Romney Girl

[Morton]

Just to point out I'm an Independent. I don't vote along party lines. I take a canadate, look at their views and values, then pick the one closest to my own.

Who will I vote for in Nov? Obama. Why? He's actually doing an hell of a Job with a House thats whole job is to be a bunch of spoiled brats and make him look bad to gain votes. If the Republicans win, well its game over man. Game Over.

I would move to Canada, but I dont speak Canadian*

*I really wouldn't move to Canada. Well maybe to escape this crappy Arkansas Heat.

[Peaker]

Having only 2 parties is a terrible thing isn't it? I can't believe some of the people that were up in the republican investiture race. Just for laughs, I would have loved to see Gingrich's campaign. I hope Obama wins, mostly because he seems the most decent of the bunch, and his health plan is actually pretty damn decent.

[Takel 1st MRB]

two parties is such a stupid way to do anything.

It's like being given a choice between having an entire cake or not having any cake. what if you only want some of the cake?

It's bad enough in the uk that we have only 3 main parties

I liked the video, better than the original

[K. Swartz 1st MRB]

NO OBAMA

I know everyone is intitled to there opinion, but I cant stand anyone who thinks obama is good for this country.

I dont realy know enofe about romny to say if he would be a good president or not but no obama.

[S. Smith]

NO OBAMA

I know everyone is intitled to there opinion, but I cant stand anyone who thinks obama is good for this country.

I dont realy know enofe about romny to say if he would be a good president or not but no obama.

+1

Obama's driving this country into the ground. Social Health Care is nice in theory, but when it requires small businesses to raise their prices, and lay off workers, it cripples the backbone of our country. Papa Johns is a good example of this. Google their latest statement about why they had to raise prices, and how this 'Lovely system of free health care' is taking a toll on their business.

I'm not against social healthcare, but I know for a fact the Government makes enough in taxes to pay for it, without requiring businesses to do so. They need to cut all the wasteful spending. They need to have penalties for people abusing their programs. An example of this, is welfare. Every time some low-class citizen decides to have a heap load of Children, the Government pays the bill. States should follow Michigan's lead, and make it so that every time someone has another welfare dependent child, the former dependent child loses their benefits.

Currently, the system gives incentive for citizens to have child after child, and plunge our country further into debt. Even if you look at it from a perspective other than finance, the world will soon be overcrowded. Currently the Earth's population is 7.5 or so billion. The earth can only sustain around 11 billion. Parents should only have two children, so they have a neutral population increase.

Social Health Care and Welfare are good programs, but only when they are run properly. The current administration isn't running either program properly. They are increasing the deficit at a mind numbing rate, and potentially leading us into a new depression. That is not an administration that is caring for and protecting our nation, and needs to be replaced.

As far as a new president is concerned, not much will change. Nearly every politician is dirty, and is driven by money. Large companies and industries such as the Oil companies are the true leadership of this country. Their money buys them sway with every level of Government. We haven't had an incorruptible president since Truman.

FIN

[Morton]

+1

Obama's driving this country into the ground. Social Health Care is nice in theory, but when it requires small businesses to raise their prices, and lay off workers, it cripples the backbone of our country. Papa Johns is a good example of this. Google their latest statement about why they had to raise prices, and how this 'Lovely system of free health care' is taking a toll on their business.

I'm not against social healthcare, but I know for a fact the Government makes enough in taxes to pay for it, without requiring businesses to do so. They need to cut all the wasteful spending. They need to have penalties for people abusing their programs. An example of this, is welfare. Every time some low-class citizen decides to have a heap load of Children, the Government pays the bill. States should follow Michigan's lead, and make it so that every time someone has another welfare dependent child, the former dependent child loses their benefits.

Currently, the system gives incentive for citizens to have child after child, and plunge our country further into debt. Even if you look at it from a perspective other than finance, the world will soon be overcrowded. Currently the Earth's population is 7.5 or so billion. The earth can only sustain around 11 billion. Parents should only have two children, so they have a neutral population increase.

Social Health Care and Welfare are good programs, but only when they are run properly. The current administration isn't running either program properly. They are increasing the deficit at a mind numbing rate, and potentially leading us into a new depression. That is not an administration that is caring for and protecting our nation, and needs to be replaced.

