|
On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask.
I'm confused xDaunt. IIRC the republicans refused to go along with the Obama deficit proposal in August. This was just after the debt ceiling debacle. The reps were going on about reducing the deficit but wouldn't agree to the trillions of cuts that Obama was proposing. The subcommittee was supposed to solve this and the penalty for failure was these massive enforced cuts. Now yes, the democrats chose the target, but that was hardly what they pushing for. Obama's original plan was poo-pooed by the Reps and neither side could come to an agreement, hence these cuts.
I don't see this as democrat policy, the policy was rejected by reps and this is the consequence. Am I missing something?
|
On January 17 2012 12:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask. Well how much do you need exactly? You already outspend all the defence budgets of the world combined. Who exactly can challenge American preponderance?
China can and will by about 2050 according to some estimates.
|
Damn. Newt just slammed Romney.
|
Canada11373 Posts
On January 17 2012 12:43 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:41 Falling wrote:On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask. Well how much do you need exactly? You already outspend all the defence budgets of the world combined. Who exactly can challenge American preponderance? China can and will by about 2050 according to some estimates.
Well that's quite aways in the future. It doesn't make much sense to strain your budget for a possible rival 40 years in the future. Keeping economically viable would probably be better in the long term as the military is a giant black hole that can always receive more money.
Geez. This Super PAC seems to have created a complete lack of responsibility and lack of control on a campaign's message.
|
On January 17 2012 12:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Damn. Newt just slammed Romney.
How? Details man, I'm always stuck at work for these =/ Hell, if someone wanted to give a play by play there's an internet high five in it for them...
|
I sure am glad everyone got equal time to speak and get their opinions out.
|
Canada11373 Posts
Post-debate analysis. Debate was awesome-sauce. :S
|
On January 17 2012 12:43 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask. I'm confused xDaunt. IIRC the republicans refused to go along with the Obama deficit proposal in August. This was just after the debt ceiling debacle. The reps were going on about reducing the deficit but wouldn't agree to the trillions of cuts that Obama was proposing. The subcommittee was supposed to solve this and the penalty for failure was these massive enforced cuts. Now yes, the democrats chose the target, but that was hardly what they pushing for. Obama's original plan was poo-pooed by the Reps and neither side could come to an agreement, hence these cuts. I don't see this as democrat policy, the policy was rejected by reps and this is the consequence. Am I missing something?
I don't see what's so hard about this issue to understand. Who do you think insisted that the military spending cuts be part of the automatic budget cuts? DEMOCRATS. There was not one republican (other than possibly Ron Paul) who wanted to have those cuts in there. However, to get the deal passed, republicans relented, hoping (perhaps naively) that the super committee would come to an agreement that would prevent those cuts from going into effect. This obviously didn't happen.
Here's the point. The democrat party has a long history of reducing military spending. This isn't new. They have continuously run on the platform of reducing military spending to further fund social spending since Jimmy Carter's administration. Obviously, I strongly disagree with that policy, but that's not the reason why I'm jumping all over StealthBlue. This is what he said:
Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed.
The obvious point that he was implying is that republicans are just as responsible for those cuts as Obama/the democrats. This implication is utterly absurd at best and disingenuous at worst. I accept that people are going to disagree with my political views. However, all that I ask is that they do so honestly.
|
I'm surprised they're even showing positive results for Ron Paul, thought the media/government was doing everything possible to get rid of him.
|
On January 17 2012 12:53 Falling wrote:
Post-debate analysis. Debate was awesome-sauce. :S
Did it get as hot as when Rick Perry and Romney faced off regarding hiring illegal worker?
|
On January 17 2012 12:53 Falling wrote:
Post-debate analysis. Debate was awesome-sauce. :S
Yeah that made me cringe, interesting debate, Romney didn't screw up majorly at all so he should still be a easy favorite.
