that was a suggestion. romney is rich enough and if he was rich enough no doubt he wouldve atleast partway bought it. im not saying he is a buffoon, bush took car of that already, merely not bright enough to realize "oohh, so THATs where the money lies. but when he does he gets it form himself, and the trimmings go to the rest of us. and, iy may not be based on fact, but when i look at him i cant hel but think that all he is is a smug jackass.
So he's unethical (and Harvard as well, apparently) because you think he's smug and successful at business. Got it.
eh, neither acndidate is actually good for the country, i doubt that will ever happen. still a good thing to hope for. i gave up when i saw just how corrupt and unfixable the government is in some areas.
I think he's saying he wouldn't want to vote for someone who's a millionaire, went to Harvard and has questions about his academic record.
@siliconfanatic: If Russia is still a threat, does Reagan still get credit for single handedly defeating the USSR with the power of his voice?
Obama? Romney? What does it matter? Two people, two choices, one direction, Almost as good as our 'Democracy'. Whoever wins will be scratching the backs and signing executive orders for the people who financially put them in the White House. The needs of an electorate will never come first. Enjoy another 4 years of fighting in wars and having the constitution destroyed by a foreign controlled federal government.. The answer to 1984 is 1776, lol.
I call BS on this tbh. Obama has grown the economy and made unpopular decisions, (politically unpopular, but very sane for the average joe) half of which were rejected by Congress because they didn't want him to suceed. (they ARE playing the system and not thinking of the electorate) He inherited the presidency at the worst economic time there was ever been for a president but still, people fail to notice that the US economy has been growning again, year on year for the last 3 years. Give him another 4 I say, he could do much for the US. PS: Don't get me started on that Romney ****. He's a sock-puppet with no sense of reality for the everyday American. As I said to a friend, he has the most coveted Salesmans trick ever; being able to remain sincere looking, while spouting ********.
He controlled the house for the first two years. Why didn't he do anything about the budget then? Why did they wait on raising the debt ceiling until the lost the house? The answer is that the democrats perferred to have the republicans block stuff and then fight over who got the blame than to pass stuff and accept the consequences.
IIRC they were holding back on the raising of the dept ceiling, it was a really unpopular thing and they were not sure if it was going to be needed.
That makes little sense when you think he got such controversial bills through as ''Obamacare''. Regardless, the economy is on the up and has been for 3 quarters of his term due to the strategy that was decided upon; to pump money in. Not to mention tightening of the budgets for military and public spending and developing exit strategies from 2 wars that were costing a proverbial arm and leg. Romney is a return to Bush. A puppet for the manipulation, and we all saw how dangerous that was. He's swung his viewpoints so many times, his credibility is zero. I find the religious part distasteful as well considering it's basically a cult for polygamous men and is based on a story that surely came out of an LSD induced trip.
I really would be careful with that. Obama isn't necessarily the great saint that many people have proclaimed him to be. For one, most of American privacy has pretty much left the building with the NDAA and the renewal and expansion of the Patriot act. Furthermore, Obama's 4 years really hasn't seen that much of a reduction in military activity given the rather reckelss (although arguably necessary) actions in the US. Romney's economic policy really isn't that much more delightful, but in all reality, Obama's been pumping money into the economy that was already failing. Akin to pumping a dying man full of antibiotics. That's more of a global issue, but it is interesting how that played out. And now now, let's not get up in arms about religion.
I'm not saying he's done nothing wrong. I'm just saying, out of the 2, he's clearly got the record to back up what he's saying and he's not just going along lying and changing his mind every 5 minutes. I don't agree with the antibiotics analogy, and this has nothing to do with Obama, US has seen 3 years of growth since doing this, the UK and other Euro countries went for Austerity and they are back in recession/about to collapse (Greece). It tells the tale IMO.
The US could borrow and spend as it's issuing debt it in the world's reserve currency and bond investors have nowhere else to go (for now). That didn't apply to the UK where we are close to the tipping point on debt levels. A spending splurge here would have made us look like Greece, not America. Plus it's not a massive challenge for a politician to spend money. Spending it on something useful is a bit more challenging.
Actually, the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for less than 30 working days. The two-year thing is incorrect. The Republicans have made massive use of this procedural mechanism more than any other period to block nearly any and everything even coming to a vote. Plus with Republican chairpersons on the House committees, etc. it is extremely difficult to get bills through to any hearing on the floor. President Obama spent his political capital during that time on passing his signature healthcare act, which was no small feat even in its final form. One could argue there were other things that could have been passed. True. As far as the debt ceiling was concerned, why would they have worried about it early on? It had always been raised as a matter of due course because it was money *already spent* by the government.
