earn it and it give it to others who don't.
What would be the incentive to work hard?
This welfare state bullshit will be the downfall of any immigrant nation.
sketch, that's great that you want to give all that money away, and shouldn't it be your choice, not the government's?
i've paid 30k into social security, i'll never see a penny of that back. it's a stupid socialistic system. socialism fails, haven't you noticed that in every other government around the world? if it hasn't failed yet it's just working it's way there while squandering wealth. social security has been working x many years because the us is a rich nation. all that does it make these programs fail more slowly. i can save my own money for retirement, i shouldn't be compelled to join a program by the government that is destined to collapse.
and just because you make 10k does not mean someone with 100k is rich. it is most definitely in middle class america.
regarding assisting the economy, i don't think this silly economic stimulus package is going to work. i do think it is going to drive up inflation (Which hurts the poor the most) - some better options i think are available here - http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity
“We need a plan that stimulates savings and production not more of the reckless borrowing and consumption that got us into this mess in the first place. Ron Paul’s plan is the only one that amounts to a step in the right direction.
If you want meaningful change - for the better that is - Ron Paul is the only candidate capable of delivering it. The others merely promise to continue the failed policies that are at the root of our current economic problems.”
-Peter Schiff, Economic Advisor to Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, January 2008
how are we fixing the too low interest rates that caused the housing bubble?
we're lowering interest rates.
how are we fixing all of the savingsless debt ridden consumers that have been inflating our economy?
we're sending them all checks and praying they consume with them (instead of save or pay down debt)
SketchballEd
01-26-2008, 07:09 PM
valid points. being bitter these past couple days and on the financial end of the shit stick it clouds judgement. i suppose it's more so the bastards who do so little to get so much that infuriate me. i'd point out examples but it's mainly hollywood douchebags who call what they do art when in fact it's just getting a check since their care of art in film extends to fuck all. i suppose in these times i'm waiting for the asteroid to crash. very dark outlook but either way if the world should be completely engulfed in flames i shall roast marshmallows. if you're gonna go out then go out smiling.
geez dude that is pretty dark what's going on? and who cares if hollywood dbag has money or not. should not affect how you live your own life.
SketchballEd
01-26-2008, 09:30 PM
well i could sum it up, but without going back several months with mildly unwanted history it seems like the tiresome story. but more or less it's a situation involving walking on a tight rope to live. and it's not so much a hollywood jerk off having money but an excess of it not really putting any use to it, in paticular anything good (a swishy bit.) and in a roundabout way it slightly affects how it's run since i aim to become a filmmaker, though like a mediocre asian prostitute i can do the job good for cheap. i almost made a very visual, well-drawn out short film for almost nothing but unfortunately had to bail on it for many reasons almost beyond my control.
golfiscool
01-31-2008, 12:49 PM
No one impresses me right now. I wish that John Kerry was running again. I think he would do a great job as President. That's who I voted for the last go around.
jessep28
02-02-2008, 06:03 PM
I don't like anyone either. My man Rudy had to drop out so I guess I am going for McCain.
National Taxpayers Union: Only Ron Paul Would Cut Spending
NTU Report: Other Republicans would increase spending by billions
According to a report released Tuesday by the National Taxpayers Union, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is the only remaining presidential candidate who proposes net spending cuts.
According to the report, Congressman Paul’s proposals would cut government spending by over $150 billion, a conservative estimate of the spending reductions Dr. Paul has proposed. The report concludes that the other remaining Republican candidates, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee, have proposed spending increases of $19.5 billion, $6.9 billion and $54 billion respectively.
what happened to mccain's veto pen??
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.