|
On January 17 2012 12:30 NtroP wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:17 Kiarip wrote:On January 17 2012 12:12 NtroP wrote:
His economic policy would simply pull our currency out of the grip of the federal reserve and tie it to something more than hopes and dreams. I've seen the price of FOOD jump about 50%+ in the last 5 years. come on that's impossible the inflation is only 1.5%... lol Um? I can go to the grocery store and quote some prices to you... I'll let google help me. Prices on beef: http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/beef.htmlChicken: http://www.mongabay.com/commodities/price-charts/price-of-chicken.htmlI apologize for using one source, but if anyone else has been buying and cooking their own food in the last 5-10 years, I'm sure they can back me up. Sorry for going off topic.
was being sarcastic  but yeah, food is getting way to expensive
|
Canada11373 Posts
Huh, they do bring up positioning Ron Paul on the end despite getting second/ third in the last two primaries. And an acknowledgement that they need Ron Paul's young voters.
|
On January 17 2012 12:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:43 Probulous wrote:On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask. I'm confused xDaunt. IIRC the republicans refused to go along with the Obama deficit proposal in August. This was just after the debt ceiling debacle. The reps were going on about reducing the deficit but wouldn't agree to the trillions of cuts that Obama was proposing. The subcommittee was supposed to solve this and the penalty for failure was these massive enforced cuts. Now yes, the democrats chose the target, but that was hardly what they pushing for. Obama's original plan was poo-pooed by the Reps and neither side could come to an agreement, hence these cuts. I don't see this as democrat policy, the policy was rejected by reps and this is the consequence. Am I missing something? I don't see what's so hard about this issue to understand. Who do you think insisted that the military spending cuts be part of the automatic budget cuts? DEMOCRATS. There was not one republican (other than possibly Ron Paul) who wanted to have those cuts in there. However, to get the deal passed, republicans relented, hoping (perhaps naively) that the super committee would come to an agreement that would prevent those cuts from going into effect. This obviously didn't happen. Here's the point. The democrat party has a long history of reducing military spending. This isn't new. They have continuously run on the platform of reducing military spending to further fund social spending since Jimmy Carter's administration. Obviously, I strongly disagree with that policy, but that's not the reason why I'm jumping all over StealthBlue. This is what he said: Show nested quote + Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. The obvious point that he was implying is that republicans are just as responsible for those cuts as Obama/the democrats. This implication is utterly absurd at best and disingenuous at worst. I accept that people are going to disagree with my political views. However, all that I ask is that they do so honestly.
Fair enough, but you if the Reps agreed to the punishments set for the super committee failing, then they agreed to the cuts. Just because it is Dems policy doesn't mean the Reps didn't agree to it? I don't see the implication in the statement. He is saying the same thing as you, take responsibility for the decisions and positions you put forward. The fact was they made the decision to accept the agreement, blaiming the consequences on Obama is blatantly abdicating their responsibility in the matter.
|
On January 17 2012 12:56 durza wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:53 Falling wrote:
Post-debate analysis. Debate was awesome-sauce. :S Yeah that made me cringe, interesting debate, Romney didn't screw up majorly at all so he should still be a easy favorite.
I think that romney definitely screwed up. He didn't seem as confident with his answers and newt plus rick slammed him hard both at the start and at the end of the race.
And god that crowd seemed hostile towards pauls foreign policy. At least he was able to redeem himself with the war mongering idea that he uses.
I read before that fox hires their crowd specifically those that are as biased as the news organization. Anyone confirm or deny that fact
|
On January 17 2012 12:17 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:12 NtroP wrote:
His economic policy would simply pull our currency out of the grip of the federal reserve and tie it to something more than hopes and dreams. I've seen the price of FOOD jump about 50%+ in the last 5 years. come on that's impossible the inflation is only 1.5%... lol
The fact is that the prices on several agricultural products have increased dramatically in recent years. Some of the increase is because of bad harvests around the world: Russian and Australia in particular (drought in Russia and flooding in Australia). At the same time basic foodstocks have entered the stock exchange, making for another middle man to feed in the chain.
