If the GOP was not such a bunch of whining dolts, we would have raised taxes in 2009, invested heavily in infrastructure, education, and small businesses with that money, and the recovery would have been much more robust.
Mitt and his some 35 immediate family has no problem with building a 12 million Valhalla in La Jolla CA when they already have five other Mansions. John McCain has some 14 homes. The Wisconsin Scott Walker had no problem with his conservative kind like the *** brothers and other dishing out some $67 million for the conservative agenda.
The only folks who are suffering are the poor and the minorities and romney does not care about them at all.
The Democrats take Black voters for granted. They believe that we will line up and vote for them in every election. I followed that path for many years out of respect for my parents. I even voted for Obama last election even though I knew he would not be able to handle the job. It's time for Blacks to vote with their hearts. The Dems support *** but I know a lot of successful *** who vote Republican. That's why I'm an independent. I vote for the candidate...not the party.
Who cares about any of this. The elections are fixed, both Romney and Obama are nothing more than puppets. Anybody who actually expects either of them to be what's best for you and this country, is an absolute moron. Obama has put forth some of the worst legislation that this country has ever seen (Natural Defense Resources Executive Order, NDAA, etc.). Any idiot pushing for Obama is a brain dead idiot. Romney is nothing more than an empty suit willing to do the biding of those that control this country. Wake up fools...there's not winner in voting for the lessor of two evils, evil is evil.
Why do certain people have to come on here and call names and attack posters for their opinions? If you don't agree..fine. Make your points and move on. DON'T BE AN INTERNET ***. If you agree with me, flag the poster who keeps coming on to start fights. Let's get him banned for the sixth time so we can hold an intelligent conversation. Jeez
Also, you're not having an intelligent conversation...quite frankly, it's idiotic because it ignores all of reality. Your conversation is rooted in the fantasy that this system works, and works for you. And because you believe that, you are what you are...and if anything in my post offended you...then good....it should have, because you need to wake up. I don't care what ideology you prescribe too, it's FALSE, and that's easily determined by the fruits of that ideology. I can't understand why you so-called "intelligent" negroes can't figure that out...I mean, you're into having intelligent convo right? GTFO. You can have an intelligent conversation about dog sh*t, try having an enlightened one....that brings forth truth and light....of which you'll certainly not obtain by arguing Left or Right.
Dgrt1Zrevenge: Grow up! You are so immature you can't even discuss anything! You're like an overgrown kid. My five year old daughter can discuss matters more intelligently than you can. Act your age, Dude! If you don't agree with someone, state your perspective based on reasoning and not personal attacks. You’ll be taken much more seriously than you are now. You are an embarrassment to your party. If I was ever thinking of becoming a Democrat, your comments are a complete turn-off. Sheesh! Has anybody told you how utterly stupid you sound? You say the same thing, over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over, and over, and over again. See how annoying my repeating over and over so many times sound? That’s how you sound. Show some originality, Dude. Use your noggin!
@green12band
What u are saying is tantanmount to living in a small town where they are telling you they are gonna release a prisoner on parole to live in your town. They give u two names to choose from and in your research u find out one is a suspected pedafile and the other is a suspected serial killer. You decide out of some naive sense of idealism that them releasing a prisoner is bs so u are not going to make a choice in an event that will be inevitable. So you let others chose to have a serial killer who is not only a threat to your children but your whole family. Why?
Because evil is evil. Smh
@ Msphd,
You're 100% correct. That loser has been acting as a beat cop of Obama MTO blogs for some time now....and I'll even let you in on something, he works for MTO!!! If you've noticed he's constantly name dropping the owner, and has bragged about getting accounts banned. The problem is that he got so many people banned that it diluted the traffic to MTO Obama blogs. Also, he doesn't need to name drop Obama, he worships him, and him not mentioning him by name is representative of him retreating on Obama due to the utter failure that he has become. Even that fool could see that it's foolish to be so outward in his support of Obama when in fact Obama is pure trash.
Lastly, this clown has had so many accounts on here, I only refer to his 10th account, Loser1stillhere...
@ Budda,
You're analogy is pure madness. Lol, if you can rationalize evil, then something is seriously wrong. Whether you choose the soft kill of the Democrats or the bold strikes of the GOP, it doesn't matter....you're still enslaved. They just attack you from different angles...but hey, I guess that you've developed a preference of getting wiped out? Sorry bro...I roll with the likes of Malcolm, ain't no rollover suckers here bro.
Forgot to mention MsPHD, due to an extreme case of narcissism, this IDIOT thinks that there could never be more than 1 person who is in disagreement with him. Thus, due to this sick state of mind, he assumes that if there are a majority of people on here who disagree with him that they all must be the same person with multiple accounts. Another sign of pure insanity.
