Freeze...Mitt Vice!


Tony D.

Recommended Posts

Mitt Romney pulled a Sonny Crockett on Pres. Obama at the debate last night. Made him look like he's been fooling everyone for 4 years.......FREEZE.....MITT VICE! :cool::thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Sonny-Burnett

    28

  • Kavinsky

    15

  • Tony D.

    10

  • Ferrariman

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Administrators

Why doesn't he tell us all how he intends to fix the problem instead of simply bashing Obama? Don't get me wrong, I have no love for politicians at all but millions are spent on campaigns to see who can sling the most mud at the other. At this point I don't know who I intend to vote for or if I intend on voting at all. It's always a choice between the lesser of the evils and in my opinion, that's not a choice. But when in doubt it's usually safer to go with the devil we know as opposed to the devil we might get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was a bit suprised at how well Romney did in the debates. He was well prepared.I'm guessing he doesn't tell us precisely his plans for doing things, for the same reason Obama told us nothing about his plans when he was running for office, about himself, the people he associated with, or what exactly what he'll do in the future as President.I'd rather take a chance on someone who wants to try to change things to put us back on track, then someone whom after nearly 4 years we already know can't. I'll take the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have expected a better comeback from Obama's people than cartoons of Mitt shooting "Big-Bird.!:DDennis Miller had the best one,"Wonder if Obamacare covers an #*#-kicking?":thumbsup:

post-620-13892964911143_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Ferrariman :The few minutes given the debators was not enough for detailed plans.We don't know exactly what Romney can do for America but we do know he doesn't want to cut our military ( Navy, Air Force etc.) and let Iran get nuclear weapons which can reduce the America we love to a Third World country.Obama is in favor of more wasted tax money for 'green' companies like Solendra etc. He doesn't wqant to drill for oil in the U.S. or extend the Alaskan pipe line. Like Rush Limbaugh said : Solar batteries or wind power will never get a jumbo jet in the air. You need fuel. Romney is in favor of strengthening the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost always avoid politics here but come on man. I know I may annoy or anger somebody by getting into politics here but man. While I agree most elections are a choice between two evils and you vote on who you think is less "evil". This is not. It is a very clear choice and I am sorry but if you are undecided now one way or the other you just are not paying attention and really have a civic and moral duty not to vote. Leave the voting to informed people who are paying attention. In a choice between a somewhat liberal businessman with a great business record and a guy who has no clue about economics, and in 4 years has retarded the recover with his insane policies. Jimmy Carter loves Obama because he is no longer considered the worst modern president. Illeagally shipping weapons to gangs in Mexico where hundreds are murdered with those guns and covering it up, Clearly lying (not words I use easilly in regards to a US President) about what happened in Benghazi to cover up his error and failed foreign policies, I mean, Nixon was driven out of office for a much smaller scandal and Obama has the nerve to run again. If the press still existed in the US he would have been driven out of office a long time ago. This is not a close call, if you are undecided you have a duty to society not to vote. It is as simple as this: If you believe in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the God given rights of free people, that the US is a great country because of these things and more, Capitalism and that it was great for the US to enter world War two and defeat the Progressives/Socialist under Hitler than Romney is your guy. If you believe that the Constitution and the Decleration of Independence are just old writtings that are "living" so they can be re-worked and re-interpreted, that they are an impediment to good government, that the US was wrong to enter World War 2 and screw things up as Hitler had it right, then Obama is your guy. There is no grey area here, choose a side because they are polar opposites. I believe in the right to vote but I also believe that with it comes the responsiblity to be informed and make a knowledgeable choice or no choice at all. If you are undecided at this point. DO NOT VOTE. It really is as simple as individual rights of free people vs. Government knows best, you belong to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Romney presented himself well and articulated a number of his plans in the time frame allowed in this format. I think the smear campaign waged against him over the past months by the Obama Pacs was largely overturned in his first appearance. Romney has proven himself an effective business leader and manager over several decades, someone who understands how to manage both expenditures and improve revenue streams in multi-billion dollar businesses, something that has been lacking for the last 4 years and even in prior presidencies, imo. And if there is any doubt then look at the record of the incumbent over the last 4 years:• $16 Trillion and climbing foreign deficit, (he started at $ 10 Trillion) , and is the largest debt level in our country’s history under Obama ( including the huge $800Billion failed Stimulus plans) If Obama wins re-election, the Congressional Budget Office predicts another 4 years of annual $1 Trillion deficits so our debt will be at least $20 Trillion. the impact of this is staggering, not just in interest costs that have to be paid on this debt, but on the other programs that can't be implemented because the goverment has used up its "credit line" with this spending. Imo, Obama does not understand basic economics and fails to understand that the path to economic prosperity is job growth...period. It is not increasing taxes on an already overburdened economy. Job creation will stimulate growth through increased consumer demand for numerous products and services (more disposable income and more spenders) and that will automatically generate more revenues (taxes) to help with the deficit. BUt revenues without reducing government spending is insufficent. We must make significant cuts to government spending that has ballooned under the Obama administration. Reducing corporate tax rates and personal tax rates will stimulate job growth in the small business sector. We already have the highest corporate tax structure in the world and that is a major reason why we are losing jobs overseas. Obama does not seem to get that. • For only the second time in our nation’s recent history our Debt levels now exceed our Gross Domestic Product (what we produce as a country). I.e, we owe more than our country's national output. A disgrace under any standard, and matched only briefly during WWII as our country ramped up war production and even then our debt was only a tiny fraction of today's debt. • For the first time in our nation’s history our Credit Rating was downgraded due to Obama’s uncontrolled spending and because there is no plan in Congress to get spending under control. More credit agencies are now discussing downgrading us again. This will make borrowing against our massive debt levels even more expensive and the interest alone on our debt is already a staggering number. • The longest period of unemployment over 8% in our nation’s recent history short of the Great Depression. 