The rise in food prices are not well explained by inflation, it has to do with these other circumstances and probably more that I havent thought about.
|
On January 17 2012 13:02 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:43 Probulous wrote:On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask. I'm confused xDaunt. IIRC the republicans refused to go along with the Obama deficit proposal in August. This was just after the debt ceiling debacle. The reps were going on about reducing the deficit but wouldn't agree to the trillions of cuts that Obama was proposing. The subcommittee was supposed to solve this and the penalty for failure was these massive enforced cuts. Now yes, the democrats chose the target, but that was hardly what they pushing for. Obama's original plan was poo-pooed by the Reps and neither side could come to an agreement, hence these cuts. I don't see this as democrat policy, the policy was rejected by reps and this is the consequence. Am I missing something? I don't see what's so hard about this issue to understand. Who do you think insisted that the military spending cuts be part of the automatic budget cuts? DEMOCRATS. There was not one republican (other than possibly Ron Paul) who wanted to have those cuts in there. However, to get the deal passed, republicans relented, hoping (perhaps naively) that the super committee would come to an agreement that would prevent those cuts from going into effect. This obviously didn't happen. Here's the point. The democrat party has a long history of reducing military spending. This isn't new. They have continuously run on the platform of reducing military spending to further fund social spending since Jimmy Carter's administration. Obviously, I strongly disagree with that policy, but that's not the reason why I'm jumping all over StealthBlue. This is what he said: Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. The obvious point that he was implying is that republicans are just as responsible for those cuts as Obama/the democrats. This implication is utterly absurd at best and disingenuous at worst. I accept that people are going to disagree with my political views. However, all that I ask is that they do so honestly. Fair enough, but you if the Reps agreed to the punishments set for the super committee failing, then they agreed to the cuts. Just because it is Dems policy doesn't mean the Reps didn't agree to it? I don't see the implication in the statement. He is saying the same thing as you, take responsibility for the decisions and positions you put forward. The fact was they made the decision to accept the agreement, blaiming the consequences on Obama is blatantly abdicating their responsibility in the matter.
The alternatives were to refuse to raise the debt ceiling or to give Obama a blank check debt ceiling raise. Neither is particularly good. Basically, the democrats didn't give republicans much of a choice. Consequently, I have absolutely no problem laying 100% of the blame at the feet of democrats for the military reductions. Think about it this way, if the republicans introduced a bill to reverse the automatic military spending cuts (which they absolutely would if they thought it would pass), do you think that democrats would support it? Hell no.
|
On January 17 2012 13:05 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:17 Kiarip wrote:On January 17 2012 12:12 NtroP wrote:
His economic policy would simply pull our currency out of the grip of the federal reserve and tie it to something more than hopes and dreams. I've seen the price of FOOD jump about 50%+ in the last 5 years. come on that's impossible the inflation is only 1.5%... lol The fact is that the prices on several agricultural products have increased dramatically in recent years. Some of the increase is because of bad harvests around the world: Russian and Australia in particular (drought in Russia and flooding in Australia). At the same time basic foodstocks have entered the stock exchange, making for another middle man to feed in the chain. The rise in food prices are not well explained by inflation, it has to do with these other circumstances and probably more that I havent thought about.
*cough* ETHANOL *cough*
|
On January 17 2012 13:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 13:05 radiatoren wrote:On January 17 2012 12:17 Kiarip wrote:On January 17 2012 12:12 NtroP wrote:
His economic policy would simply pull our currency out of the grip of the federal reserve and tie it to something more than hopes and dreams. I've seen the price of FOOD jump about 50%+ in the last 5 years. come on that's impossible the inflation is only 1.5%... lol The fact is that the prices on several agricultural products have increased dramatically in recent years. Some of the increase is because of bad harvests around the world: Russian and Australia in particular (drought in Russia and flooding in Australia). At the same time basic foodstocks have entered the stock exchange, making for another middle man to feed in the chain. The rise in food prices are not well explained by inflation, it has to do with these other circumstances and probably more that I havent thought about. *cough* ETHANOL *cough*
Is another brick in the wall, yes!
|
Canada11373 Posts
Wait. Why do they keep saying it's a two person race between Romney and Gingerich? Gingerich has been doing terrible at the primaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
