|
|
|
|
People don't seem to realize that those are 2 different polls....that,or TL is full of very unrealistically optimistic people. Does anyone here seriously think that after all the shit he has been getting that Obama will be reelected? Don't get me wrong, every republican candidate this election seemed like more of a practical joke than the last but I doubt the heavily publicity, not policy, driven American voters would reelect someone who has been made to look like a communist-Muslim-Jew-Arab-rapist-anti-Christ by the majority of national media, especially over the superman-i-can-fix-everything-god-bless-america Romney....
It's very sad but i'm sure more people must realize that fact than that poll suggests...
|
On April 19 2012 23:39 Sweepstakes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:37 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:04 Vega62a wrote:On April 19 2012 23:02 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. Dear rest_of_the_world: You assume responsibility for our national debt and entitlement obligations and we will be more than happy to. Otherwise, I am going with the guy who got a perfect score on his SAT and balanced budgets for a living, even if he is socially awkward. Until you are paying the bill, mind your own business You do understand that it's not the president's job to balance the budget, don't you? That's Congress. You do understand that Mitt Romney balanced budgets primarily by means of hostile corporate takeovers and mass layoffs, don't you? That's not particularly good for job growth. Just making sure. Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html If you read NYTimes or Paul Krugman you are severely misinformed. Source? Source: Read any Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Please specify something in that GOP Gekko op-ed that was incorrect.
He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel.
|
|
|
Do you know who founded the website you are quoting from? This man;
David Barton (born 1954) is an American evangelical Christian minister,[1] conservative activist, and author. He founded WallBuilders, a Texas-based organization with a goal of exposing the claimed US constitutional separation of church and state as a myth.[2][3] Barton is the former co-chair of the Republican Party of Texas.
Your source is irrelevant.
|
On April 19 2012 23:40 Lazorstrats wrote:
People don't seem to realize that those are 2 different polls....that,or TL is full of very unrealistically optimistic people. Does anyone here seriously think that after all the shit he has been getting that Obama will be reelected? Don't get me wrong, every republican candidate this election seemed like more of a practical joke than the last but I doubt the heavily publicity, not policy, driven American voters would reelect someone who has been made to look like a communist-Muslim-Jew-Arab-rapist-anti-Christ by the majority of national media, especially over the superman-i-can-fix-everything-god-bless-america Romney....
It's very sad but i'm sure more people must realize that fact than that poll suggests...
He's leading all the national polls and he will have well over a billion dollars in his campaign.
|
On April 19 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:37 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:04 Vega62a wrote:On April 19 2012 23:02 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. Dear rest_of_the_world: You assume responsibility for our national debt and entitlement obligations and we will be more than happy to. Otherwise, I am going with the guy who got a perfect score on his SAT and balanced budgets for a living, even if he is socially awkward. Until you are paying the bill, mind your own business You do understand that it's not the president's job to balance the budget, don't you? That's Congress. You do understand that Mitt Romney balanced budgets primarily by means of hostile corporate takeovers and mass layoffs, don't you? That's not particularly good for job growth. Just making sure. Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html Again, how is this relevant to the fact that Massachusetts had balanced budgets under Romney? Hint: It's not. Virtually all states in the US are required by law to have balanced budgets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment#U.S._statesI suggest you learn your own country's laws, before having to be schooled in them by an Australian. Yeah, and states break those laws all of the time, particularly over the past several years due to sharp decreases in revenue due to the economic downturn. But back on point: are you so intellectually dishonest that you won't admit the simple fact that Massachusetts had balanced budgets under Romney?
Virtually all states have balanced budgets because they must by law.
It's not extraordinary that Massachusetts has a balanced budget, because nearly all states have them, and they must have them.
And they continued to have balanced budgets despite the recession, because it's the law.
Krugman to the rescue again: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html
If you want to credit Romney for following the law, go ahead, credit him for paying his taxes too, credit him for not murdering anyone.
|
On April 19 2012 23:40 Lazorstrats wrote:
People don't seem to realize that those are 2 different polls....that,or TL is full of very unrealistically optimistic people. Does anyone here seriously think that after all the shit he has been getting that Obama will be reelected? Don't get me wrong, every republican candidate this election seemed like more of a practical joke than the last but I doubt the heavily publicity, not policy, driven American voters would reelect someone who has been made to look like a communist-Muslim-Jew-Arab-rapist-anti-Christ by the majority of national media, especially over the superman-i-can-fix-everything-god-bless-america Romney....
It's very sad but i'm sure more people must realize that fact than that poll suggests...
