Post: #101

(01-13-2012 06:39 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(01-13-2012 05:42 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Would you rather vote Obama or Romney?

I wouldn't even vote.

That was bengalltiger. You got the brown guys confused bro.

Post: #102

Good short video on Romney:

Post: #103

^nice vid

I guess the media was successful...I had believed Ron Paul was a nut

This thread however made me pay attention to him.

...Every video I've watched on you tube shows him to be intelligent ....why isn't he a real choice for the Republicans??

Post: #104

(01-14-2012 12:15 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Good short video on Romney:

You know, it's precisely because they accuse him of flip-flopping I think he'd be a capable executive.

How much do you think a fire-brand, bible-thumping conservative or a tree-hugging liberal could achieve as President in today's world? I do not for second doubt his Machiavellian streak, and that's precisely why I think he'd be a good statesman. I think we're going to need him because America's relative power is no longer such that we can afford idealistic policies with no basis on reality - it's going to be real politik
more and more.

Ron Paul is my favorite, because he's anti-establishment, but Romney is a the guy who will get it done. I'm not sure anyone knows what he really believes, but I don't care about that. I care about him ensuring America is the primary world power. I think he can do that.

Post: #105

This is one of the reasons I can't stand Romney.

I remember I caught this part during the Debate.





Check the part where he whines to Anderson Cooper.

You have to be able to read people.

Romney was the playground snitch as a kid.

He was the guy in high school that told the principle you were ditching school.

F*ck this guy.

If someone likes Romney, they either can't read him or they can and they like people with no honor.

On top of that, he is just another pro-war p*ssy that didn't have the balls to step up when it was his turn.

There is a special place in Hell for cowards like him.

Like I said before, I wouldn't hire him to shine my shoes.

Post: #106

(01-14-2012 12:11 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  If someone likes Romney, they either can't read him or they can and they like people with no honor.

Since when did ANY politician have honor? John F. Kennedy who people love to talk about was a total narcissist who thought with his cock. But they named a carrier after him.

I think we agree G on who's what and whatnot. I just don't know if honor plays into it. We need our own Cincinnatus, I guess..

Post: #107

Newt Gingrinch reportedly financed this video:





There's a good chance Romney is gonna lose the nomination... he's pissed off a lot of people in the last 20 years.

Post: #108

(01-14-2012 02:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Newt Gingrinch reportedly financed this video:





There's a good chance Romney is gonna lose the nomination... he's pissed off a lot of people in the last 20 years.

Trust me, Romney will not lose that nomination. McCain endorsed Romney a week ago, and that tells me that Romney is easily gonna win the primaries.

Post: #109

(01-14-2012 05:21 PM)bengalltigerr Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 02:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Newt Gingrinch reportedly financed this video:





There's a good chance Romney is gonna lose the nomination... he's pissed off a lot of people in the last 20 years.

Trust me, Romney will not lose that nomination. McCain endorsed Romney a week ago, and that tells me that Romney is easily gonna win the primaries.

"McCain endorsed Romney"

A lot of people think that is a negative, not a positive.

Post: #110

yeah i hate McCain and i'm republican.

If Ron Paul hangs around long enough anything can happen, but he's the only one with a chance to beat him

Post: #111

Quote:Paul makes me super nervous...

He rejects Keynesian economics -look up what Paul Krugman thinks of him - Krugman has been right on just about everything on the economy in last ten years, while Paul has been wrong.

A rejection of Keynsian economics shouldn't make you nervous. Why the loyalty to that particular economic model? In my mind, when the mechanations are studied, that model serves one master: the concentration of wealth at the top - fueled by enver ending growth (inflation, immigration, births, credit, etc. - all interrelated mechanisms for growth).

