In case you didn't see the debate, though Romney's point there wasn't new.

Also, a different version, which may match your decor better. Google says that I'm the third person to invoke fucking magnets on Romney here, and the first to make pictures. So enjoy.

when i saw that part of the debate i was like OH SNAP but most of the rest of it sucked and was just more posturing.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Romney has never served in the military but he seems to really like spending money on it.

No, he did not serve. He weaselled his way out of service during the Vietnam war with 4 deferments because mormon.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

He went on a mission instead of to war. There isn't a problem with that.

_________________
Stufflikehearts - He is a Sith Lord. I love Blood Lord :3
Jeffffey - Blood, you look at the information someone says, look over what really happened, and reply in a way that makes them realize what they were really thinking.
Mythrrinthael - Blood Lord, our local expert in interpretation of The Grim Tales from Down Below!
Fievel - Numerous campaigns and conquests, countless bodies decaying after the abandonment of victorious battlefields. Such is the life of Blood Lord.
Dusk_Imp - Blood Lord is like a celebrity here. Everything he does is pure awesome. ALL HAIL BLOOD LORD
Doctress Who - Why couldn't there be a Blood Lord in every forum? It would make life so much easier.
Snafu's Mercypostle.

Actually, he had three deferments for education, and just one for the Mormon mission. But that's fine, he apparently didn't want to go, which is reasonable. And it doesn't affect the validity of his military budget proposal. What affects the validity of that is that the military leadership apparently doesn't think it needs such a budget increase. And some of Romney's later statements* about his Vietnam record, while untrue, are unrelated to that. He isn't saying, "I wanted to go to Vietnam, therefore the military budget should be such and such."

*More information here.

Getting 4 deferments does nothing to make him get blamed of insincerity. I didn't intend to join the military either. But I don't go on record today claiming that I so very much wanted to go, but couldn't. And Romney claiming that is plain bullshit. I don't care how he got out of the Vietnam war, but 4 deferments make it look like he deliberately worked to stay out of it.

As for expanding the military budget... Well, let's just say that it isn't the first time the GOP puts effort into giving hard-earned tax money to the big organisations and corporations that explicitly state that they don't need it.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

It's not really that he avoided going to war so much than he avoided going to war himself while encouraging that others be sent to war. It's just completely lacking any semblance of tact.

The facts of his budget stand on their own so I didn't feel the to comment on it.

[I made a comment here that I later realized was childish so I am removing it. My apologies.]

I would rather like to hear what you have to say. What facts are these? What, specifically, about the Romney/Ryan budget do you believe would be detrimental to the nation as a whole? As a side, I wonder if you would share your thoughts on the budget proposed by the Obama administration that was unanimously voted down in the Senate.

_________________

Specifically I was referring to his military budget and Val's already posted a link explaining that.



Are we referring to this budget? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 22643.html

No. I would ask that you please take me seriously when I ask you a serious question and not try to automatically assume my argument is bunk before I make it. This is what is supposed to happen when two adults, both of them allegedly at a relatively mature stage of their lives, have a discussion.

I was referring to this one, actually: http://www.newenglandcouncil.com/assets ... -Final.pdf

What is your take on the budget itself?

_________________

Regarding that budget summary, it seems decent. Perhaps not the best options available, but better than the status quo, with a few exceptions. As RD's link mentioned, congressional Republicans are not likely to let a lot of it pass as-is. Note that it is a review of Obama's actual budget, which has not come to a vote.

Anyway, some kind-of-related stuff. It seems that Republican-leaning corporate bigwigs have been telling their employees to vote Republican, at Romney's suggestion. Also, Colin Powell endorsed Obama and Meat Loaf endorsed Romney. Then there's this. And also these. This election really is extraordinary. For example, Romney has been saying this since February.

So, was Sentios not going to respond? Was kinda looking forward to his perspective.

_________________

But anyway, as regards to employers telling their employees that if Obama's policies go through they may lose their jobs, if were related to party affiliation (i.e., "Vote Republican or you're fired"), I would agree that it is fucked up--and possibly illegal. However, the memos in question related to the policies themselves; in other words, the boss is saying something along the lines of "I don't appreciate having the money that the government borrows from us simply given to those who do nothing to earn it, with no limit in sight. If these policies are put in place I may have to downsize my force as a result."

For the sake of argument, let's say that your suggestion of raising taxes worked. Let's say that everyone making over $500K paid roughly a 60% tax rate, which gave us a surplus in taxes. What happens when congress starts spending BEYOND the surplus, and we have a deficit again (as happened in 2001)? Are we going to raise taxes again? Should there be an upper limit for taxation? Why is your first concern not instead to reduce spending? Surely there is waste in the government we can cut, or programs that can be lessened, or things that the government owns that can be sold and privatized (Amtrak, public schools, etc.)? Why do you see government as the end-all for prosperity?

Furthermore, you touched on alleged GOP voter fraud. First, three of the links you posted there relate to the same event---no need to post multiple links of the same story. Second, are you just going to ignore the fact that Democrats have publicly admitted that voter fraud is a common political strategy? And it's not just the one either. It's a pretty big problem, despite what Eric Holder publicly tells us. And then there are the flippant excuses the Democrats make about Voter ID, among them that minorities would be disenfranchised because they can't get IDs like White people can. Well, why not? After all, you don't need to be able to drive to get a photo ID, you just have to be able to ride the bus and walk a few hundred feet, fill out a form and wait a little while. And if they're so concerned about it, why can't they, as their elected representatives, start a fundraiser or effort to get them IDs? They could get everyone an ID in the span of a week or two and have them mailed to their place of residence. Why don't they? Answer: Because they don't really care and they want people to be able to vote without any accountability.