Hey, look! A realist! You're basically correct, except that I'd argue that most of Obama's negative image is self-inflicted as a result of his own policies, statements, and actions. Fox News and talk radio aren't influential enough to baselessly take down a president.
|
On April 19 2012 23:41 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:39 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 19 2012 23:37 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:04 Vega62a wrote:On April 19 2012 23:02 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. Dear rest_of_the_world: You assume responsibility for our national debt and entitlement obligations and we will be more than happy to. Otherwise, I am going with the guy who got a perfect score on his SAT and balanced budgets for a living, even if he is socially awkward. Until you are paying the bill, mind your own business You do understand that it's not the president's job to balance the budget, don't you? That's Congress. You do understand that Mitt Romney balanced budgets primarily by means of hostile corporate takeovers and mass layoffs, don't you? That's not particularly good for job growth. Just making sure. Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html If you read NYTimes or Paul Krugman you are severely misinformed. Source? Source: Read any Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Please specify something in that GOP Gekko op-ed that was incorrect. He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel.
Please explain to me how leveraged buy-outs create efficiencies.
|
On April 19 2012 23:42 Refused. wrote:Do you know who founded the website you are quoting from? This man; David Barton (born 1954) is an American evangelical Christian minister,[1] conservative activist, and author. He founded WallBuilders, a Texas-based organization with a goal of exposing the claimed US constitutional separation of church and state as a myth.[2][3] Barton is the former co-chair of the Republican Party of Texas.Your source is irrelevant.
How does this make the facts irrelevant? because you don't agree with the author? Lol.
|
On April 19 2012 23:41 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:39 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 19 2012 23:37 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:04 Vega62a wrote:On April 19 2012 23:02 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. Dear rest_of_the_world: You assume responsibility for our national debt and entitlement obligations and we will be more than happy to. Otherwise, I am going with the guy who got a perfect score on his SAT and balanced budgets for a living, even if he is socially awkward. Until you are paying the bill, mind your own business You do understand that it's not the president's job to balance the budget, don't you? That's Congress. You do understand that Mitt Romney balanced budgets primarily by means of hostile corporate takeovers and mass layoffs, don't you? That's not particularly good for job growth. Just making sure. Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html If you read NYTimes or Paul Krugman you are severely misinformed. Source? Source: Read any Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Please specify something in that GOP Gekko op-ed that was incorrect. He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel.
People were fired means jobs got destroyed.
You don't need to be a Nobel Prize winning economist to understand English.
|
|
|
On April 19 2012 23:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:40 Lazorstrats wrote:
People don't seem to realize that those are 2 different polls....that,or TL is full of very unrealistically optimistic people. Does anyone here seriously think that after all the shit he has been getting that Obama will be reelected? Don't get me wrong, every republican candidate this election seemed like more of a practical joke than the last but I doubt the heavily publicity, not policy, driven American voters would reelect someone who has been made to look like a communist-Muslim-Jew-Arab-rapist-anti-Christ by the majority of national media, especially over the superman-i-can-fix-everything-god-bless-america Romney....
It's very sad but i'm sure more people must realize that fact than that poll suggests... Hey, look! A realist! You're basically correct, except that I'd argue that most of Obama's negative image is self-inflicted as a result of his own policies, statements, and actions. Fox News and talk radio aren't influential enough to baselessly take down a president.
I despise fox news, but I really can't stand it every time that Obama decides to comment on things that he has no reason to put his opinion on. He's been too much since the day he was elected.
|
I'm failing to see how having a president who takes the idea of the separation of church and state seriously (much like our founding fathers) is a bad thing.
Religion has no place in American government. The majority of the world seems to agree.
|
On April 19 2012 23:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:04 Vega62a wrote:On April 19 2012 23:02 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. Dear rest_of_the_world: You assume responsibility for our national debt and entitlement obligations and we will be more than happy to. Otherwise, I am going with the guy who got a perfect score on his SAT and balanced budgets for a living, even if he is socially awkward. Until you are paying the bill, mind your own business You do understand that it's not the president's job to balance the budget, don't you? That's Congress. You do understand that Mitt Romney balanced budgets primarily by means of hostile corporate takeovers and mass layoffs, don't you? That's not particularly good for job growth. Just making sure. Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html Again, how is this relevant to the fact that Massachusetts had balanced budgets under Romney? Hint: It's not.
Voting for a president based on his ability to balance a budget would be akin to hiring someone on as CEO of Amazon because the man is a good driver, due to the fact that amazon hires good drivers.
There is a reason the president has a board of executives that he delegates tasks to and a reason why he does not control everything. Sure, its great if the president can balance a budget but that is such a small part of his job that it really should not be the largest reason you are voting for him. Instead, if this is a major turning point for you, you should look at who the president is going to delegate these issues too, IE who is really going to be pushing for a certain budget, and make your decisions based on that.
|
On April 19 2012 23:47 Sweepstakes wrote:
Religion has no place in American government. The majority of the world seems to agree.
