112 replies to this topic

[mobb_deep]

That was completely non-responsive to my post.

The last time Romney Pilot took a stand on something, he ended up welching back, with his tail between his legs. You'll have to excuse him for being a waffling toolbox now.

[penultimatestraw]

Most every successful person I know is moderate or liberal. In fact I believe the more educated a person is (which tends to correlate with success), the more likely they are to vote Democrat.

JTB's link in the why do poor vote blue thread shows those with the highest education tend to vote Democrat. Of course they must have been brainwashed by the "liberal elite".

[penultimatestraw]

I've seen the complete opposite. On every level.

The little you've seen doesn't necessarily indicate reality, Reality.

[penultimatestraw]

Corporate bureaucrat success vs entrepreneurial success I'd imagine.

Entrepreneurs have to be overwhelmingly repub

Who the fvck cares? There are many ways to be "successful", just as there are reasons for political affiliation. Meanwhile, neither party is serving us well.

[nikki2200]

So sig worthy I had to quote it before you deleted it. Quite possibly the most uninformed, dumbest thing ever posted here.
Congrats on that.

No.... I'm quite certain the most uninformed, dumbest thing ever posted here was you claiming the stock market crashed in 2007 because Barack Obama announced he was running for president, and then subsequently won the nomination.

[Giants Fan]

What's funny is he thinks it's dumb, and doesn't realize that I am right. Notice that since I posted the definition ...... Crickets.

Stop listening to Rush, SUX. He's making you look like a fool.

[Recliner Pilot]

That was completely non-responsive to my post.

That was completely non-responsive to my post.

Yet another thread where you have failed to bring a single, specific proposal or plan by Obama.

[Reality]

The little you've seen doesn't necessarily indicate reality, Reality.

My point flew directly over your head.

Not surprising.

[penultimatestraw]

My point flew directly over your head.

Not surprising.

I think you were mocking IGW's anecdotal, unsubstantiated worldview. Funny thing is, one of you is probably correct as to the general association, and it isn't you.

[jerryskids]

Jesus ... maybe you don't understand the difference.

Liberal is open to new ideas and change where as conservative wants to keep things how they are.

If we stick to these classical definitions of the two werds, then I would agree that more intelligent people tend to be more "liberal." Smart people look for ways to improve things, which implies change. Really smart people also analyze the potential impact of those changes, instead of just accepting change for the sake of change.

Also this has nothing to do with spending like a drunken sailor.

[penultimatestraw]

If we stick to these classical definitions of the two werds, then I would agree that more intelligent people tend to be more "liberal." Smart people look for ways to improve things, which implies change. Really smart people also analyze the potential impact of those changes, instead of just accepting change for the sake of change.

Also this has nothing to do with spending like a drunken sailor.

Right. But modern conservative/liberal doesn't equate to spending habits - they're all drunken sailors; they just put their seamen in different ports.

[mobb_deep]

That was completely non-responsive to my post.

Yet another thread where you have failed to bring a single, specific proposal or plan by Obama.

Here goes Romney Pilot making more demands, when he won't even answer who he supported in the primaries. You're in no position to expect people to answer any questions, los lonely boy.

The only question we'll answer is why your family abandoned you. Of course, it was because you're a pompous welching dooshbag.

[Recliner Pilot]

Here goes Romney Pilot making more demands, when he won't even answer who he supported in the primaries. You're in no position to expect people to answer any questions, los lonely boy.

The only question we'll answer is why your family abandoned you. Of course, it was because you're a pompous welching dooshbag.

Another Obamatard who can't bring a single specific program or plan Obama has for the future.

[Frank M]

Right. But modern conservative/liberal doesn't equate to spending habits - they're all drunken sailors; they just put their seamen in different ports.

He-he...seamen...different ports....he-he....

[IGotWorms]

That was completely non-responsive to my post.

Yet another thread where you have failed to bring a single, specific proposal or plan by Obama.

I asked you first: how, specifically, will the Romney Administration pay for the tax cuts and increased military spending they want? What specific tax loopholes will they close? Stop trying to deflect the question and admit that you have no focking clue how they will do it, because they haven't told anyone.

[jerryskids]

I asked you first: how, specifically, will the Romney Administration pay for the tax cuts and increased military spending they want? What specific tax loopholes will they close? Stop trying to deflect the question and admit that you have no focking clue how they will do it, because they haven't told anyone.

Candidates don't typically have that level of detail prior to election; not surprisingly, Romney is being held to a higher standard. And sitting presidents typically have that level of detail, because they've been doing it for 4 years. But Obama has no details; rather he regurgitated the same hopey-changey stuff from 4 years ago.

[Recliner Pilot]

I asked you first: how, specifically, will the Romney Administration pay for the tax cuts and increased military spending they want? What specific tax loopholes will they close? Stop trying to deflect the question and admit that you have no focking clue how they will do it, because they haven't told anyone.

Minute details like specific loopholes to close originates in Congress.

Here is a link to Romney's economic plan. Feel free to provide the equivalent from your Hero.

http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

[IGotWorms]

Candidates don't typically have that level of detail prior to election; not surprisingly, Romney is being held to a higher standard. And sitting presidents typically have that level of detail, because they've been doing it for 4 years. But Obama has no details; rather he regurgitated the same hopey-changey stuff from 4 years ago.

"That level of detail"? WTF are you talking about? I'm not asking Mitt Romney to produce his precise calculations or get in to the minutiae of policy-making. All he needs to say is what tax loopholes he plans to close. List five of them and call it a day. But he won't and/or can't.

[MDC]

Minute details like specific loopholes to close originates in Congress.

Here is a link to Romney's economic plan. Feel free to provide the equivalent from your Hero.

http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

In a few months that website is going to evaporate into the ether, just like Mitt's campaign did yesterday.

[DankNuggs]

"That level of detail"? WTF are you talking about? I'm not asking Mitt Romney to produce his precise calculations or get in to the minutiae of policy-making. All he needs to say is what tax loopholes he plans to close. List five of them and call it a day. But he won't and/or can't.

hope its not the mortgage interest tax deduction...

[IGotWorms]

hope its not the mortgage interest tax deduction...

Well that's what some people are afraid of. And it brings up exactly why we should know what loopholes Mitt wants to close: is he going to close loopholes that help multi-billionaires who make all their money off investments, or is he going to close loopholes that help middle-class wage earners? It's a fair question and one that ought to be answered before the election.

[MDC]

Well that's what some people are afraid of. And it brings up exactly why we should know what loopholes Mitt wants to close: is he going to close loopholes that help multi-billionaires who make all their money off investments, or is he going to close loopholes that help middle-class wage earners? It's a fair question and one that ought to be answered before the election.

Why should Romney bother to come up with policies, when we all know he'll never have a chance to enact them? If I were him I'd start planning my Christmas vacation in the Carribean.

[Recliner Pilot]

Well that's what some people are afraid of. And it brings up exactly why we should know what loopholes Mitt wants to close: is he going to close loopholes that help multi-billionaires who make all their money off investments, or is he going to close loopholes that help middle-class wage earners? It's a fair question and one that ought to be answered before the election.

Where are your details from Obama?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy!]

I'm not saying something is liberal because I don't like it. I'm saying he was liberal because he "spent like a drunken sailor."

I contend that Romney/Ryan will take a more conservative spending approach than Obama. Do you disagree? If so, and if you support Obama, do you then support a more conservative spending approach?

Yes and no.

Well he "spend" less? Maybe.

But when you factor in the fact that they will slash tax rates for the rich (he didn't raise $700million in campaign money by promising to slash entitlements) and the fact that I would put it at around 85% that the Romney administration would be chickenhawk and start some stupid war that would cost trillions...

So no, I do not buy the premise that Romney would, in net, spend less.

And yes, we all want the budget balanced. The only difference is how. Some (Republicans) want to do away with all social programs whatsoever, so that we have a third world level hunger rate, and an enormous percentage of the population receiving no medical care. Then they are free to slash tax rates on the rich, and play chickenhawk games with the military.

I want to raise taxes on the top to where the used to be, cut military spending to what it actually needs to be to defend OUR COUNTRY, not the rest of the focking globe, and provide universal, single payer health care. Now, EVERY LAST ONE of our social programs needs MASSIVE reform. Its not even funny how bad they are being scammed (for example... at the "college" I teach at, I'd asy a good third or more of the students are on food stamps... they all have slick fancy phones, they all talk about how much weed they smoke... this should not stand).

It really is a decision between "America for the few" and "America for the many." This does not mean I think anyone is entitled to anything, and if I were king, I can guarantee I would slash the cost of all of these programs by 1/3. But it does our country irreperable harm to let the aristocracy rule for their own ends, keep the lions share of everything, and let the lower third starve and have no health care. That's been done in hundreds of countries throughout history... it never ends well.

[Recliner Pilot]

Some (Republicans) want to do away with all social programs whatsoever, so that we have a third world level hunger rate, and an enormous percentage of the population receiving no medical care. Then they are free to slash tax rates on the rich, and play chickenhawk games with the military.

Exactly which Republicans have proposed this?

[jerryskids]

Yes and no.

Well he "spend" less? Maybe.

But when you factor in the fact that they will slash tax rates for the rich (he didn't raise $700million in campaign money by promising to slash entitlements) and the fact that I would put it at around 85% that the Romney administration would be chickenhawk and start some stupid war that would cost trillions...

So no, I do not buy the premise that Romney would, in net, spend less.

And yes, we all want the budget balanced. The only difference is how. Some (Republicans) want to do away with all social programs whatsoever, so that we have a third world level hunger rate, and an enormous percentage of the population receiving no medical care. Then they are free to slash tax rates on the rich, and play chickenhawk games with the military.

I want to raise taxes on the top to where the used to be, cut military spending to what it actually needs to be to defend OUR COUNTRY, not the rest of the focking globe, and provide universal, single payer health care. Now, EVERY LAST ONE of our social programs needs MASSIVE reform. Its not even funny how bad they are being scammed (for example... at the "college" I teach at, I'd asy a good third or more of the students are on food stamps... they all have slick fancy phones, they all talk about how much weed they smoke... this should not stand).

It really is a decision between "America for the few" and "America for the many." This does not mean I think anyone is entitled to anything, and if I were king, I can guarantee I would slash the cost of all of these programs by 1/3. But it does our country irreperable harm to let the aristocracy rule for their own ends, keep the lions share of everything, and let the lower third starve and have no health care. That's been done in hundreds of countries throughout history... it never ends well.

This is a great post, because IMO it captures the essence of the failure of the Romney campaign to date. I could easily say some Democrats want to tax everyone 100% and create a classless socialist society; it would be equally true to your statement. The difference is that you honestly believe that that is what Romney wants to do. Despite leaving a lucrative company to help the Olympics in his home state, despite running Massachusetts without selling pieces to China and raiding the treasury for his fat cat friends, this is what you think he wants to do with this country.

Clearly his campaign is not successfully changing these perceptions, whether intentional or not. You probably don't care because of the source, but Glenn Beck had an interesting show on Romney last Friday. The link below has a summary and a series of interviews he did with people who know and have been helped by Romney. Perhaps it will give you some insight into the man.

My link

[MDC]

This is a great post, because IMO it captures the essence of the failure of the Romney campaign to date. I could easily say some Democrats want to tax everyone 100% and create a classless socialist society; it would be equally true to your statement. The difference is that you honestly believe that that is what Romney wants to do. Despite leaving a lucrative company to help the Olympics in his home state, despite running Massachusetts without selling pieces to China and raiding the treasury for his fat cat friends, this is what you think he wants to do with this country.

Clearly his campaign is not successfully changing these perceptions, whether intentional or not. You probably don't care because of the source, but Glenn Beck had an interesting show on Romney last Friday. The link below has a summary and a series of interviews he did with people who know and have been helped by Romney. Perhaps it will give you some insight into the man.

My link

I have no idea what Romney would actually do as president, but I find it really hard to believe that he's going to balance the budget, given that he is calling for increased military spending, possible military conflict with Iran, and reduced tax revenue through tax cuts.

If I had to guess, Romney would probably make a handful of entitlement cuts that don't amount to a whole lot while reducing revenue, and the net effect when it comes to the debt wouldn't be substantially different than if Obummer were in office.

That really is a guess, because Romney isn't going to win anyway. He's sort of crossed that threshold where a legitimate candidate becomes the butt of late night TV jokes and everyone, even his own staffers, knows he's going down like the Hindenburg.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy!]

This is a great post, because IMO it captures the essence of the failure of the Romney campaign to date. I could easily say some Democrats want to tax everyone 100% and create a classless socialist society; it would be equally true to your statement. The difference is that you honestly believe that that is what Romney wants to do. Despite leaving a lucrative company to help the Olympics in his home state, despite running Massachusetts without selling pieces to China and raiding the treasury for his fat cat friends, this is what you think he wants to do with this country.

Clearly his campaign is not successfully changing these perceptions, whether intentional or not. You probably don't care because of the source, but Glenn Beck had an interesting show on Romney last Friday. The link below has a summary and a series of interviews he did with people who know and have been helped by Romney. Perhaps it will give you some insight into the man.

My link

Haven't seen that one, but I did watch both the Obama and Romney pieces on CNN the other night. Pretty much confirmed my views on Romney.

[Giants Fan]

If we stick to these classical definitions of the two werds, then I would agree that more intelligent people tend to be more "liberal." Smart people look for ways to improve things, which implies change. Really smart people also analyze the potential impact of those changes, instead of just accepting change for the sake of change.

Also this has nothing to do with spending like a drunken sailor.

Interesting article, if you are smart enough to understand it:

http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/496

[DankNuggs]

Interesting article, if you are smart enough to understand it:

http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/496

I don't have a degree in graphic design, but i understood a fair amount of the words on that page...


LOL @ article saying liberalism = freedom. Freedom like a caged rat.

[Giants Fan]

I don't have a degree in graphic design, but i understood a fair amount of the words on that page...


LOL @ article saying liberalism = freedom. Freedom like a caged rat.

Well, that is the latin basis for the word. But really that's all just the opinion of a Ludwig von Mises Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Economics at Auburn University, so you are probably smarter.

[DankNuggs]

Well, that is the latin basis for the word. But really that's all just the opinion of a Ludwig von Mises Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Economics at Auburn University, so you are probably smarter.

Spes sibi quisque

[Recliner Pilot]

Exactly which Republicans have proposed this?

Bump for Titans.