|
|
On August 01 2012 07:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:48 Risen wrote:
No response from xDaunt on this? Didn't think there would be since there is no defending oneself against issues like this, but I thought at least he'd try. (I'm assuming he's going to be voting Republican and not Democrat in the upcoming election. If he's going to be voting Libertarian I take back all the mean nasty feelings I have for him) I have a "newish" policy against responding to flamebait posts like those. It goes without saying that I think that what you said is fucking stupid. I'm sure that everyone here knows that I think that, so I'd rather not waste time and drag this thread into the mud.
Ive never posted in this thread before, but I will now. That's a pretty ironic statement, because in trying to not, "drag this thread into the mud," you just added a useless post.
But, to make my post useful:
If half of these news stories are true, then Romney fails one of the most important parts of being president: Representing America. I have to ask, are these reports entirely true, or are they blown out of proportion?
As much as I would love to see Romney drowning in a sea of hatred, both domestic and international, I would like to have both perspectives. Especially since I get most of my news from the internet (Because television news doesn't even hide their bias...), which we all know is highly Democratic.
EDIT:
87% Jill Stein
80% Obama
...
21% Ron Paul
20% Mitt Romney.
Even in a blind test, I think Mitt Romney sucks.
|
On August 01 2012 07:28 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 06:48 Risen wrote:
No response from xDaunt on this? Didn't think there would be since there is no defending oneself against issues like this, but I thought at least he'd try. (I'm assuming he's going to be voting Republican and not Democrat in the upcoming election. If he's going to be voting Libertarian I take back all the mean nasty feelings I have for him) I have a "newish" policy against responding to flamebait posts like those. It goes without saying that I think that what you said is fucking stupid. I'm sure that everyone here knows that I think that, so I'd rather not waste time and drag this thread into the mud. Ive never posted in this thread before, but I will now. That's a pretty ironic statement, because in trying to not, "drag this thread into the mud," you just added a useless post. But, to make my post useful: If half of these news stories are true, then Romney fails one of the most important parts of being president: Representing America. I have to ask, are these reports entirely true, or are they blown out of proportion? As much as I would love to see Romney drowning in a sea of hatred, both domestic and international, I would like to have both perspectives. Especially since I get most of my news from the internet (Because television news doesn't even hide their bias...), which we all know is highly Democratic.
For better or for worse (more often for the worse), the thread often becomes about me rather than the issues being discussed. I do make an effort (certainly more than I used to) to respond as little as possible.
As for the substantive portion of your post, the answer is that the reports are factually true but the analysis regarding the political consequences of what Romney has done is way overblown.
|
On August 01 2012 07:07 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WARSAW, Poland—Mitt Romney insisted Tuesday he was not specifically talking about Palestinian culture at a fundraiser in Israel on Monday when he was quoted suggesting culture was the reason for the economic disparity between Israel and the Palestinian territories.
"That's an interesting topic that deserves scholarly analysis, but I actually didn't address that," Romney told Fox News' Carl Cameron, adding he didn't "intend" to talk about the subject in his campaign. "Instead, I will point out … that the choices a society makes have a profound impact on the economy and vitality of that society."
Palestinian officials accused Romney of making "racist" statements after the Republican candidate was quoted comparing Israel's economy with that of the Palestinian territories. Source If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
I wouldn't call Romney 'racist', but he does fall under the stereotype of what a post-modernist would define systemic racism or privilege.
He walks, talks and acts as someone who has enjoyed White Privilege all his life. On top of that, he was raised in the rather insular, 'masonic' (for lack of a better adjective) and mission-driven Mormon religion. This only adds to the sophism of his worldview.
In other words, he's always been an 'insider', even enjoying a high status in the Mormon church since his childhood due to the prominence of his father.
So he's not racist, just isolated from mainstream society and other cultures, and remarkably tone deaf in most social situations.
It's fascinating, because in a lot of ways his upbringing and career path are almost the complete opposite of Obama's. They would both be really good characters for a comic book or something.
|
On August 01 2012 07:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:28 TALegion wrote:On August 01 2012 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 06:48 Risen wrote:
No response from xDaunt on this? Didn't think there would be since there is no defending oneself against issues like this, but I thought at least he'd try. (I'm assuming he's going to be voting Republican and not Democrat in the upcoming election. If he's going to be voting Libertarian I take back all the mean nasty feelings I have for him) I have a "newish" policy against responding to flamebait posts like those. It goes without saying that I think that what you said is fucking stupid. I'm sure that everyone here knows that I think that, so I'd rather not waste time and drag this thread into the mud. Ive never posted in this thread before, but I will now. That's a pretty ironic statement, because in trying to not, "drag this thread into the mud," you just added a useless post. But, to make my post useful: If half of these news stories are true, then Romney fails one of the most important parts of being president: Representing America. I have to ask, are these reports entirely true, or are they blown out of proportion? As much as I would love to see Romney drowning in a sea of hatred, both domestic and international, I would like to have both perspectives. Especially since I get most of my news from the internet (Because television news doesn't even hide their bias...), which we all know is highly Democratic. For better or for worse (more often for the worse), the thread often becomes about me rather than the issues being discussed. I do make an effort (certainly more than I used to) to respond as little as possible. As for the substantive portion of your post, the answer is that the reports are factually true but the analysis regarding the political consequences of what Romney has done is way overblown.