Anyone with a functioning, rational brain agrees with that.
|
On April 19 2012 23:45 Sweepstakes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:41 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:39 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 19 2012 23:37 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:04 Vega62a wrote:On April 19 2012 23:02 U_G_L_Y wrote:
[quote]
Dear rest_of_the_world:
You assume responsibility for our national debt and entitlement obligations and we will be more than happy to. Otherwise, I am going with the guy who got a perfect score on his SAT and balanced budgets for a living, even if he is socially awkward. Until you are paying the bill, mind your own business You do understand that it's not the president's job to balance the budget, don't you? That's Congress. You do understand that Mitt Romney balanced budgets primarily by means of hostile corporate takeovers and mass layoffs, don't you? That's not particularly good for job growth. Just making sure. Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html If you read NYTimes or Paul Krugman you are severely misinformed. Source? Source: Read any Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Please specify something in that GOP Gekko op-ed that was incorrect. He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel. Please explain to me how leveraged buy-outs create efficiencies.
I didn't say "leveraged buyouts" create efficiency, I don't know where you got that. Bain's business plan was replacing the management of companies and making them profitable. Efficiency contributes to profit. Profit drives growth, which creates jobs. To say it is job destruction is drivel.
|
On April 19 2012 23:41 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:39 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 19 2012 23:37 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:04 Vega62a wrote:On April 19 2012 23:02 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. Dear rest_of_the_world: You assume responsibility for our national debt and entitlement obligations and we will be more than happy to. Otherwise, I am going with the guy who got a perfect score on his SAT and balanced budgets for a living, even if he is socially awkward. Until you are paying the bill, mind your own business You do understand that it's not the president's job to balance the budget, don't you? That's Congress. You do understand that Mitt Romney balanced budgets primarily by means of hostile corporate takeovers and mass layoffs, don't you? That's not particularly good for job growth. Just making sure. Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html If you read NYTimes or Paul Krugman you are severely misinformed. Source? Source: Read any Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Please specify something in that GOP Gekko op-ed that was incorrect. He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel.
You are saying it is drivel, but you do not offer anything to refute it. Even if you don't have some specific proof, at least try to explain why you disagree. That's kind of how discussions work.
For example let's say I disagree with you in that I feel efficiency often DOES lead to job destruction. I would then point out how when a in-line process becomes more efficient, it often means that the line either runs less to meet production demands (less hours for workers) or the line needs less workers to run it at the same speed. So in the short term, yes I feel that efficiency does reduce job opportunities. In the long term, perhaps these efficiencies will lower the cost of the product which would then increase the demand, which could then be met with more lines and more employees, though in my personal experience, I often find that the way this additional demand is met is by having the current employees just work harder, or by upgrading machinery to meet the higher demand, not by hiring more workers.
Now that I have at least explained my thinking you can respond to it in a reasonable way, not just saying that everyone who thinks a certain thing is dumb.
|
On April 19 2012 23:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 23:41 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:39 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 19 2012 23:37 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:31 scaban84 wrote:On April 19 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 19 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2012 23:04 Vega62a wrote:On April 19 2012 23:02 U_G_L_Y wrote:
[quote]
Dear rest_of_the_world:
You assume responsibility for our national debt and entitlement obligations and we will be more than happy to. Otherwise, I am going with the guy who got a perfect score on his SAT and balanced budgets for a living, even if he is socially awkward. Until you are paying the bill, mind your own business You do understand that it's not the president's job to balance the budget, don't you? That's Congress. You do understand that Mitt Romney balanced budgets primarily by means of hostile corporate takeovers and mass layoffs, don't you? That's not particularly good for job growth. Just making sure. Yeah, it's not like presidents are required to approve budgets or other laws from Congress or anything for them to be effective. Also, I forgot that part of the job description of the governor of Massachusetts is to engage in hostile corporate takeovers. Apparently my civics classes were worse than yours. Romney's record at Bain: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/krugman-all-the-gops-gekkos.html If you read NYTimes or Paul Krugman you are severely misinformed. Source? Source: Read any Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. Please specify something in that GOP Gekko op-ed that was incorrect. He says that Bain Capital / Romney = job destruction. It's a falsehood to believe creating efficiency = job destruction. Typical left-wing drivel. People were fired means jobs got destroyed. You don't need to be a Nobel Prize winning economist to understand English.
If you understood why Krugman got his Nobel Prize, you'd know that it has to do with his beautiful ability to take very complex and confusing economic models and break them down into bite size portions so that they can be analyzed easier. Anyone that gets a chance should read his book on the 2008 crisis, fantastic read.
EDIT: Grammar is hard
|
It's not Romney I'm afraid of, it's the donors to his PACs. Imagine what sort of promises he's made...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