As far as a new president is concerned, not much will change. Nearly every politician is dirty, and is driven by money. Large companies and industries such as the Oil companies are the true leadership of this country. Their money buys them sway with every level of Government. We haven't had an incorruptible president since Truman.

FIN

The current administration has to deal with spoiled brats who's only goal is to ensure Obama doesn't get reelected. Thats it. They don't put America first. They don't even do their jobs properly. The Republican party is a joke right now. Every bill the Dems raise that both cuts spending, and raises taxes the Rep shot down. The current administration may not be perfect, but its a hell of a lot better then anything the GOP can do.

[Bryant 1st MRB]

NO OBAMA

I know everyone is intitled to there opinion, but I cant stand anyone who thinks obama is good for this country.

I dont realy know enofe about romny to say if he would be a good president or not but no obama.

+2

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

The current administration has to deal with spoiled brats who's only goal is to ensure Obama doesn't get reelected. Thats it. They don't put America first. They don't even do their jobs properly. The Republican party is a joke right now. Every bill the Dems raise that both cuts spending, and raises taxes the Rep shot down. The current administration may not be perfect, but its a hell of a lot better then anything the GOP can do.

Citation needed. The GOP hasn't shot down every bill, quite the contrary. The GOP stops with bills that they disagree with. The same thing that the Democratic Party does, only difference is the demonization.If you call the Republicans "spoiled brats" because they voice discontent there's a problem there. If you're still using "the Obama Administration has to deal with Republicans" as an excuse, that's another problem. Every president has to deal with the opposing party, and they figure out ways to deal with them. That's what can make or break a great president.

Personally, I'm sick of people who aim to degrade or sling mud at the other people who disagree. If we're going to go on a party bashing spree you'll lose.

P.S. Kevin: I cannot abide by the grammar in your post.

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

[Rather]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oQR2Xq_hSjs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1:58-2:44 WTF?!?

[Morton]

Citation needed. The GOP hasn't shot down every bill, quite the contrary. The GOP stops with bills that they disagree with. The same thing that the Democratic Party does, only difference is the demonization.If you call the Republicans "spoiled brats" because they voice discontent there's a problem there. If you're still using "the Obama Administration has to deal with Republicans" as an excuse, that's another problem. Every president has to deal with the opposing party, and they figure out ways to deal with them. That's what can make or break a great president.

Personally, I'm sick of people who aim to degrade or sling mud at the other people who disagree. If we're going to go on a party bashing spree you'll lose.

P.S. Kevin: I cannot abide by the grammar in your post.

Surely you where paying attention to the news. They refuse to compromise, which is a key component of the democratic system. Most of the Republican Party is Tea Party members. Which most signed a card to not raise taxes. Can you see where this is going? The only budget the GOPs will approve is one where they cut spending and not raise taxes. Thats it. I call them spoiled brats because they are acting like it. The whole "I-cant-get-my-way-so-no-one-will" mentality of a two year old is tearing our nation apart.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

where

The hell is that?

The whole "I-cant-get-my-way-so-no-one-will" mentality of a two year old is tearing our nation apart.

Again, you refuse to recognize the Democratic party. I'm not saying the Republican party is free from fault, far from it. However, I am saying the Democratic party shares at least half the blame. Proposing bills they know will not get past the Republicans then pointing fingers when they do not is not a way to get the country moving, nor is it a way to do anything other than whine. Go ahead and run back through bills proposed by Democrats. The issue that you will see is they aren't bending to Republican ideas enough either. If you're going to point at small budget cuts and say that's an absorption of Republicans' viewpoint, you also need to look at what they propose, which is usually a spending increase in some section along with that. How can a Republican pass a bill that has a major spending increase of $14 billion, with cuts of $1.5 million? That's really against their ideals where it's that stark of a difference. Understanding is a three edged sword-- your side, his side, and the truth. If the Democratic party doesn't show compromise and work with the Republicans then both parties are at fault. Neither side bends to the other, so is it really fair to just call one the party of "crybabys" and disregard the same decisions made by the "noncrybaby" party?