I feel that your last statement is too broad to be accurate. Also, being 'incorrect' in the face of a litany of never-ending economic band-aids doesn't quite count. It's the end result that matters, when all stalling tactics are exhausted. Paul has been correct in predicting much of the previous impending economic disasters based on the fact that they eschew the basic economic prinnciple of frugality and balance. But that's the ultimate problem with Keynsian economics, no? It's a system that depends on constant growth and spending to stay healthy. When one accepts that reality, other government behaviors become more clear: such as the de-facto promotion of open borders, the need for the military-industrial complex to do well for the economy to do well, and the allowance of the mortgage crisis - which, in retrospect, seems like a last ditch move to squeeze the credit of the middle class to filter the wealth to the top - sort of like squeezing a lemon one last time, very hard, to get the last drops of juice before the famine.

Keynsian economics is akin to a societal cancer. The society needs to grow and spend, not save, to survive. Inherently, that's an unhealthy system for a sane, peaceful, and lasting society. Additionally, the inherent and required inflation in this model is a built in self-destruct program.

I'm not an economics man, and a lot of my perspective comes from knowing some basic principles of various models and thinking them out to their logical outcomes. I'm ready to be corrected byt those legitimately more knowledgable on the subject, but as far as I know I'm basically correct.

Post: #112

(01-15-2012 12:08 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Quote:Paul makes me super nervous...

He rejects Keynesian economics -look up what Paul Krugman thinks of him - Krugman has been right on just about everything on the economy in last ten years, while Paul has been wrong.

A rejection of Keynsian economics shouldn't make you nervous. Why the loyalty to that particular economic model? In my mind, when the mechanations are studied, that model serves one master: the concentration of wealth at the top - fueled by enver ending growth (inflation, immigration, births, credit, etc. - all interrelated mechanisms for growth).

I feel that your last statement is too broad to be accurate. Also, being 'incorrect' in the face of a litany of never-ending economic band-aids doesn't quite count. It's the end result that matters, when all stalling tactics are exhausted. Paul has been correct in predicting much of the previous impending economic disasters based on the fact that they eschew the basic economic prinnciple of frugality and balance. But that's the ultimate problem with Keynsian economics, no? It's a system that depends on constant growth and spending to stay healthy. When one accepts that reality, other government behaviors become more clear: such as the de-facto promotion of open borders, the need for the military-industrial complex to do well for the economy to do well, and the allowance of the mortgage crisis - which, in retrospect, seems like a last ditch move to squeeze the credit of the middle class to filter the wealth to the top - sort of like squeezing a lemon one last time, very hard, to get the last drops of juice before the famine.

Keynsian economics is akin to a societal cancer. The society needs to grow and spend, not save, to survive. Inherently, that's an unhealthy system for a sane, peaceful, and lasting society. Additionally, the inherent and required inflation in this model is a built in self-destruct program.

I'm not an economics man, and a lot of my perspective comes from knowing some basic principles of various models and thinking them out to their logical outcomes. I'm ready to be corrected byt those legitimately more knowledgable on the subject, but as far as I know I'm basically correct.

I agree it was an overly-broad statement and was actually inaccurate at least as far as the housing bubble as Hooligan Harry pointed out.

I'm learning about economics as I go too.

My point was that anyone with a radical mindset makes me nervous. I understand that America needs radical change, but that doesn't mean a radical stance. To me, the most radical change at this point is a shift to common sense. For the USA radical=common sense. Fucked up huh...

Post: #113

Interesting comment on Krugman article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinio....html?_r=1


I think the person's state of mental stability not prior vocation that's key.. More specifically, whether or not the individual is a sociopath. Sociopaths have compassionless hearts, are shamelessly opportunistic and view people as tools to manipulate, a means to an end. A mentally healthy person, whether Republican or Democrat, with a healthy sense of empathy and compassion will not lead the country too far astray. They can have an affair, a short fuse, like their booze, whatever, but if they are not sociopaths or otherwise too paranoid or deeply neurotic,l they will not drive the nation off a cliff. Compare Eisenhower with Romney, Cheney,Nixon or Bush and you'll get my drift.

There have been books reviewed this year in the NY times that posit that CEOs have an inclination toward sociopathy. Sociopaths are bottom line people. They have a goal and will step over, destroy and /or manipulate by any means necessary to get what they want. This seems very suitable to the type of oligarch corporate model that flourishes in our current economic model.