43 straight months during Obama's tenure. And the number is even greater, some estimates at 15%, if you factor in the number of people who stopped looking for jobs or took something much lower in pay than they had previously. (the so-called unemployment and underemployment rate)• The biggest proposed tax increase in our nations’ recent history is set to occur in January under Obama if he lets the prior tax cuts expire. If any doubts on that, well Biden just announced he plans to support a $1 Trillion tax hike in January. I am tired of the same Obama line about people in the high tax brackets needing to pay more. Obama continues to mislead on this because the largest proportion of job creators are in this so called high tax bracket, not just the wealthy as he says, as some 50% of all small business employees and 25% of the total US workforce are employed by small businesses in this personal tax bracket that Obama wants to raise from 35% to 40%. The impact...fewer jobs will be created and an estimated 700,000 jobs will be lost by this tax increase. Just a stupid plan imo. • The price of gasoline has more than doubled under Obama's administration and in no small part becauseof his failure to develop our own domestic energy sources vs continued dependency on sometimes unfriendly mideast countries. Example here is his refusal to add new oil drilling permits on federal land; in fact he has cut those permits in half in the last 4 years so we are doing substantially less drilling. And it takes years to develop new oil fields once discovered so it puts us further behind and dependent on foreign sources of oil for years to come. • Obama has blocked the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada due to pressure from environmental extremists. The impact is a lost opportunity to add a huge number of jobs, an estimated 1 million by some estimates, and again reduction of dependency on foreign sources of oil. Who is Canada going to sell to now.. China. • Housing prices have been continually eroding under Obama for the last 4 years as he has no program for reviving the market. I would argue Dodd-Frank has stymied rather than helped new loans. • The biggest increases to entitlement programs in our nation’s recent history in the last 4 years including Obama dropping the work requirement to obtain welfare. I have nothing against entitlement programs for the needy but we need balance to encourage those recipients to return to the work force. And we need to eliminate fraud and waste in these programs. • His massive Socialized Medicine program (Obamacare) is already costing the taxpayers Billions to implement, including 16,000 IRS agents hired to enforce the massive spending bill. This program will drag down the quality of our healthcare system, just like it has in other countries that have implemented government run healthcare. Our government has never effectively nor efficiently managed a massive government run program. Cases in point...Social Security,Welfare, and even the Post Office. o And Obamacare is expected to add at least a $1 to $2 Trillion in the next decade to our already overburdened national debt. To me there is only one clear choice given the dire economic situation our country is facing. And we are literally at the edge of an economic fiscal cliff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Ferrariman :The few minutes given the debators was not enough for detailed plans.We don't know exactly what Romney can do for America but we do know he doesn't want to cut our military ( Navy' date=' Air Force etc.) and let Iran get nuclear weapons which can reduce the America we love to a Third World country.Obama is in favor of more wasted tax money for 'green' companies like Solendra etc. He doesn't wqant to drill for oil in the U.S. or extend the Alaskan pipe line. Like Rush Limbaugh said : Solar batteries or wind power will never get a jumbo jet in the air. You need fuel. Romney is in favor of strengthening the U.S.[/quote']I simply don't think foreign policy is the biggest issue right now. It has to be the economy and jobs. I think I'm with Ferrariman in my thinking. I'm no great fan of Obama and his policies, but Romney has said so many different things now that I don't feel I know what his plans are. He just said yesterday his 47% comments were "completely wrong", but a week ago he said he stood by the idea but worded it poorly. The lack of details on his tax plan, and he has had lots of time in his campaigning to discuss them, is also bothersome to me. I can't bring myself to vote for such an unknown quantity. At this point I guess I would have to subscribe to the "anything is better than Obama" way of thinking to vote for Romney, but I don't think that's necessarily true. The Bush policies were worse and got us into this mess, and from the little he has explained in detail, I don't see how Romney's are a whole lot different.At least the jobs numbers today are better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not increasing taxes on an already overburdened economy. Jobs will stimulate growth and that will enable revenue (tax) increases to help with the deficit. Reduced government spending is also a necessity. Reducing corporate tax rates and personal tax rates will stimulate job growth in the small business sector. We already have the highest corporate tax structure in the world and that is why we are losing jobs overseas. Obama does not seem to get that. • For only the second time in our nation’s history our Debt levels now exceed our Gross Domestic Product (what we produce as a country). I.e, we owe more than our country's national output. A disgrace and matched only briefly during WWII as our country ramped up war production and even then our debt was only a tiny fraction of today's debt. • For the first time in our nation’s history our Credit Rating was downgraded due to Obama’s uncontrolled spending and because there is no plan in Congress to get spending under control. More credit agencies are now discussing downgrading us again. This will make borrowing against our massive debt levels even more expensive and the interest alone on our debt is already a staggering number. • The longest period of unemployment over 8% in our nation’s history short of the Great Depression. 43 straight months during Obama's tenure. And the number is even greater, some estimates at 15%, if you factor in the number of people who stopped looking for jobs or took something much lower in pay than they had previously. • The biggest proposed tax increase in our nations’ history is set to occur in January under Obama if he lets the prior tax cuts expire. If any doubts on that, well Biden just announced he plans to support a $1 Trillion tax hike in January. • Housing prices have been continually eroding under Obama for the last 4 years as he has no program for reviving the market• The biggest increases to entitlement programs in our nation’s history in the last 4 years including Obama dropping the work requirement to obtain welfare. I have nothing against entitlement programs for the needy but we need balance to encourage those recipients to return to the work force. And we need to eliminate fraud and waste in these programs. • His massive Socialized Medicine program (Obamacare) is already costing the taxpayers Billions to implement, including 16,000 IRS agents hired to enforce the massive spending bill. This program will drag down the quality of our healthcare system, just like it has in other countries that have implemented government run healthcare. Our country has never effectively nor efficiently managed a massive government run program. Cases in point...Social Security,Welfare, and even the Post Office. o And Obamacare is expected to add at least a $1 to $2 Trillion to our already overburdened national debt. To me there is only one clear choice given the dire economic situation our country is facing. And we are literally at the edge of an economic fiscal cliff.