[M. Johnson 1st MRB]

As an outsider, who takes a particular interest in US politics, you'll be fucked if the republicans get in.

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

Lol I know for a fact there are many people on this site who live in countries with public healthcare and I think they're doing alright for the most part. Most of my friends from other countries still can't believe that you have to pay for emergency room visits and that that's how most uninsured Americans get medical care.

NO OBAMA

I know everyone is intitled to there opinion, but I cant stand anyone who thinks obama is good for this country.

I dont realy know enofe about romny to say if he would be a good president or not but no obama.

This is a joke right?

What's next...is it the criticizing welfare bit? I love that argument. It's definitely not possible that there are actually people struggling out there and that they constitute the majority of people on welfare. It's definitely the case that MOST people on welfare are actually lazy bums who categorically refuse to work and want to scam the government out of our hard earned tax dollars. That makes a lot more sense than investment bankers and traders gaming the system to create artificial bubbles and capitalize when they burst ACTUALLY fucking over our economy and making life more difficult for EVERYONE outside their tax bracket. THAT'S the far-fetched theory. Our country is definitely in debt because of welfare queens having too many babies and not because we spent SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're definitely not in debt because Bush wildly increased government spending. That would just make too much sense.

Seriously, I don't get why we (Americans) think this way. We accept that people who are wealthy clearly earned their wealth, simply because we've been told since birth that such a (ridiculous) thing is possible. We CHOOSE to believe that the billionaires of our country pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and not that they just went from well-off to more well-off, which is much more often the case. We're complacent with wars that lead to MASSIVE cuts to ACTUALLY IMPORTANT shit like public education and welfare because we're told they're necessary.

Republicans have so successfully vilified the words progressive and liberal that people actually believe the more conservative the better. People actually believe that politicians who have worked to defund Planned Parenthood and believe that gay parents shouldn't be able to adopt are championing their rights.

The 2 (almost worthless against other currencies) cents of a person who will in the near future be emigrating (regardless of who wins the next election).

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

Sorry, not quite done. Anyone who thinks Obama is single-handedly ruining this country doesn't understand how our government works.

Also, what the fuck is all that shit about, "I want MY country back," or, "We're gonna take our country back!" Where the fuck did your country go?

[Morton]

The hell is that?

Typo.

Again, you refuse to recognize the Democratic party. I'm not saying the Republican party is free from fault, far from it. However, I am saying the Democratic party shares at least half the blame. Proposing bills they know will not get past the Republicans then pointing fingers when they do not is not a way to get the country moving, nor is it a way to do anything other than whine. Go ahead and run back through bills proposed by Democrats. The issue that you will see is they aren't bending to Republican ideas enough either. If you're going to point at small budget cuts and say that's an absorption of Republicans' viewpoint, you also need to look at what they propose, which is usually a spending increase in some section along with that. How can a Republican pass a bill that has a major spending increase of $14 billion, with cuts of $1.5 million? That's really against their ideals where it's that stark of a difference. Understanding is a three edged sword-- your side, his side, and the truth. If the Democratic party doesn't show compromise and work with the Republicans then both parties are at fault. Neither side bends to the other, so is it really fair to just call one the party of "crybabys" and disregard the same decisions made by the "noncrybaby" party?

Except I've been paying attention to the budget wars as I'm now going to call them. The budgets put forward by the Dems are both fair, and a real compromise. Yeah Dems are also to blame, but the whole republican stratagy at the time is to do nothing to make Obama look bad.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/let...VUlT_story.html

In 2010 Mitch McConnell said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." He didn't mention the economy, or education, or jobs, or the housing market. Instead, the goal is to beat Obama, whatever misery it might cause 200 million Americans

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/06-0

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/5-th...cans?page=0%2C2

Then you go to clearly right wing media websites, like http://patriotupdate.com, and see how hate filled the writters are. The GOP went from a respectable party to a laughing stock since 2009. And this is coming from an Independent that leans to the right. I'm not a Democrat.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Typo.

