Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Vote Romney it can't get worse...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 301-325 of 430 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 10:26:50 PM PDT
RE: Nope did much better under Bush. He had some far bigger challenges and the country did much better overcoming them.

Silly talk like that won't get you anywhere, Joe. You can't make a case that that is so, no matter how much you'd like it to be. Bush was consistent, though....he didn't do any better at running the country than he did at running Arbusto or any of his other failed endeavors.

I realize your post is a week old, so I can't say it's the silly post of the day. But it's probably the silly post of the week.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 10:47:16 PM PDT
RE: Bust stopped drinking after it caused him problem.

He stopped after a couple of decades. He abused drugs far longer than Obama every used them.

RE: That is a legal substance.

I think we can say with certainty that if you're abusing something, your body and mind will react accordingly whether the substance is legal or illegal. Your liver or your brain doesn't make any distinction.

You've been playing a silly game in this thread, Joe. I almost always disagree with you, but I do have some grudging respect for the fact that I think you're honest and you try hard....though you usually sound just like RW talk radio (whether you listen to it or not). But you've been childish in this thread, which is something you usually do not do.

And I'm just catching up in this thread; it's June 7, and I'm only on May 30. Before I read another 300 posts, can you tell me if it gets any better?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 11:05:07 PM PDT
RE: Yes, most people do not like Capitalism but most people's jobs and lives are tied to to it.

Good example of your practically trolling in this thread.

The vast majority of Americans like capitalism just fine. They just do not like completely unrestricted, unfettered capitalism, but that's far from saying that Americans do not like capitalism. Very, very few Americans possess a desire to get rid of a capitalist system.

Keep in mind that all the countries the RW typically tries to paint as "socialist" like France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Australia, NZ, Canada etc...........are capitalist countries. They may have a few more elements of socialism than does the US, but they are firmly in the capitalist camp. They do not have centrally planned economies or disallow (or severely restrict) private ownership. They are capitalist countries with safety nets, and it's less than honest of you to continue to portray them otherwise.

Just as it's less than honest of you to try to imply as fact that "most people do not like Capitalism" -- to quote you.

See, it's not just this one instance of your deliberately misrepresenting reality. If it was a one-shot thing, it would go unnoticed. But you're flavoring your comments with this kind of hard slant and/or outright misrepresentation more and more frequently.

Maybe you have the tendency to get this way in presidential election years. Is that it?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 2:09:24 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 2:10:52 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 7:36:41 AM PDT
*The shelter aspect was a big part of the tax reform, but for some unknown reason its get lost in the discussion 30 years later. I think we are a far more wealthy country today that had we not has the tax reform. The government just can seem to control itself.

The reason is an emotional hatred of Reagan. No one ever asks what the 80s would have been like without Reagan. Slower growth mired in high unemplyment even higher deficits because of lack of growth.

I like to say that the tax code was a unintentional form of central control. Imagine what you would say about a single group or comittee that created a tax code that encouraged losses. You can make the case that 20% of investment was done to lose and avoid taxes. That is a huge amount of resources being wasted. I don't think the soviet inefficiency could match that.

We often forget that for times in this country there tax rates well above 90%. When taxes are that high the incentive is to protect money and really there is no point in actually trying to make more than that set level.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 7:43:24 AM PDT
* I don't know the answer, but we do need to be less judgemental and more understanding of situations different from ours.

The answer is economic growth. We need to find and remove the biggest barriers to economic growth in the country. We do face situations where Europe is bad but the future markets are the pacific rim. We need leadership that understands what it is like to run a company to find the best cost benefit solutions to many of the problems we face. At what point does government action reach a point of diminishing return where we can do a good job say 90% but the cost of that last 10% increases exponentially.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 8:35:25 AM PDT
BRNIZED says:
Unfortunately, the alternative is another four years of Obama.

We can only hope!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 8:49:43 AM PDT
BRNIZED says:
I agree in part to what you say. It sounds to me you are advocating this country should be run like a business. I disagree. While economic growth is vital, turning a profit is not what we are about. It's more complicated than that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 9:23:54 AM PDT
BRNIZED says:
Excellent points! The right wing talking heads have done an excellent job in convincing their followers that socialism is the same as communism. They believe all their lies about how terrible the people have it in those countries. When I was in Norway, I spoke with random citizens about their health care, taxes and freedoms. I learned why they are considered the happiest people on earth! The people here don't realize how many possitive things we have here, that are "socialistic".