Amen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is nice to see 7.8 this number has little credibility. Most ecomomist state that the real number is over 11%. I think allot of people forget that history shows us that if Obama had done nothing (but golf) in the last 3.5 years then the unemployment rate would be in the 6% area. This means that he has slowed the recovery. The economy had started to recover before he came into office and then he hit with the stimulus etc.Wasted money. Reagan came into office inheriting a far worse economy and trend from Carter than Obama came into and look at how Reagan turned things around by this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is nice to see 7.8 this number has little credibility. Most ecomomist state that the real number is over 11%. I think allot of people forget that history shows us that if Obama had done nothing (but golf) in the last 3.5 years then the unemployment rate would be in the 6% area. This means that he has slowed the recovery. The economy had started to recover before he came into office and then he hit with the stimulus etc.Wasted money. Reagan came into office inheriting a far worse economy and trend from Carter than Obama came into and look at how Reagan turned things around by this point.

Not only that' date=' but see what Jack Welch said about these numbers today: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers." It appears that a new metric was introduced this month which seems to have skewed the number unrealistically lower when only a small numer of jobs were actually added to the workforce. I think Welch was right. "But skeptics pointed out that not only is 7.8 percent unemployment hardly a "real recovery," but the report reflected an uptick in part-time jobs and the number of self-employed. Further, they stressed that there appeared to be a huge disconnect between the modest number of new jobs reported and the significant decrease in the unemployment rate. The Labor Department, based on a broad survey of employers, said 114,000 jobs were added in September. [i']But the unemployment rate itself is based on a separate "household survey," which showed a whopping 873,000 new jobs in September. "This must be an anomaly," former Congressional Budget Office director Doug Holtz-Eakin said in a snap analysis of the numbers. "It is out of line with any of the other data.." Holtz-Eakin noted the household survey is smaller, suggesting it is not as reliable. He called estimate of 873,000 new jobs "implausible.""Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/jobless-rate-falls-to-78-percent-in-september/#ixzz28RHhj9y7In my line of work we call that "Cooking the Books".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...if you believe that the US was wrong to enter World War 2 and screw things up as Hitler had it right' date=' then Obama is your guy.... [/quote']I'm sorry Charlie but that is utterly ridiculous. I consider myself to be right of center fiscally, and Bush's economic policies were completely non-conservative and a failure: two wars unpaid for while giving tax cuts and increasing spending on the prescription drug program. This, and he came in with a budget surplus. The problem is Romney's plan is not very clear or clearly that different than Bush's was. "I'll cut taxes" is simply not a viable policy and it didn't create massive job growth when Bush did it, twice. The economy is growing too slowly now, but Romney's ideas seem a step backward, from what he will reveal.By the way, I follow politics very closely, and because I am more moderate doesn't mean I shouldn't vote. I understand these issues very well, but the reality is many people's political positions fall between the major parties. It's not an either or situations. That's why it's called a political spectrum. This is one of the flaws of the two-party system.Somebody else started this thread, not me, but since we are all weighing in, I have to say I think your comment, though perhaps not your ideas, are over the top and overly simplistic. I appologize if you don't agree, but you chose your words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Charlie but that is utterly ridiculous. I consider myself to be right of center fiscally, and Bush's economic policies were completely non-conservative and a failure: two wars unpaid for while giving tax cuts and increasing spending on the prescription drug program. This, and he came in with a budget surplus. The problem is Romney's plan is not very clear or clearly that different than Bush's was. "I'll cut taxes" is simply not a viable policy and it didn't create massive job growth when Bush did it, twice. The economy is growing too slowly now, but Romney's ideas seem a step backward, from what he will reveal.By the way, I follow politics very closely, and because I am more moderate doesn't mean I shouldn't vote. I understand these issues very well, but the reality is many people's political positions fall between the major parties. It's not an either or situations. That's why it's called a political spectrum. This is one of the flaws of the two-party system.Somebody else started this thread, not me, but since we are all weighing in, I have to say I think your comment, though perhaps not your ideas, are over the top and overly simplistic. I appologize if you don't agree, but you chose your words.[/quoteAnd I stand behind them. I think it is interesting that you call them rediculous but then give no statement, evidence, facts or even mention of anything that would back up your radical claim. My statements may be bold but they are accurate and not the least bit ridiculous. It is appropriate when saying someone's statements are ridiculous to back up your claim, you did not. My statement is spot on. I do not have any idea why you brought Bush into the conversation. I certainly did not support his fiscal irresponsibility and pointing to bad behavior to justify other bad behavior does not work. My comments had nothing to do with moderates or independents. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat myself. However; even if one were center of the road moderate there is no exscuse for not being informed and still voting. Even a moderate should not be undecided at this point as the two choices are so different as I explained in my earlier post. Being a moderate is not relevant to the point. There is no middle ground when one canidate wants to take the country down the path to European Socialism and the other wants to return to the founding principals of the US, and Capitalism. There is no clearer choice. If you believe Europe has it right and Greece should be our economic model because they have it right then Obama is your guy. If you think America had it right but got off track and should return to Fiscal conservatism, then Romney is your guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply false.