Except I've been paying attention to the budget wars as I'm now going to call them. The budgets put forward by the Dems are both fair, and a real compromise. Yeah Dems are also to blame, but the whole republican stratagy at the time is to do nothing to make Obama look bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/let...VUlT_story.html

In 2010 Mitch McConnell said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." He didn't mention the economy, or education, or jobs, or the housing market. Instead, the goal is to beat Obama, whatever misery it might cause 200 million Americans

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/06-0

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/5-th...cans?page=0%2C2

Then you go to clearly right wing media websites, like http://patriotupdate.com, and see how hate filled the writters are. The GOP went from a respectable party to a laughing stock since 2009. And this is coming from an Independent that leans to the right. I'm not a Democrat.

See you're so conceded about the debate, you can't even give the Republicans any credit. And that's an inherent problem. How is a Republican or Democrat supposed to agree with the other side when your argument is, "YOU'RE AN IDIOT, YOU'RE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COUNTRY!"? When has that ever worked in any argument? No wonder either side refuses to work with one another. You can sit there, posting links that "prove" your point that Republicans are the only problem, because everyone who writes an article is inherently correct. At least to the audience he/she appeals to. I can go over to a Right-wing website like Drudge, and find a dozen articles that would say how Democrats are the problem. What does that prove? As for quoting McConnell? Don't make me pull out a Pelosi quote on you-- “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.” *burp* excuse me. I don't know how that slipped out. “Every week we don’t pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” Oh jeez. There's another. I can quote Democrats and Republicans saying ridiculous things to sink their point in, but it never goes anywhere. Because a quote out of context will always sound crazy. "I would have made a good Pope." -Nixon

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

Kirk, even you have to concede that methodology will always be at odds given the asynchronous relationship of incumbent and Challenger/Opposition parties. While I agree that the onus should be on non-partisan approach (no mud-slinging, don't ask for a favour by starting "hey fuckwad, I need your help", etc.) the problem lies in the goals.

While not outright saying that Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Right, it does continually spew forth anti-Obama rhetoric that often has little to do with the legislation itself and has shown that it's willing to throw out journalistic integrity in favour of negative messaging.

Given that the right holds both senate and house majorities, the Obama administration has made efforts to make concessions so as to actually be able to pass legislation. However, herein lies the frustrating part - republican demands are geared to be impossible to consider (and they know that). The goal is not to push out the BEST legislation (one would imagine the role of the opposition to keep that in mind) but to either shoot down; change in such a way that the legislation is practically useless so that it can be used as fodder subject for the next election; or the bill suits the needs of the republican party whether or not that need actually benefits the country or just a VERY select few (as was evident during the Bush admin).

Simply put, no matter what kind of negotiating posture either party makes, when the GOP's goal is to solely discredit Obama with no regards to the merits of proposed legislation it's impossible to see any legitimacy in what the GOP says/does.

Even before they had the majority, remember the filibuster the GOP pulled on the 9-11 First Responder bill? Closing a tax loop (put in by the Bush admin) that only benefited the rich to get the funds to help first-responders would sound like a noble and common-sense proposal. Thankfully it actually created separation between Tea Partiers and moderate GOP reps. However, the GOP made it a well-known position to challenge EVERYTHING the Obama gov tabled. I mean seriously, is the kind of close-minded approach that you want to endorse (even if we switched the roles)? What the GOP does well is hide this ridiculous strategy behind a veneer of politico-babble to make it seem that they care for the legislation when it's clear they'd sell your grandmother as long as it helped get them back in power.

For me, why it doesn't matter whether people consider the GOP a bunch of spoiled brats or not is because that's the stand the GOP is happy to take. Last time I checked, no democratic opposition pulled the "la-la-la hands over my hears la-la-la I can't hear you" stunt to this blatant degree.

The shame is that we'll never really know if Obama was just a right-of-centre-leaning democrat or if he was just too hamstrung by GOP posturing and incessant truth mismanagement ($200 million a day? Really, some 4th tier desk clerk in India is considered a irrefutable news source? Really?) to be given a chance to actually effectuate real change.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

snip

Really, at that point I don't have to concede anything. You've successfully argued a lot of my point, which is that the disagreements between the two parties mean that very little gets done. If we're talking about filibusters, you need look no further then Senator Bernard Sanders. This (self-defined) "democrat-socialist" gave us the most recent filibuster, when he preformed a "lalala I can't hear you" stance to the Republicans meeting President Obama for a tax legislature conference.