One more thing: Here's something surprising that I found just a few minutes ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts

_________________

Does anyone else get the feeling that when the GOP was still picking its candidate they thought "this is still going to be years of recession, so let the democrat stay in charge and then once the country starts turning back we go back in and take the credit", and so picked Romney and Ryan as another "fail team" after McCain and Palin failed as a "somewhat try to win team"? (Because I don't think they actually believed that they could win by appealing to the complete extreme of the right political spectrum). And then once they realised that the USA has a predicted GDP growth to reach back into about 3% in the next years (which is the best among all the developed western countries) they suddenly got scared they wouldn't get to have the credit for it and launched a massive all-front panic attack on the Obama campaign to try and save their asses? Because I really did feel like in the previous months they haven't even been trying up until like one, or one and a half of month ago.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

That's an interesting perspective, however let me ask you this, in all seriousness:

What is the difference between the start of Obama's term and now?

Granted, we're back to having an unemployment rate of "bad," down from "worse," so that sn't it. We still have bad education, health care and corruption on both sides--none of those provokes have really been fixed, and only one of them has been bandaged--so that's not it either. The only real difference I can see is the added 5-6 trillion dollars. And he's been running off the same message of Change from his first campaign and making all the same promises too, so nothing else has really changed.

You might think of it as more of a longshot, but from my perspective, the choice is between a known successful businessman that you hate for little reason besides that he is a businessman and a Republican, and a well-spoken politician that you like because he promises free stuff at the expense of those who have more stuff. In other words, the real question at hand is: which option is best for the country as a whole?

_________________

Nah, pretty sure it's that only the shitty ones ran in the primaries since defeating an incumbent is a bitch, and you only get one shot.

_________________

You forget, I also think Romney is an idiot. That's important.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

My god that link with the guy that made the effort of collecting all of the lies romney has said was just a glorious example of the intensity of journalism.

_________________

Then, do you also consider Obama to be an intellectual? How do you measure the two levels of intellect? After all, Romney and Obama have equally or near-equally as impressive college records. They simply chose different paths. Furthermore, don't they both make really bizarre statements all the time?

Is it at all possible that you consider him an idiot merely because he says things you disagree with? Other than the gaffes, I mean; people can say stupid things and still be smart.

_________________

Of course, I say stupid things all the time. I just look at his action within Bain Capital and a lot of the political moves he's done this election and none of it strikes me as particularly smart. Next, you'll be asking for proof, and I really don't feel like finding it so let's go with the pussy-shit non-backed assertion.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

To be honest Ruff, I have no stake in american politics, so I'm not swayed by their promises and speeches. All I see are two bad choices, where the ridiculousness, stupidity, and outright disingenuousness of one of the candidates is more surreal than the others'.

As for the:

Keeps reminding me how unwilling you are to look at the trends instead of looking at the absolute numbers. Here's a visual representation of how I perceive your argument:



Same thing was with Clinton. He turned a deficit into a surplus. But that takes time. When you start with a downward trend, the amount which you're able to turn it upwards is what matters.
You see Ruff, if you're given a country by Clinton, which is doing a budget surplus, and as you leave you leave it with the same surplus, then you've done nothing good, and nothing bad, other than keep things as they were. If you're given a surplus government by Clinton and you manage to turn it into a massive deficit government in 2 cadencies, then you're a shit president. Like Bush was. Now if you get a country with a massive deficit and you even do as much as pulling it up to less deficit, you're already a good president. It's not about how things are, that matter always lags years behind the actual policies and works of the government. It's about what trend you first got, and which way you've turned it.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Could I see verification for the "democrats don't want blacks to vote"? Because the article you linked stated it but never gave a source.

_________________
One time when I was high, I thought I was in an ambulance dying. Turns out I was just eating sherbert.
-stufflikehearts-

I'm not big in american politics (been reading about them to try and have something to say here), but even i understand that people criticising Obama's presidency because he hasn't been able to instantly bring america back on it's feet after the previous president had sex with your country's colon for plenty of years is a bit douchebaggy.

I understand Obama's situation sorta like QU's graph, which i've seen represented in text in many other sites when discussion about that particular topic rises, and this is how i understand his position (and it will probably confuse you guys because i don't know how to say this in english, so sorry if i make any mistakes, but i will use Zero Punctuation-style visual aids), not sure if i'm in the wrong:

This is the state of things as i saw them at the beggining,



Then obama gets elected. Once Bush left, the country's problems didn't just freeze, they just got bigger. When Obama jumped in, the pool was already filled with piss, and it only filled up America, making it sink.



Obama jumped to the piss to try and save America from sinking to the bottom. The water represents the economic crisis and america is under it. When a heavy body hits the liquid it doesn't instantly pop out of it (with a few exceptions), the object's velocity is slowed down by the liquid's density, and then the air within our lungs help our buoyancy.



A president is not a magical entity that once that gets elected, every action of his has immediate consequences, like if it was Midas's Touch or something. During Obama's first period in his presidency, buoyancy hasn’t kicked in as his policies and efforts are the air in Obama’s lungs, and the density of Bush’s piss filled 'Muricah, making it heavy, and so it sank deeper while Obama was working on things, apparently some people believe America sinking during Obama's presidency is his fault.



Obama's actions start to cause an impact, 'Muricah slowly rises from the deep, which brings us to the present day.



If i could vote in your country, i'd vote for Obama because he feels like a better choice to me.

_________________

That was a great visualisation aid Mir. Did you do it? If so do make it into a comic strip and share.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.