I am going to walk away for a while because I will get hot and say something I would rather not. But I will say this. I do not lie and I am informed. Calling me a liar and then giving no supporting evidence is below childish. Back up your words. My statement is 100% true This is the second time you have made a personal attack and not been able to back it up. Do some research, get an education, Reagan did inherit a worse economy than Obama. Look it up before you call someone a liar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Charlie but that is utterly ridiculous. I consider myself to be right of center fiscally' date=' and Bush's economic policies were completely non-conservative and a failure: two wars unpaid for while giving tax cuts and increasing spending on the prescription drug program. This' date=' and he came in with a budget surplus. The problem is Romney's plan is not very clear or clearly that different than Bush's was. "I'll cut taxes" is simply not a viable policy and it didn't create massive job growth when Bush did it, twice. The economy is growing too slowly now, but Romney's ideas seem a step backward, from what he will reveal.By the way, I follow politics very closely, and because I am more moderate doesn't mean I shouldn't vote. I understand these issues very well, but the reality is many people's political positions fall between the major parties. It's not an either or situations. That's why it's called a political spectrum. This is one of the flaws of the two-party system.Somebody else started this thread, not me, but since we are all weighing in, I have to say I think your comment, though perhaps not your ideas, are over the top and overly simplistic. I appologize if you don't agree, but you chose your words.[/quoteAnd I stand behind them. I think it is interesting that you call them rediculous but then give no statement, evidence, facts or even mention of anything that would back up your radical claim. My statements may be bold but they are accurate and not the least bit ridiculous. It is appropriate when saying someone's statements are ridiculous to back up your claim, you did not. My statement is spot on. I do not have any idea why you brought Bush into the conversation. I certainly did not support his fiscal irresponsibility and pointing to bad behavior to justify other bad behavior does not work. My comments had nothing to do with moderates or independents. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat myself. However; even if one were center of the road moderate there is no exscuse for not being informed and still voting. Even a moderate should not be undecided at this point as the two choices are so different as I explained in my earlier post. Being a moderate is not relevant to the point. There is no middle ground when one canidate wants to take the country down the path to European Socialism and the other wants to return to the founding principals of the US, and Capitalism. There is no clearer choice. If you believe Europe has it right and Greece should be our economic model because they have it right then Obama is your guy. If you think America had it right but got off track and should return to Fiscal conservatism, then Romney is your guy.[/quote'']Where is your evidence that Obama sided with Hitler in WWII? That is what you stated. Show me a quote where he has backed Hitler and I'll agree your statement was bold but accurate, not ridiculous.To say "there is no middle ground" is simplisic. You are then saying there are only two political positions that exist, with nothing in between. This is a false dichotomy and a logical fallacy. Very little in this world (and I purposely did not say "nothing") is black and white. To claim it is so is, I repeat, overly simplistic. Politics, by its very nature is a spectrum, and our two-party system is a forced dichotomy to which a growing number of people oppose by remaining independant. You and I both seem to subscribe to this, but with very different political views.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to walk away for a while because I will get hot and say something I would rather not. But I will say this. I do not lie and I am informed. Calling me a liar and then giving no supporting evidence is below childish. Back up your words. My statement is 100% true This is the second time you have made a personal attack and not been able to back it up. Do some research' date=' get an education, Reagan did inherit a worse economy than Obama. Look it up before you call someone a liar.[/quote']I'm sorry your emotions are coming into play. Do what you think is best but I do find it interesting that we are both independants. Reagan did inherit a higher unemployment rate, but that is not the same as saying the entire economy was worse. Economists and members of both political parties agree and have stated countless times that this was the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Reagan was not dealing with a collapse in the housing market, a failed banking system, and a teetering automotive industry, in addition to rapidly increasing unemployment. You agreed with other members who just called this recession the worst since the Great Depression. I don't see any evidence for your position on this statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not say "nothing") is black and white. To claim it is so is, I repeat, overly simplistic. Politics, by its very nature is a spectrum, and our two-party system is a forced dichotomy to which a growing number of people oppose by remaining independant. You and I both seem to subscribe to this, but with very different political views.

