• 1 year 8 months ago
    • Posts: 9433
    Romney can't be any worse than Obama.
    There is a battle between two wolves inside us all.

    One is evil and the other one is good. Which wolf will win? The one you feed the most.

    http://unbelievableyou.com/a-native-american-cherokee-story-two-wolves/
    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
      • 1 year 8 months ago
      • Posts: 1666
      How does cutting taxes on businesses reduce unemployment? I have tried to listen to the Rs and I just don't see how that makes any sense. This is the biggest practical thing in the right platform that I just can not understand.

      As a business owner, having more money floating around might or might not increase production operations. I find it very unlikely to increase service operations. Meanwhile, many businesses get massive tax breaks constantly and we have huge unemployment numbers so I don't get how anyone can say cutting taxes makes jobs. The only way that makes sense to me is when a city gives money to a developer, and some temporary jobs are created in construction of a building. But when the building is done, the construction workers may or may not have more work to do, and likely as not in these times the building sits half empty for years afterwards. Meanwhile there is a huge stock of preexisting buildings that are also empty for a long time. But the developers have gotten their money, took no risk for "developing" while the govt has lost $X. In short, cutting taxes for businesses seems more like govt getting fleeced than govt getting out of the way.

      bassman21 wrote:

      As for Romney sending jobs to China. In many cases companies must send some jobs overseas to stay in business. To complete in the free market you must keep your prices low to be competitive. Most of the jobs that are sent pay under $10 an hour anyway. Not enough Americans will pay more just to have something made in American. Furthermore there have been studies which show that sending many of the low paying jobs overseas creates more higher paying jobs for us. Finally moving these jobs overseas give people who otherwise would be starving in the streets a job.



      There is a reason we got this way. I am not sure how free trade and free market benefits anyone but Walmart et al. It hurts small businesses and local businesses. It drives prices down, making us feel happy about driving in SUVs to get all our stuff in one place. It also drives salaries and employment down in this country making us feel angry about those wasteful beaurocrats that let us get the low prices in the first place. It is natural to want the best deal but looking at the big picture. It hurts us in the long run. To put the genie back in the bottle would take generations but it should be clear that free market has not been good for our country. The one thing I can say to you personally bassman is thank you for being honest. If someone asks Romney about sending jobs to China he will ignore it, lie, or distract. He'll talk about small business backbone or getting "tough" on China or some other thing.
      tangspot2 wrote:
      Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
        • 1 year 8 months ago
        • Posts: 6717
        bassman21 wrote:
        Clinton signed the republican backed Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996. People said it would put people on the streets to starve, but it had the opposite effect. People got off their lazy ass and went to work. I support programs to help the poor, but giving them free money isn't the answer. The programs that work are the ones that help them find jobs, daycare and housing. Democrats want to write them a check. Republicans and libertarian push for personal responsibility.



        Can you believe it? Clinton is still getting heat from signing that 1996 bill into law. I saw him get a little angry with a few delegates that got in his face at the Democratic Convention last month. Bill Clinton is the classic deal maker but he's no push-over. With Bill's advice Barack Obama could have taken on his political opposition more forcefully. But he caved-in too soon and too often.

        Yet despite my complaints it's in my best interest to support Obama for another term.
        The Eldorado is dead. Long live the Eldorado.
        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
          • 1 year 8 months ago
          • Posts: 3807
          Wow, what a loaded question. I thought political discussions weren't allowed?

          Well, I'm kinda done supporting candidates based on the party they represent. And thank god, because pretty much every party these days sucks. For lack of more elegant terms. I'm a staunch moderate and honestly can't stand most issues that take one side or another. Especially economic issues- there is often a happy blend of liberal programs spending and conservative fiscal responsibility.

          With that said, I tend to support candidates who I identify with politically. It's easy to do here in the Northeast as most of our local politicians are also moderate (here in CT, the split is roughly equal between registered Dems., Reps., and Inds.) They tend to be crooked as hell, too, but eh, what can you do? So far, none of them have ended up with a young prostitute or been accused of hiring the mob to do dirty work.