As you said, most Americans are pro-capitalism.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 9:42:30 AM PDT
Mickey Ryan says:
"We can only hope!"

Lol, we tried that already. "Hope and Change" that never came.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 9:50:03 AM PDT
*I agree in part to what you say. It sounds to me you are advocating this country should be run like a business. I disagree. While economic growth is vital, turning a profit is not what we are about. It's more complicated than that.

I am not saying that the country run like a business but that those in government have a better idea of how business operates and find ways to solve problems that mitigate those costs to those in business. Take an EPA regulation where the cost of a regulation can triple from getting 90% to 95% cleaner and the impact is minimal.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 9:55:26 AM PDT
*Excellent points! The right wing talking heads have done an excellent job in convincing their followers that socialism is the same as communism. They believe all their lies about how terrible the people have it in those countries. When I was in Norway, I spoke with random citizens about their health care, taxes and freedoms. I learned why they are considered the happiest people on earth! The people here don't realize how many possitive things we have here, that are "socialistic".

There are differences between Marxist comunism and democratic socialist policies. The biggest difference is extent and the biggest difference is that many Extreme countries tried to mold their populations and use far more force in regulating personal behavior. The European model is about getting as much out of private business without killing it.

The biggest oppression we can observe is when extreme versions of socialism imposed sort of a military dicipline in the country such as the soviets or Hitler.

Where the common ground is where the government centralizes parts of the economy or takes a significant portion of the income to manage the economy. Such as with health care or providing all kinds of benefits after high taxes have been levied.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 12:01:06 PM PDT
How was our military too small in the '90s? We weren't at war with anyone, so only zero would be too small.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 1:46:36 PM PDT
libloon2 says:
Rose Barrett-North says: //It sounds to me you are advocating this country should be run like a business.//

And this we know: At Bain, Romney was a venture-capitalist.
This reminds me of Secretary of the Treasury, Simon, during Nixon's term. Golly, he sure made lots of money. He bought companies, dissolved them, sold off the remaining parts, and a glass company, the part that made the glass, (and the JOBS), that part went to Mexico.

Golly! I just can't WAIT.
Untill Romney sells off all the remaining parts of U.S.Industry, for a profit, and sees them all shipped off to some foreign country.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 7:14:24 AM PDT
Skriker says:
And their tactics are no different than the democrats when their is a republican in the white house. Both sides need to get over themselves and get on with their jobs and stop acting like they are without fault in the mess that has become our government. They need to stop the games and the BS and fix the problems.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 7:16:16 AM PDT
Skriker says:
It is very interesting that our government is trying to go down the european path when so many european economies are failing under the burden of all these programs. You'd think that would be a BIG warning sign to hold off and look for alternative solutions, but it doesn't seem to be slowing anything down...:P

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 7:24:02 AM PDT
Skriker says:
I know plenty of older folks who would "die at their post" working than younger people these days. Employers seem to forget that the ideals and attitudes of older workers make them much more valuable than just the number of their age. They are dedicated, know what responsibility means usually and have the maturity to treat a job like the important thing that it is. Perhaps some smacks in the head with the clue stick for employers is in order? :) Very few problems have a one-size fits all answer, in fact most of them will never have such an easy answer, but that is how our government approaches every problem. :P

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 7:35:36 AM PDT
Skriker says:
Ummm...yeah sure Lily. Exactly why are you insulting me? Yep plenty of money is spent in elections all the time, but the real problem is that most voters don't think or bother to really pay attention during elections. Some small amount of thought will make it clear that an incumbant is not the greatest thing to ever happen to them, but they can't be bothered. So they keep re-electing the same types of people. Meanwhile on the other side of the fence they other party's supporters are trying to get their yahoo in who is just as bad as the other guy thinking that he will be so much better when it will just be more of the same.

Why is it the fault of the supreme court? The court is supposed to rule on the *law* not politics and time and again "extreme appointees who will be the end of civil liberties in this country" are appointed by one side or the other and prove themselves to be fair jurists on the high court and do the job they were appointed to do and not just political hacks who completely ignore the law for their own edification like those in congress are.