Funny how that only ever applies to the candidate you like and not the other guy...
|
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America.
|
On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America.
You think poor people shouldn't have sex?
|
On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America.
For the birth control I said it should be covered just like any other prescription. I mean, it costs the insurance companies MORE not to provide it for free by having to cover pregnant women but if they want to make bad business decisions that's fine with me.
Edit: On August 01 2012 07:44 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America. You think poor people shouldn't have sex?
Thought this was funny, too lol
|
Well, this would be interesting if it were proven ...
WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."
The highest ranked Democrat in Congress, Reid is known more as a back room brawler than a public flamethrower. So his willingness to throw this private conversation into the media frenzy over Romney's taxes underscores the low opinion he has of the Republican candidate.
Tellingly, neither Reid nor his office would reveal who the investor was, making it impossible to verify if the accusation is true. And as his quote makes clear, he's uncertain if the information is accurate. The Romney campaign's press secretary, Andrea Saul, has previously denied rumors that Romney didn't pay "any taxes at all."
But there is limited political downside to the type of open speculation that Reid is making, so long as Romney refuses to budge on the issue of his tax returns. Increasingly, other Democrats are growing more assertive in their goading. In an appearance at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland argued that he could openly speculate as to whether Romney "is a tax avoider" or "cheat" because "his behavior invites such speculation."
Romney recently told ABC News that he couldn't recall if there were years when he paid below the 13.9 percent tax rate that he paid in 2010. Although he said he was "happy to go back and look," his campaign declined to do just that.
Asked for a response to Reid's latest comments, Romney campaign adviser Kevin Madden said his candidate had "gone above and beyond the disclosure requirements by releasing two years of personal tax returns in addition to the hundreds of pages of personal financial disclosure documents he has provided to the FEC and made public."
|
On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America.
This is flawed thinking as abstinence doesn't work. If they can't afford birth control they'll have children they can't afford. They wont, however, not have sex.
|
On August 01 2012 06:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Sided with Gary Johnson 84% and Ron Paul 81%
I took it and got 92% Ron Paul, 85% Gary Johnson, 79% Mitt Romney, 10% Barack Obama.
I should probably vote Libertarian considering I am not in a swing state. If I were in a swing state I'd probably vote Romney, but living in WA I can vote or not vote and know the state will go to Obama.
On August 01 2012 07:46 HellRoxYa wrote:
This is flawed thinking as abstinence doesn't work. If they can't afford birth control they'll have children they can't afford. They wont, however, not have sex.
People have been able to control the number of births, albeit imperfectly, long before reliable birth control came to exist. People just don't want to do it anymore and actively fight the social structures, upbringing, values that allowed for that birth control. There is not some set amount of sex people have that cannot be influenced...
If you are tolerant of teenagers roaming around free and having sex, then bail them out with abortions and welfare and such then yes, teaching abstinence in some passing way is bad. But this is not necessarily true in other cultural circumstances. You could find hardcore traditional conservatives who would want an entirely different environment where abstinence could be effective (Think Saudi Arabia). Whether it is achievable or not needs to really be discussed as a whole not in part.
|
On August 01 2012 07:45 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America. For the birth control I said it should be covered just like any other prescription. I mean, it costs the insurance companies MORE not to provide it for free by having to cover pregnant women but if they want to make bad business decisions that's fine with me. Edit: Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:44 Klipsys wrote:On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America. You think poor people shouldn't have sex? Thought this was funny, too lol
Yea its not like there is societal value in breaking the cycle of poverty! Fuck poor people!
|
On August 01 2012 07:46 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America. This is flawed thinking as abstinence doesn't work. If they can't afford birth control they'll have children they can't afford. They wont, however, not have sex.
Yeah, I know abstinence doesn't work.
My suggestion would be to start off with comprehensive sex ed for everyone. I said no to free contraception because I don't like the idea of my tax money going to pay for people having sex without having to face any financial or biological consequence. Given its a price issue, breaking the pharmaceutical industry's monopolistic pricing on pills would go a long way to making contraceptives affordable. Cheap contraception is okay, but free rubs me the wrong way.
If a couple ends up with a child they can't afford despite being educated and having access to cheap contraception, then its clearly their fault at that point. The child could be given to some sort of government program which the parents would be obliged to pay for, or face some penalty.
Either way, I want a system where people are educated and responsible for their actions. I don't think just giving out free contraceptives is the way.
|
On August 01 2012 08:00 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:46 HellRoxYa wrote:On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America. This is flawed thinking as abstinence doesn't work. If they can't afford birth control they'll have children they can't afford. They wont, however, not have sex. Yeah, I know abstinence doesn't work. My suggestion would be to start off with comprehensive sex ed for everyone. I said no to free contraception because I don't like the idea of my tax money going to pay for people having sex without having to face any financial or biological consequence. Given its a price issue, breaking the pharmaceutical industry's monopolistic pricing on pills would go a long way to making contraceptives affordable. Cheap contraception is okay, but free rubs me the wrong way. If a couple ends up with a child they can't afford despite being educated and having access to cheap contraception, then its clearly their fault at that point. The child could be given to some sort of government program which the parents would be obliged to pay for, or face some penalty. Either way, I want a system where people are educated and responsible for their actions. I don't think just giving out free contraceptives is the way.