@green12band
What you call rationalizing evil, I call assessing a situation as rationally as possible. My analogy is madness because it is not inevitable that either Obama or Romney will be in the oval office next year? Maybe you are the one person out of the thousands that have tried to figure out how to get a third option elected? There is not a clear difference in social and economic policies of the two parties? If u can't see it perhaps you are not looking hard enough enough. By not participating are you not allowing others to choose?
Cats love to site Malik el shabazz but forget that Malcolm was not above letting his thought process evolve. Like when he went to hajj and it changed his absolutist views on race.
msphd2010, I'm glad people are starting to speak up. This man has *** me and many others for years. It got so bad that I stopped commenting and then he accused everyone else of being me. He does not work for MTO. They have banned him five times. I am going to keep flagging him until the ban him again. Hopefully, he will disappear for good.
I most certainly don't think that Ron Paul is the end cure of this bad government. In fact, I'm totally off of the Ron Paul bandwagon because he has apparently linked up with Romney to put his son Rand on. Don't you see? I'm not married to a Politician (ala Obama for you), I'm married to an idea of liberty. I'm done with both Ron and Rand Paul....as far as I'm concerned they've turn to the darkside.
Was the Gold standard going to be enough? No, but it was a step in the right direction to cripple the banks and their control over our country. The idea of Ron Paul being against the wars and anti-Fed was enough to get me on board (as well as others who understand how this country is run). However, you seem to be aware of the evils of fractional reserve banking, etc., however, you still sing and dance for a criminal like Obama who is nothing more than a puppet.
I voted for Obama...I supported him on his campaign trail...and when he got into to office and basically became a traitor, I disowned him. Same with the Paul's. I don't give a *** about any political party because they've both been corrupted. Both parties vote for the consolidation of control and power, for wars, for bank bailouts, and other things that are destroying our people. That's why it's foolish to be some die hard Democrat or Republican....because it doesn't matter who's in office, they're both against YOU.
Duhreelkeypurr
So is it okay for the *** Bros. to spend millions of dollars on defeating laws that would weaken Unions? Not to mention using money made off the sweat of the worker to back candidates that the worker might not support? It is the uninformed worker who doesn't realize that in order to combat millions of dollars in money that the Supreme Court has allowed to fund Conservative groups, that the worker has to speak in a unified voice. If the workers are not unified then who is to stop the Conservative attempts to roll back labor laws that many have fought and died for? No matter how you feel about Unions backing candidates, they back the person who will fight for the workers. I know some Union members have voted against collective bargaining and THAT offends me since those workers can freely eat at the dinner table set by the Union but don't want to pay for any of its food.
Hey Love... and gregn1bc, so nice to see you guys.
@topic: Not much to gloat about MTO. We all know that Republicans love to claim the moral high grounds and with two pressing issues at the forefront right now being Obama’s support of *** marriage and contraceptive, it could be a repeat of the 2004 election. Then, Republicans took the moral high road on pro-life along with many faith based promises and changes to immigration and Hispanics fell for it with the 50% or so votes Bush rec’d them. Also, the Catholic church are in cahoots with the Republican party as we can clearly see and I’m sure will do everything to push their agenda and could bring the Hispanic votes around. Thread with caution Dems, thread carefully..lol.
Stillpompus
Yeah, like Unions getting behind liberal candidates because liberal candidates tend to be the most Union friendly, so aren't those the candidates they're supposed to get behind?
And you say liberals are lazy, but answer me this... who's more hard working, the guy who works 40 hours a week and begs for overtime? Or Romney, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and coasted on his daddy's name?
And you want to let individuals handle their own accounts? What would have happened if those people had managed their own social security accounts like Republicans were pushing when the banking system almost crashed? You have people suing Facebook because they invested their money and said they didn't know the troubles Facebook were having?
And why is it Republicans always want to *** off government money for every program, but have no problem giving money to people who want vouchers for education? Perhaps it's because they not only want to weaken the Teacher's Union, but also want to indoctrinate kids into their way of thinking?
Just a few random observations as I am late to the party so to speak.
The government should not be in the business of creating jobs; nor prop up failing institutions by printing up more funny money. If job creation was so easy, we would all work for some Ministry and get paid ad infinitum by the Fed. I can't think of one government organization that is run effectively. The post office, FEMA, AmTrak, TSA...
While a few (a dozen at most?) newsletters from a couple of decades contained inflammatory content, I can give at least a dozen reasons why Ron Paul is not racist. Obviously this was a grave mistake that has come back to haunt him, but if this Paul's biggest fault, he's light years ahead of most politicians.
While it is unfortunate that Green is no longer a Ron Paul supporter (note: Rand most definitely is not like his father), Ron has spawned a tremendous movement that has exploded since 2008 and continues to grow. While he most likely will not get the nomination, he'll carry a hefty amount of delegates (as many as 500). This is certainly no small feat and a testament to the message of liberty.