Romney's behavior at Baine fits this model as well as his chameleon, shape shifting value system and serial lying.. Bush had oedipal conflicts that impaired judgement, Cheney was a sociopath, Newt's a megalomaniac,Romney's has no soul, Santorum a sexually obsessed religious fanatic; Paul is a deranged Utopian. Perry's an empty headed hater.

Post: #114

According to latest polls, Ron Paul is way ahead of Romney in SC primaries.

Post: #115

The Three Horrible Moments For Mitt Romney In Last Night's Debate

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-three...z1jjkqXYdW

Romney is real shaky on releasing his tax records.

It is pretty funny how he lies about being a "hunter" as well, to appeal to the base.

He should just keep it real.

Post: #116

Had a real chuckle when I heard that Bain Capital owns a massive chunk of Clearwater Media. They own a lot of the conservative radio and produce some of the major conservative television programs.

Basically, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and a few others are having their salary paid by Romney.

You know I often talk about corruption in African countries or the FSU, but it shows you that its everywhere. Its just more subtle.

Post: #117

This is going to hurt.

REPORT: Mitt Romney Has Money Stashed Offshore In Cayman Islands

Read more: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/...z1jrYcQlFK

Post: #118

Gingrich's Ex-Wife Says He Wanted An 'Open Marriage'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gingrichs...z1jvHY8ear

I actually have more respect for Gingrich now. I somehow doubt this will help him with the voters in the Republican base though.

Rick Perry Is Dropping Out And Is Going To Endorse Newt Gingrich

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-perr...z1jvHqKfHR

Post: #119

all the republican candidates have been planted by the banks except for Paul and Gingrich probably. I don't think it's an accident that they are all such jokers. the banks want obama to stay in office obviously.

Post: #120

(01-19-2012 11:47 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  all the republican candidates have been planted by the banks except for Paul and Gingrich probably. I don't think it's an accident that they are all such jokers. the banks want obama to stay in office obviously.

actually I think the banks have had enough of Obama.

Post: #121

(01-19-2012 12:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 11:47 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  all the republican candidates have been planted by the banks except for Paul and Gingrich probably. I don't think it's an accident that they are all such jokers. the banks want obama to stay in office obviously.

actually I think the banks have had enough of Obama.

Or Obama is sick of being a bitch to the Banks, his wife and everybody else the Beta-in-chief has to bow down to and appease. Maybe Obama just wants to chill, learn game, and get a comfy gig making tons of cash like Tony Blair.

Post: #122

(01-19-2012 12:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 11:47 AM)Iceinthewater Wrote:  all the republican candidates have been planted by the banks except for Paul and Gingrich probably. I don't think it's an accident that they are all such jokers. the banks want obama to stay in office obviously.

actually I think the banks have had enough of Obama.

all his advisers are wall street criminals, and he actually did them all a favor by NOT putting a ton of big bank fat cats in jail. Obama is a friend to bankers. He let them off easy. Why would you say they've had enough?

Post: #123

he has been very lenient towards them - alot of those guys should be in jail - but i think some of the new regulations are starting to piss them off, and alot of money has been given to Romney from the banks.

Post: #124

I don't think super-rich Romney will become the president. There is just too much hostility among the GOP candidates. I hate to say this, but Betabama is gonna get re-elected.

Post: #125

(01-19-2012 02:26 PM)bengalltigerr Wrote:  I don't think super-rich Romney will become the president. There is just too much hostility among the GOP candidates. I hate to say this, but Betabama is gonna get re-elected.

I think that when the Republican primary comes to and end and they all unite behind one candidate and focus their attention on what a clusterfuck the last four years have become they will end up winning. I recently read about how the Republicans are planning an awful lot of their campaign on taking Obama's own quotes and broken promises and using them against him. You also have to look at how the election is really decided - the swing states like PA, FL, OH, CO, and VA. Those states got swept up in the Obama hysteria and anti Bush rhetoric of 2008 but thats gone and those states are getting killed economically. Sure, he'll win places like CA and NY but I cant imagine him running through the swing states w/the success he had in 2008 vs a better opponent then McCain and having 4 years of failure and broken promises on his record.