Read Mein Kampf and you will see how they are similar. It was the German Workers Socialist Party. The point there being that both Hitler and Obama are/were Socialist. This is an election that is that simple as can be described as being to radically different choices. For the record-Reagan came into office during a double dip recession. Obama entered in a single dip recession that had bottomed out by the second quarter of 2009 before his “stimulus†went into effect.Unemployment rate went to 10.8 in 1982 while in the 2009 recession the unemployment rate was lower, 10.0 %.Reagan entered office with inflation at 12% where Obama had the huge benefit of 0% inflation. Reagan had to address solving unemployment and the economy while at the same time addressing inflation. Not a problem Obama faced with 0% inflation. Reagan had a much more daunting task.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry your emotions are coming into play. Do what you think is best but I do find it interesting that we are both independants. Reagan did inherit a higher unemployment rate' date=' but that is not the same as saying the entire economy was worse. Economists and members of both political parties agree and have stated countless times that this was the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Reagan was not dealing with a collapse in the housing market, a failed banking system, and a teetering automotive industry, in addition to rapidly increasing unemployment. You agreed with other members who just called this recession the worst since the Great Depression. I don't see any evidence for your position on this statement.[/quote']I did not agree with that statement at all. Agreeing with the overall statement of a posting does not mean that I agree with a false premise contained within. Just because some people state something countless times does not make it true. I have posted the basics of the economic sittuation in my last post and await your bringing any facts to back up any of your statements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know with all of this, you know anyone can make up numbers and make them seem more important than what they are.and I know that Obama whole heartedly believes he's the white knight of all of this when in truth I think he's not. I believe he should be focusing on bringing back the factories and stuff that has moved out of this country because of the taxes, labor union costs and red tape over simple stuff like you cant move simple boxes without a labor union guy doing it and the EPA BS that there trying to enforce now.and that's just the stuff I know about with the deal with car factories and why GM has moved plants to mexico and canada. You know the people he gave the bailout money to.and **** framingham MA really went down the tubes when GM left years ago and that's just one factory, now just imagine that on a national level and not restricted to one car company or company period!what he needs to do is downsize the federal government, it's spending and its restrictions to straighten this whole mess out and give the investors a reason to come back and bring the jobs back, I mean its really quite simple in concept. But all he seems to want to do is implement systems that are highly complex over the ones that are worn out and loop holed like you wouldnt believe instead of fixing the ones that are there and just spend most of our money.you know keep it simple stupid, in the most general of terms. were all hurting here and we need jobs and a simplified tax code that doesnt take hiring an accountant to figure out, not bailouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm form the uk so dont get a vote-but i find the debate here fascinating(c.glide and pahonu especially).U.S.A is the most powerful country in the world so whoever is the president is rightfully called here the leader of the free world.I'll certainly be tuning in to cnn over the next few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm form the uk so dont get a vote-but i find the debate here fascinating(c.glide and pahonu especially).U.S.A is the most powerful country in the world so whoever is the president is rightfully called here the leader of the free world.I'll certainly be tuning in to cnn over the next few weeks.

when you look at the collection of laws, stale laws and federal laws. the differences between states usually caused by one bad area and an area where some rich people live where the broken tax code raised the taxes for everyone like in Connecticut even though it shouldnt. were really just a collection of 50 countries all connected under the federal laws that collect taxes and head up the defense of the country all headed all up in washington DC where truth be told all of the problems seem to be coming from.where sadly the separation of powers of the federal and state laws have started to blur and seem to be applying to everyone. not set areas with set needs and goals to survive and prosper which is where the system and its balance is having heavy problems right now.I mean the goverment is not supposed to enforce some idiots whims that dont agree with the rest of the countries wants like what happened with Sopa and Pipa. which was being pushed through by the MPAA and others without our knowledge which would have made the internet as bady censored as it is in china. Also I'm certain mr flip flop who says I wont sign it would have probably signed it in ending well youtube, here and god knows what else and still could sign a modded version in depending on how the election goes.and maybe also enforce that law that that Nazi Joseph Liberman got signed in a few months ago that I only heard about by proxy where it sounded like if you questioned them your a terrorirst and that's the guy behind the department of defense!not good, not good at all, this system needs balance right now they need to downsize and they dont want to do whats needed. so we have to force them out with our votestruth be told I wish we had more choices than just two parties and some old guy who doesnt know when to give up. who also wants to double and put the MA state tax on everything, the 6.6 % one that costs everyone with a new car about 300 extra bucks per year that doesnt do jack or give you anything back.just gives them more money to steal from you, might as well burn it in the street. It'd do as much good and it be better than giving it to Tom Ruin the roads and let mobsters run free Menino.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"were really just a collection of 50 countries all connected under the federal laws that collect taxes and head up the defense of the country all headed all up in washington DC where truth be told all of the problems seem to be coming from"i feel you on the state tax-we get hit with a 20percent value added tax here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm form the uk so dont get a vote-but i find the debate here fascinating(c.glide and pahonu especially).U.S.A is the most powerful country in the world so whoever is the president is rightfully called here the leader of the free world.I'll certainly be tuning in to cnn over the next few weeks.

You might consider some other news outlets besides CNN as they sometimes lean far to the left in their reporting and do not always provide balanced reporting, imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.