I do believe that a viable third party candidate will be around in maybe 2 or 3 elections. It would be more viable now if so many people didn't have the "lesser of two evils" mentality. Less and less people are buying the tripe that is spewed by the 4 or 5 major news outlets (as evident by the sharply declining numbers). More and more people look for information on the internet, which is why legislation that curb our liberties and the internet are so alarming (SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc). We no longer want filtered news.
@Green12band
No disrespect but when I hear people say some of the stuff you are saying I almost kinda feel like we deserve the economic situation we are in because we have really *** attention spans. Its just crazy to me that after 8 years of the Bush administration that people actually have the *** to say that it does not matter who is in power. Perhaps you should google all the scandals connected to the Bush administration to refresh your memory. Never mind that hundreds of thousands of civilians had to die in Iraq for no justifiable reason to further their bs agenda.
I'm wondering what it is exactly that Obama in his 3 and a half years, or any other recent president for that matter, did that would make one not be able to differentiate Bush from the rest of the most recent presidents. Clearly people are disappointed with Obama's presidency because they feel he did not live up to campaign promises, but not distinguishable for Bush? BUSH? Come on son....
@grt1
You are absolutely right. People act like Obama is a member of the clergy and not a politician. To believe he could uphold all those promises is naive at best. But even more important is what you said. Their strategy is non cooperation to limit his ability to accomplish anything. I heard a conservative commentator say that he has been told that they've had meetings to all get on the same page about not doing a thing until November. My belief is that strategy is gonna backfire hard...
@ duhreel
I'm hoping that u misunderstood my post and thought that I was saying it was a democrat strategy. The republicans are the ones who have not been coorparating on purpose. The conservative commentator I mentioned was talking about republicans in congress.
It's funny that you mentioned the well being of the United States because the people u are cosigning for *** sure don't agree with u. Their mo has been their way or the highway even when Obama starts from a compromising position.
While privatizing many things usually does not turn out well in our crony-capitlistic society, neither does entrusting every service to be government run. Dr. Paul though isn't so much "privatize everything" so much as he wants to start cutting government spending, including domestic departments and militarism in parallel to cutting taxes on everyone; returning government spending to 2006 levels.
Basically, to operate more in the Constitutional limits and protect our civil liberties. Not to triple troop deployement, expand the wars, endorse legislation that curtails civil liberties and national autonomy (ie NDAA, Patriot Act, ACTA, SOPA, PIPA), bailout big banks and corporations, and let the Fed toy with the economy.
He's not a revolutionary in the sense that our founding fathers already fought a revolution for the ideals he represents. And, while I may be nitpicking semantics, the inflammatory newsletters in question were not signed by him; the author is unknown. James Kirchick, who has brought to light the most cited of these newsletters, has never released the last page that contains the byline; i.e. who has written the articles in question.
there are a few things to point out with respect to Obama and Romney. They have the same stance on:
Drug legalization Ending; NDAA and the government's supposed authority to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of terrorism; Ending the Patriot Act; Cutting military spending; Ending corporate welfare; Ending the nation's activist policies of invading other countries; Eliminating the Presidential "kill list"; The Federal Reserve.
While I do believe there is a difference in philosophy at the local level between Republicans and Democrats, as you climb the political ladder, these differences become grayer and grayer. That fact is, the international wars that the Left doesn't approve of couldn't happen without their approval and the welfare the Right doesn't approve of couldn't happen without their approval.
Very few members of our House and Senate aren't in the pockets of special interests or have a consistent message and record to back that up. The special favors that are done with respect to corporations (big business, big pharma, big banks) are carried out by both Parties on a regular basis and that is what is driving the country into the ground.
Besides, can anyone tell me why we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Japan and Germany? What are we doing? Why did it take a decade, trillions of dollars, thousands of American soldier lives, and millions of dead Afghans and Iraqis to kill one man (Bin Laden)? A man who we armed and trained (along with his Mujahideen fighter) in the 80s against Russia and whose family ties with the Bushes go way back? I mean, we have, by far, the largest and most effective military in the world. And now that he is dead, we're still there! For what?
It comes down to what you believe should be the scope of government. If you believe a few hundred politicians have the authority to create bureaucracies that hire their buddies to regulate the lives of 330 million Americans, or if you believe in a limited government as outlined in the Constitution. The problem is, no matter how well intentioned a program may be, it inevitably degenerates into a monstrosity when run by the government. Sure, we may endorse a President or congressman that knows whats best for us and wants to ban sugar drinks because their bad for us. But once that power is granted, the next congressman may want to ban pornography because he believes its bad for us. Why concede our liberties to Big Brother?
We need to take an honest look at our candidates and really ponder if they're doing whats best for us, especially if they have the same stance on the big issues.
One thing is for sure, Romney is not the answer to Obama. There really isn't appreciable difference between these two.