Yeah, I am not quite sure how people become responsible by giving them "free" things. This seems to be a huge political difference where people I don't agree with think giving a man a fish somehow makes them better off in the long run and not dependent on the free fish giver.
|
Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004...
Source
Oh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave.
|
84%
Barack Obama - on healthcare, social, immigration, and environmental issues.
79%
Jill Stein - on healthcare, immigration, social, foreign policy, and environmental issues.
74%
Stewart Alexander - on economic, healthcare, immigration, social, environmental, and foreign policy issues.
30%
Mitt Romney - on science, domestic policy, and environmental issues.
20%
Ron Paul - on domestic policy, environmental, and foreign policy issues.
No Ron Paul bias here. I am a little sad that almost every candidate has something against government funded space exploration. 
|
On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave.
I don't understand this. When Mitt tells the truth in the UK, he isn't being diplomatic. When he is diplomatic and kisses ass in public, he is attacked for his ass kissing not fitting with his purported ideology.
The guy can't win, but that is politics.
|
On August 01 2012 08:05 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. I don't understand this. When Mitt tells the truth in the UK, he isn't being diplomatic. When he is diplomatic and kisses ass in public, he is attacked for his ass kissing not fitting with his purported ideology. The guy can't win, but that is politics.
Bias against republicans in the media? No, couldn't be.....
|
On August 01 2012 08:05 Romantic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. I don't understand this. When Mitt tells the truth in the UK, he isn't being diplomatic. When he is diplomatic and kisses ass in public, he is attacked for his ass kissing not fitting with his purported ideology. The guy can't win, but that is politics.
What was this truth telling in the UK? Telling them their secruity wasnt good enough? thats highly debateable, and I doubt he had knoweldge of the innerworkings. THe question that they asked him was meant as a softball ( "I think the games will be great, UK did a fantastic job!") , and instead of hitting it out the park he turns and insults the umpire.
trying to use POland as an example of successful republican politcs would be fine, if it were true. Usually when you show false results of your policys, people take note.
|
On August 01 2012 08:00 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 07:46 HellRoxYa wrote:On August 01 2012 07:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
Took the quiz, here's what I got:
Jill Stein 83%
Barack Obama 82%
Stewart Alexander 65%
Mitt Romney 51%
Ron Paul 41%
Agree with the first two, never heard of Stewart Alexander, so I guess shame on me? Romney is probably from the abortion/contraception question. I believe that if you can't afford birth control, you can't afford children and you shouldn't be having sex. Good things in life cost money, and that money should come from you.
No agreement with Ron Paul on major issues yet still 41%. Hmm. Still, its the internet where Ron Paul is already president of the Politically-Allied States of America. This is flawed thinking as abstinence doesn't work. If they can't afford birth control they'll have children they can't afford. They wont, however, not have sex. Yeah, I know abstinence doesn't work. My suggestion would be to start off with comprehensive sex ed for everyone. I said no to free contraception because I don't like the idea of my tax money going to pay for people having sex without having to face any financial or biological consequence. Given its a price issue, breaking the pharmaceutical industry's monopolistic pricing on pills would go a long way to making contraceptives affordable. Cheap contraception is okay, but free rubs me the wrong way. If a couple ends up with a child they can't afford despite being educated and having access to cheap contraception, then its clearly their fault at that point. The child could be given to some sort of government program which the parents would be obliged to pay for, or face some penalty. Either way, I want a system where people are educated and responsible for their actions. I don't think just giving out free contraceptives is the way.
For some it is a price issue, while it's not for others. There are forms of birth control (generic alternatives) which are inexpensive, but seeing as how people don't all respond the exact same way to the same medication, there isn't a cheap solution for everybody.
And the first course of action in the case that people have kids they can't take care of (or afford) would be to assist them through some sort of wage garnishing and voucher multiplication system, where they lose $X income, but get "kid stamps" worth more than the amount of income lost. If they still can't take care of the kid, we should use a more aggressive stance with CPS, with the primary goal of providing the kid with a good home (instead of keeping the family "together").
In no way should the primary goal of ANY system be to "punish" any actors for behaving recklessly. It can be on the road to reform or reparations, but "taking responsibility" isn't ever really about taking lashings.
|
On August 01 2012 08:10 xDaunt wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 01 2012 08:05 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. I don't understand this. When Mitt tells the truth in the UK, he isn't being diplomatic. When he is diplomatic and kisses ass in public, he is attacked for his ass kissing not fitting with his purported ideology. The guy can't win, but that is politics. Bias against republicans in the media? No, couldn't be.....
I think FOX more than makes up for republican representatives in the media. Overall I think its pretty damn even, except that rather thatn the news actually being independent there is just a fair amount of equally polarized stations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
