bbundy

I refuse to consider Church or whatever cult a person belongs to a charity.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

cool story.


but his list of charities include: The Tyler Foundation, The Mormon church, the Boys and Girls Club of Boston, the Center for the Treatment of Pediatric MS, the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Homes for Our Troops, and the Inner-City Scholarship Fund, among others.


I like this read: http://blog.american.com/2012/01/act...e-is-too-high/

I like the quote from the Fascist JFK.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Please see attached for my reaction in image form.

JasonC SBB

bbundy,

Would you support moving welfare from the Fed Gov to the States, (of course with the Fed Gov quitting collecting taxes for welfare)?

bbundy

No I wouldn’t.

The funny thing is though it is almost the more red a state is in its voting habits the more welfare it receives as a proportion of the tax revenue it sends to the federal government.

Can you not see that taxing private equaty income at half the rate or even 0% as these clowns want compared to someone starting there own busness or someone doing work for a living is anything but free and fair market? Bain capital spent more money lobbying congress to keep their preferential tax rates than they actually paid in taxes. This is where Fascism begins my friend. Every one of the republican candidates wants to double down on that proven failure in tax policy including Ron Paul.

Bob

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I agree with you in practice here Bbundy (The rest of the political collective is corrupt as ----), and that only the most beneficial part of Ron Paul's plan to the political collective's sponsors will be enacted.

I really do like what Paul wants to achieve economically, but I still don't see a way for it to happen as is unfortunately. It will be "filtered" and "rewritten" through Congress, unless Paul has the ***** to say "---- you guys, get on board with this or take your ball home."

94mx5red

iTrader: (14)

so, uh yea, uh, hmmmm. Who should I be upset with the most?


Iowa:
22 Paul
6 Romney

Skip to the 7 minute mark.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

who cares. he couldnt beat obama. give it a rest.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

He has a way better chance of beating Obama than Romney does. I'm also a little bit disappointed in you, Brainy. You came off as a major Paul supporter, but seem to have abandoned Paul completely in favor of Romney as soon as Paul's chances looked dire and Romney's chances looked good.

Anyways, short of a major scandal happening, it's not going to happen Brainy.

Seriously, if you think Romney has a chance of winning, I'll bet you a week, a month, or however long of sig/avatar control on Obama winning.

And yes, that means if you win, I have to re-sub in order to do that.

Wow. I'm stunned. I must admit I find it loltastic that Paul did win Iowa, with as much **** as some people here talked about me (correctly!) predicting it.

However, I can't believe they'd pull that crap in the video. I'm actually shocked at what they pulled there.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Im a huge Ron Paul fan, I voted for him in our primary. But I'm also a pestimistic-realist.

If you really think Ron Paul is more electable than Obama, a sitting Democrat incumbent, then you're mind is warped--especially someone as loved as Obama. I knew from day 1 he had no hope. I don't fool myself. He doesn't speak well, he looks old and cripple, and he doesn't explain his idelogoly well. For instance, when he spoke about blow-back in the debates, the average person doesn't know what that means. There was never a chance. It was awesome to see him stick it out to the end, each time he campaigns his view-point gets more and more popular--this is a great thing. More people are getting exposed to Ron Paul and the libertarian/fiscal converstive idealogy and this is a VERY VERY good thing.

But, Democrats wont vote for him because he stands for limited government and self-reliance.

And, Rebulicans wont vote for him because he stands for limited government and self-reliance.

He's very polarizing even to republicans, becuase he isn't isn't one. They don't stand behind him. It's a pipedream.

So as far as November is concerned: I want Obama out. And Romney is clearly a best alternative than say another democrat or 4 more years of Obama. He clearly won the Republican nomination and with the two-party system we have evolved to, you gotta go with the flow.

Therefore, since every vote but a direct vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, I'm voting and standing behind Romney. He has a stellar record, and while he's no where near my first for pres--think Romney is only one person above Obama if I could write out a list of who I'd choose--I'll choose him anyday over Obama.

Ken Bickers and Michael Berry think Romney will win, and they've been right since 1980. Who knows. He's was the best choice of the pool, he's not from Washington, has a clean history, has an awesome history as governor. All I can hope for is that the American voter this year has woken up to the idea that Obama is a detriment to this country.

And plus, I'm voting for Romney because he is white.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

You are lucky, brain, in that you live in one of the 5 or so states where your vote will actually matter.

I will probably end up voting for Gary Johnson, because my vote doesn't mean ****. Obama won Indiana in 2008, but Romney is ahead by 11 or so points right now. Therefore, I am disenfranchised thanks to the electoral college!

We probably won't agree a lot on politics, but I bet we can agree we need to ditch the electoral college and switch to instant runoff voting. **** this two party bullshit.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Expect where I live, we love the government. This area is overwhelming democratic due to all the government contracts here. My representative will vote for Obama.

This state would always be Red if it weren't for northern va and its proximity to DC.

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Once again I am in the None of the Above party.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

Last I saw VA was pretty undecided.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the state will go red. my delegate will vote blue is all.

btw. i cant wait to get my "dont tread on me" license plate, now available in VA.

It'll go great with the car in which radar dectors are illegal

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Their model has been debunked. Or, to be more precise, has failed to have been verified. That is one of the most entertaining arguments to me personally I've seen in awhile - they made a model this year that predicts the elections in the past. With past-data. It's unverified. They'll get a chance to verify it this year, but untill it's verified, it means nothing.

But if you are so confident, Brainy, let's make a bet on it.

The winner gets 1 week/1 month/whatever of sig and avatar control over the loser.

Remember, if I lose, I have to sub - and that's money in your pocket. If you are that confident, you should have no problem whatsoever with it. Romney was one of the worst picks the Republican party could have gone with - he's just Kerry all over again. I'll say it again, Romney is worse than Paul. Even the most polarizing figure is better than a completely bland and boring figure - why do you think he picked Ryan as his VP?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

im not confident. But I want Obama out, and all I can do is vote for the Republican in order to acheive this goal and try to convince others to vote for him as well. The End.

Let me remind you, I never said Romney is going to win.

but Romney was/is the best pick out of the pool, in 2012 and in 2008.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

There was no Republican who could have won in 2008. Bush sunk that ship.

As for Romney, you have to remember something Brainy. The GOP is placing a candidate up against a fairly popular incumbent. An incumbent who is more popular than Bush was in 2004.

The Democrats did what the GOP is doing now. You don't want someone who isn't polarizing against a fairly popular incumbent. You saw this effect with Clinton vs. Bush in '92. Polarization is not a bad thing if you look at US history. This idea that polarization is bad is only something that's came about in the past decade or so, and it's a very, very untrue thing.

As an example, the far right? They'll vote for Ron Paul period, assuming he was the nominee. It doesn't matter. They won't vote for Obama. The middle right? Same deal.

Paul would have to fight Obama for the centrists. That's what this election is about, and why the GOP has screwed themselves for likely at least one more election.

The GOP's extremist and sensationalist message is a bad, bad thing for long term. It won them 00 and '04 and gave them huge short term gains (You also saw this affect in '10), but will lose them the white house in '08, '12, and probably '16. Why? They've alienated the minorities. There's been a ~7% population increase of minorities (IIRC, fallible memory, etc.) since '00, and every one of them remembers the crap the GOP pulls with things like the DREAM Act. By the time '16 rolls around, Whites are going to be sub-60% of the population assuming current trends continue - and that large voting base is going to remember all the crap the GOP has talked about them.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Minority is not the same as immigrant, Brainy. I'll grant you that an immigrant is a subset of minority, but minority is not a subset of immigrant.