The problem lies in the partisanship in the rest of the government. The democrats don't like republican appointees and the republicans don't like democratic appointees. Has nothing really to do with the legal skills of the appointees, but instead with the motivations of the two big parties and this is carried over to the voters as well. Party A bad, Party B good is a pretty dumb way to approach elections when you should be looking at all of the candidates and choosing the one that can get the job done instead of the one who is in the party you like and not the one in the party you don't like. That is just dumb.

All voters need to do is think and this could stop, but they don't so it doesn't...perhaps you can get that through your head, eh?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 7:45:10 AM PDT
Skriker says:
Why do you say that Rose? What has exactly been so impressive about the Obama preidency that makes it something we should hope for? Obama definitely had a good message and I was not surprised to see him elected in the language in his first campaign. The problem is tha the didn't deliver. Nothing really changed, at least not for the better. The only really significant thing we got was Obama care which has some useful provisions, but is the typical government sledgehammer approach to trying to tap in a small nail of a problem. Beyond that we have a lot of "stimulus" spending that has barely pushed the economy forward at all, and continued and more severe partisan politics.

I don't see Romney as an answer to any of these issues, but I also don't see Obama as an answer either. As usual the big two offer up for our choice two lackluster and unimpressive candidates who I have no interest in voting for at all. I am so tired of being given the choice of which candidate sucks the least. :P

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 9:32:33 AM PDT
Amen.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 12:16:56 PM PDT
*Employers seem to forget that the ideals and attitudes of older workers make them much more valuable than just the number of their age.

This is why we need more freedom and competition. Make it easier to start a business and hire the best people you think. If the other companies are doing it wrong then go and try to beat them. There has to be other factors like insurance costs or other things outside the control of the business owner. There are also bosses that don't like their employees being more competent than they are.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 12:20:24 PM PDT
*The problem lies in the partisanship in the rest of the government. The democrats don't like republican appointees and the republicans don't like democratic appointees. Has nothing really to do with the legal skills of the appointees, but instead with the motivations of the two big parties and this is carried over to the voters as well. Party A bad, Party B good is a pretty dumb way to approach elections when you should be looking at all of the candidates and choosing the one that can get the job done instead of the one who is in the party you like and not the one in the party you don't like. That is just dumb.

It has to do with incompatable visions. You can see it here with very informed people who can't agree on anything. Politics simply reflects the divisions in society. Both parties are trying to purify their parties. The problem is that there is no vision for the country one side supports a free market and the other side want central planning and control. One side want a market to decide prices the other the government mandaing what people should make for example.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 12:23:24 PM PDT
*I don't see Romney as an answer to any of these issues, but I also don't see Obama as an answer either. As usual the big two offer up for our choice two lackluster and unimpressive candidates who I have no interest in voting for at all. I am so tired of being given the choice of which candidate sucks the least. :P

The problem is too much faith and power to deal with problems. That is the basic divide where one side sees government as having a limited capablitlity to solve problems the other does not. I take the side that governemnt gets out of the way and we solve our own problems. We take it on ourselves to better our lives. That is we take the bad jobs and low pay to learn skills and build a work history the other side just want to be paid what they think we need.

Posted on Jun 12, 2012 2:12:20 PM PDT
Skriker says:
I sort of agree, but also don't there, Joe. I want less government because less government means less imposition on my life. I do agree, though, that it is up to us to better our own lives. After all, immigrants come to this country all the time and once here they work really hard to make pennies. Many of them turn those pennies into their own business and a sustained and successful livelihood from then on for themselves and their families. These people are succeeding with the opportunity that is available, yet so many Americans can't be bothered to put in the same effort. That is the sad truth about the US today: many people in this country have lost the drive to even care about succeeding. It has all become about feeling good about yourself and political correctness. Years of schools telling kids that it is more than enough that they tried are setting up generations of people who will will fall flat on their faces, because real life isn't about trying, but about doing and accomplishing. Employers don't want people who "try", but instead want people who succeed.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  46
Total posts:  430
Initial post:  May 30, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 25, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions