and at this point both of them are shit, except one was better at saying he wouldn't fuck us all over better then the other. one says yes i will shove this foot long dildo up the middle classes ass, while the other said he wouldn't but conveniently lets the other party and part of the government do just that.
and lastly EL OH FUCKING EL at "shady manipulation of the media". i guess if you mean that even fox and it's contributors are some how in on it then id possibly agree with you. but I'm pretty damn sure you don't.
Last edited by Sky High; 2013-03-24 at 07:50 AM.
Neither one of them can get what they want accomplished unless those in power agree. The system of cheques and balances.
No way in hell he would have
After calling 47% of the population moochers and continuing support of Mr. Rape-babies-are-a-gift-from-God, not a chance. The man was just completely disconnected from the populace he wanted to preside over. He was SO desperate to be president he agreed with everybody and disagreed with no one who wasn't a Democrat. He rebooted his campaign multiple times because it just wasn't working. He was just not meant to be president. Add to that every answer about his policies was pretty much "you'll see when I'm elected" and he was just a little too much of a shyster to be put in that kind of power.
Anyone else think Jaime Lannister only has the Kingslayer title because he was just too lazy to kill the king on heroic mode?
Judging by this OP Salandrin, no one should take him seriously AT ALL from his previous posts. Moderators have called him a troll before and all he is doing is trying to start a flamewar. Don't feed him or any other idiot that think people on welfare are "lazy and low morals". http://www.ibtimes.com/why-conservat...stamps-705776# Pretty much debunks everything Itisamuh and Fox News says. Most of the people on food stamps work for their benefits but thanks to the economy the Republicans helped create they have to work a low paying job that won't pay for all of their rent/mortgage, food, electricity or gas bill. If they would allow some sort of jobs bill to go through, the economy would be better and thus the food stamp users and welfare recipients would go down. Yet the republicans do anything and everything in their power to not help Obama and the country. Meanwhile making them all look like giant tools.
Infracted: Please don't flame other forum users.
Last edited by Nerph-; 2013-03-24 at 06:37 PM.
When the guy you want wins, or the view you share is the popular one, well then that is obviously because people are ruled by basic common sense and decency and can see through the BS.
When the guy you want loses, or the view you share is not the one commonly held by the majority or enough people then it must obviously be because people are easily lead or confused sheep, who are manipulated by the media.
Look bottom line neither Obama or Romney being elected wouldn't have made that big of a difference because the problems wthat need to be fixed weren't cause by one man alone we elect every 4 years.
Mitt Romney was a gay bashing, bible thumping jackass, not the kind of guy we need as president. So no he would have been a terrible choice.The people only voted for the lesser of two evils.
I am pretty sure the US of A would've ended up with another war to fight if this cowboy got president.
So it's good Obama won.
Still both are shit.
1) Obama's 2nd term is only 2 months old. That's not really a lot of time to do very much. The Dow is at a record high, so the economy can't be doing all that bad.
2) The democrats don't control congress and the Republicans are constantly trying to block anything the Democrats do. I'm not going to give this a value judgement, I'm just saying that it means that Obama hasn't been able to do very much because congress won't let him.
3) If you're going to bring up "media manipulation" (I guess that just means advertising?) then democrats get to bring up how republicans in several states tried to make it harder for democrats to vote. They admitted to doing so. I'll take the lesser of those two evils. (Note: they made it harder for demographics to vote like the poor and the young to vote by enacting voter ID laws despite research showing that voting fraud was almost nonexistent).
NBC edits 911 clip to make George Zimmerman sound Racist?
Ohh, here's what google can show you about media bias
To the opening post, in politics, you choose the lesser of both evils. There are some positives to Romney AND Obama, and negatives to both. Those who say their preferred candidate is infallible, are morons.
That said, Obama failed to live up to various campaign promises. Frankly, he made promises so far fetched and fell so far off the mark I don't think Obama has a clue real world economics.
There were promises to cut the deficit in half and he raised the debt in 4 years more than what Bush did in 8.
Further arguments against President Obama is the direction he is pushing tax increases at the same time increasing federal spending.
Here was a great picture of US Economics simplified to household income terms.
There needs to be a combindation of spending cuts AND moderate and FAIR tax increases as well as closing budget loopholes for big business and the wealthy.
Right now there is to much focus on taxing the rich and not curbing spending.
Crazy taxation on the rich and big business will force them to spend less, cut workforce to hedge their losses to maintain profitability. Because you know, that is what people like to do. If you tell Big Business that to take a risk of investing a billion into the economy to by creating jobs WITHIN the US to manufacture and sell goods, but tell them we will tax you so high your profit margins are razor thin, would they be willing to invest? Big business and the rich are not investing as much as they should because they see no profit to be made for the amount of risk.
If you had a friend who can card count, and kick ass at playing poker, you would want to loan him $1,000 when he goes to Vegas if he can promise you a good return. It's a gamble, if he isn't as good as he thinks, you lose big and may not get much of your $1,000 back. But hey, if he could come back to you and give you $10,000, or maybe $20,000 back as your cut of his winnings, it would be worth the risk right? But wait, taxation time. He made a killing with his winnings but was taxed to high heaven. So he could only give you $1,500 or $2,000. Would you still be willing to gamble?
The 1% pay about as much taxes as the 95% They are already losing a big chunk of their income. Take this article for example if you want to read what happens if you push the rich to far on taxation http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html
Last edited by TheronShadowstorm; 2013-03-24 at 08:43 AM.
I don't believe it matters to be honest. American presidents appear to only be a "mouthpiece" for the government as a whole.
Doesn't matter who you elect you'll get the same information and same changes, only difference is who delivers the news about it.
When the government makes necessary but less attractive and popular decisions you'll have someone to blame besides them. You'll just elect someone different to blame next election period either way. Yes, conspiracy /tinfoil hat.
What is the difference between George JR's ruling and Obama's? Nothing. Obama isn't stupid so you get less obnoxious when he speaks but that's about it. I highly doubt Romney's ruling would have been any different from Obama's or Jr's either. I don't know this for certain but it surely appears to be this way.
Something, Something, Something, Dark Side.
It wouldnt really have mattered at all who was elected, both candidates that were allowed to run for the presidency have the same agenda for corporate business and foreign policy.
It was two terms of Bush that fucked it all up for Obama, you are mad to think he can clear away all the shit in only 4 years.
I am the Pied Piper of the Hunger Games, a simple man followed by a few dozen rats.