[ElJefe]

(10-15-2012 02:27 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

the consistency and extent of that flip-flopping from Mitt Romney, which seems to go beyond the extent seen from most politicians

In one scenario, you get a guy whose goals you can sort of get... you know generally what he is as he tries...

In the other, you get a guy whose stance you can't predict at all...

I think in politics and in life actions matter more than words. What matters is what people do when they actually get into office. Do I think it's aggravating that Romney switches positions? Yes. Do I think he's being honest? Not really. Do I think he knows what he's doing? Absolutely.

the more I follow this election, the more I'm convinced Romney is the competent executive, and Obama is a lost boy who is a far superior speaker, whose speeches give every left-wing intellectual, journalist, college-kid, minority and single mother wet panties. But anyone with half a brain knows it's just pathos. It's just a siren song for us, the Odysseuses of today. Executing all these fancy ideas is simply not plausible. But he got elected anyways. And looking at why? It's because folks took him seriously! LOL! Boy, did they get surprise when all his yapping turned out to be easier said than done.

So in the final analysis, the question is: All politicians are liars - the very nature of politics and TV demands it. Which lie do you find the most unbearable?

We've had Obama's lies, even if he believed them himself (which just makes him naive and that's a poor atribute for a President to have). What about a new liar, but a realistic and competent one at that. I think it's reasonable to let a new liar sit in the Oval office.

The fixation with Romney's lies has more to do with the fact people just don't want him to win. We could fuss about Obama's broken promises all day. And we do. It just depends who you ask what is most important.

So I don't buy that Romney's flip-flopping is important. But that's just me thinking that listening to what politicians say is entertainment, not discourse or debate. That's attaching too much value to it, taking it too seriously, as I wrote above.

(10-16-2012 03:18 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

explain what Republicans would've did differently

Bush was the biggest disaster ever to befall the Republican Party. He had one-party rule for four years (if not six) and the entire country behind after 9-11. He could've done anything he wanted. And he blew it. Sigh...

Has Obama tried to fix any of Bush's mistakes? No. Why? Because they essentially believed the same things. They believe the government can and should keep it's promises of entitlements to the American people. Entitlements that either must be reformed, or taxes that must be increased astronomically. Neither will acknowledge, either through cowardice or through ignorance, that we are royally screwed. They both believed in more wide home-ownership (that sparked the crisis), they both believed in saving big business from collapse (what happened to "if you're unable to fail, you shouldn't succeed"), and so on.

A war? It's not a war. It's a colonial enterprise that has went and is going badly and been extremely uneffective in its stated goals of "civilizing the savage" and "saving the barbarian" from his wicked ways. Because that's how progressives view devout Muslims that live in mud-huts in far off places and execute women for adultery. For all their mindless babbling, these guys (GWB & Obama) still believe they have a mission to save the world. From itself. Really it's beta. It's like thinking you can save a bitch from herself. I doubt Romney is different. I can understand the desire to do this. I used to think it was a good idea myself. But after seeing Iraq... you'd need national conscription and 2 million US ground-troops in Iraq and a merciless, Roman-like attitude to pacifying the locals. It'd be like Claudius and Britain all over. A lot of blood and tears. And for what? Whatever it is. it's not a war. It's colonization.

A war is what we might have with China in 20 years when they've caught up with us militarily. How the fuck are we supposed to pay for a real war with a real competitor if we cannot even figure out how to pay for peace?

My hope is that Romney will not be as miserable a failure as the last two Presidents. I think I have good reason to believe this as far as domestic policy is concerned, even if I think he is too timid.

But as Dave Stockman points out, that's probably too optimistic:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000109364

Stockman is an interesting guy and this relates to the Ferguson video I put up.

There is massive nation-wide thievery going on. The baby-boomers and those before them are taking way more out of government than they ever paid in. They are saddling the future generations with this debt. Ryan's plan is not too vicious. It's too meek!

That's the point you need to take with you from Stockman. It's all lies. No one REALLY has the guts to say to 60 million baby-boomers "You guys didn't pay enough for this party, so you're not getting any".

So, I doubt Republicans are much better, but I'm hoping Romney with his executive experience and experience as governor in Massachussetts working with people who disagree with him, he'll be able to do at least some good.

Obama has done nothing good for this economy. He's let the Fed print money to keep Wall St profits record high (Romney wants to get rid of Bernanke - I hope that means replacing him with a Volcker Jr.), he has not cut back on defense in a serious way (Romney does not want to cut defense, but he does have some interesting thoughts on wasteful spending in the Pentagon), he has spent enormous sums of money on projects that create no value (auto-bailouts, green energy, and so forth), he talked about nuking Pakistan, but Pakistan is still fucking us in the ass while we grin (I hope Romney would be much tougher), and he's weak on immigration when it's destroying our labor market (Romney claims he'd get tough and bring in more high-skilled immigrants, which is the only way to keep America ahead). Finally, he somehow seems to think that America has done wrong and needs to right these wrongs by "apologizing" or catering to barbaric regimes in the Middle East or elsewhere. Typical progressive thought process. The West has done so much evil, we should use our massive wealth (lol) to fix it all. Getting Osama bin Laden was the work of 5 years of intelligence work. If anything, GWB deserves credit for that as he deserves the blame for everything else.

(10-16-2012 10:21 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

FINALLY! More information about Romney's Tax Plan.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

funny!

Yeah, we've had this debate already. The Obama campaign is misquoting Feldstein and Rosen. Romney's plan works if you include dynamic effects. That's a reasonable assumption. In addition, only $1 trillion dollars is missing over a 10-year period. That's 100bn a year. That's 0.6 percent of GDP. Perspective please.

So... basically I don't think these guys are all that different. They're both part of the establishment whose legitimacy is based on massive theft of our younger generations and those not yet born. Nonetheless, I think Romney's understanding of the financial system and his executive experience and personal character tells me he'd do a better job than Obama, who has had his chance.

Love it or hate, that's how I see things.

The main reason I'd vote for Obama would be so that he could run this country into the ground faster and we could just get the coming bankruptcy and hyperinflation over with and have progressives and their sick ideas of social justice discredited for ever.

EDIT: watch this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15...68106.html