As for Fox News, I think we've all heard time and time again how they are absorbed with spreading the will of the Right. Just the same that MSNBC is spreading the will of the Left. MSNBC might not get the attention for it, especially because they don't have the manipulative genius or viewer base of Fox.

My original sneak-attack point still holds its ground. When there's no reason for either side to give ground, they won't. Right now, the Republicans won't give in because they can make Obama look a fool until the next election cycle. And the Democrats will keep proposing bills because it looks like they're doing something when they're really not doing enough to break the cycle. When they can make Republicans look the fool too, perhaps they can do it enough to keep Obama for a 2nd term or gain control of the legislative branch.

Pretty much, both sides have succeeded in making the country socialist, not in the governmental form but more of now we care more about social issues than anything else. Because the Democrats and Republicans can't agree about gays, guns, pot, and babies, it has escalated to the point where both sides don't want to concede to the babykilling, (womanhating) gayloving, (gayhating) controlfreaks, (gunnuts) potheads (suits) that disagree with them.

[Yamagata 1st MRB]

Yay, politics! Always such a rush.

[Morton]

Yeah, Im gonna refrain from posting in this forum from now on. It only causes problems and arguments and I don't want bad blood between unit members.

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

I don't really see how arguing for a truism is much of a point though. It's clear that intentionally sabotaging everything will get little done.

The problem that's being noted is that the GOP is doing this for the sake of showing up those in office rather than for an altruistic end. If the GOP were stalwartly opposing the Health Care bill because pharmaceuticals friendly to the democrats can triple their profit margin on the people's bill, hell yeah, that's something worth opposing. If the GOP were saying that the government is being fiscally irresponsible because the democrats want to continue funding war efforts at the cost of social programs (or tax hikes), I can get behind that.

The GOP is grandstanding not to improve the country but to further their own private agenda. As for Sanders' filibuster - he's protesting the tax cuts for the "1%" from bush legacy legislation. This, itself, was a concession by Obama to the republicans so that things can move on. That to me sounds more like an intention to improve the country rather than pursuing any kind of power-gathering agenda.

For financially poor republicans, how does this help them? Not a single bit. So either the GOP stays hostile to continue supporting the ruling financial elite or they do it to ridicule Obama so that when they back in power they can continue to support the ruling elite.

I dunno, for that seems quite a different thing than what you're trying to say.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

snip

My point, is that you're criticizing the Republicans for the same thing as the Democrats: sticking to what they think is right. But I forget, every Republican elected is terrible because they don't have the same thought process as the Democratic party. The Republicans are sticking together pretty well and remarkably, do you think this is part of some mass consipracy that every single elected Republican is part of said mass consipracy?

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

My point, is that you're criticizing the Republicans for the same thing as the Democrats: sticking to what they think is right. But I forget, every Republican elected is terrible because they don't have the same thought process as the Democratic party. The Republicans are sticking together pretty well and remarkably, do you think this is part of some mass consipracy that every single elected Republican is part of said mass consipracy?

Sadly the perception of the american political process is that it's pretty much reduced to mudslinging. Just because both parties doesn't that it's a) right to do so and mean anyone who practices mudslinging should bear the same judgement.

Consider the guy who consumes crack vs the dealer. It's pretty evident that there's a difference between the two. I don't buy that the GOP think they're right as much as they want to make Obama look wrong (e.g. first responders).

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Sadly the perception of the american political process is that it's pretty much reduced to mudslinging. Just because both parties doesn't that it's a) right to do so and mean anyone who practices mudslinging should bear the same judgement.

Consider the guy who consumes crack vs the dealer. It's pretty evident that there's a difference between the two. I don't buy that the GOP think they're right as much as they want to make Obama look wrong (e.g. first responders).

Have you heard a Republican talking about why they don't want a bill? For example, the new vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan:

Or, go back in time to Milton Friedman, the (in)famous economist talking about the wealthy:

Do these two examples not think they are right? Are they just trying to stuff their own pockets or make Obama (or the middle-aged woman) wrong?