          Anyway, even after some of the worst 4 years of my life, I still find myself leaning towards Obama. I read his autobiography after he got elected (I'm into biographies) and I like his life story, I like his patience, his ability to stand up to his party and his opponents and tell them they're being ridiculous without going overboard. He is the first major candidate that I feel connected with- I think he is an introvert, like myself, and I appreciate that about his personality and sometimes I marvel at his ability to give a good speech.

          I can't say I've liked everything he's done in office (and sometimes I feel he didn't push hard enough on certain issues), but I feel he is a good person and a good leader, and that makes the most difference for me. I honestly don't know if any candidate will live up to him from here on- because I knew the first time I saw him on TV in 2004-ish that he was going to be president one day.
          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
            • 1 year 8 months ago
            • Posts: 2188
            • Forum Mod
            • Editor
            Nothing in the rules against talking politics, we're all mature people here. Just as long as we don't start calling each other names to prove who the better presidential candidate is... :?
            Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
              • 1 year 8 months ago
              • Posts: 1666
              Here's what I don't get. Republicans talk about repealing regulations. Small govt. Because we should be free to what we want in this country! Sounds good to me. But it only applies to money! and companies. As for China not playing by the rules...that's what unbridled capitalism and free market are buddy! You don't get to talk about deregulating stuff and then complain when somebody else uses neat tricks to game the system. And he doesn't care to play by any sort of rules in his own businesses that he claims to be so successful at...the businesses that are successful by stepping on other people. By closing doors and making profit and who cares about anybody else. He claims he has empathy when he meets a family that is struggling (especially if they are in his church) but until then, they are faceless worthless "other"s.

              Making a lot of money is sure success when you are some guy. But when you are a big country, you can't just fuck people over. (Actually, you can, but you have to lie about it to win an election.) So I don't know how he thinks he's going to apply that experience he keeps harping about to running a country.

              But when we get away from corporations and such, then they want to increase the rules. Rules about peoples' personal lives. What a load of crap. And that brings me to the most offensive thing in last night's debate: "my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we're all children of the same God." FUCK YOU Governor. We are not children of the same God. For him to say that, in America, where we supposedly have freedom of religion, is downright disrespectful. You believe in God? That's great, good for you, enjoy your faith. Don't put it on me though. I don't believe in God, I am not a child of your God, and if your passion for public service has to come from invisible sky man then I can't trust anything you say.
              For him to talk about 100% of Americans and then say that, shows he does not know anything about 100% of Americans. He does not represent me or my family or my friends. He does not represent the people of the community that raised me and supported me. He only represents himself and people like him. And that is the most un-American thing I can think of.
              tangspot2 wrote:
              Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
              Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                • 1 year 8 months ago
                • Posts: 410
                I'm canadian but i've been following the US presidential race, I won't lie my views are very liberal so if given the opportunity I would vote for Obama, not that i think he has done the greatest job I just think Mitt Romney is so out of touch and his background speaks for itself, what exactly has Bain Capital done to help any common man all Mitt's concerned with is lining his pockets at the expense of average people. He says 47% of americans aren't working hard enough and thats why they're not successful, well Mitt we all can't have Daddy give us the money to attend an Ivy league school but i wouldn't expect someone so arrogant to know anything about having struggle for money everyday. South park was right when they said to vote is to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich but in this case I'd take the lesser of 2 evils, at least Obama can relate to the common mans plight Mitt on the other hand is so out of touch he thinks everyone should have the oppurtunity to "borrow money from you parents and start a business or attend college" well Mitt guess what everyones parents aren't rich enough to finance they're every whim but i guess that means they're lazy or dumb. Also on a side note Obama is the much better singer of the two!! sorry for ranting but Mitt Romney really grinds my gears!
                "Good Nyborg "
                Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                  • 1 year 8 months ago
                  • Posts: 7416
                  bassman21 wrote:
                  Holy shit that was a Timbox reply...well almost :lol:
                  The main difference being that mine was actually informative, not a bunch of irrelevant nonsense.

                  bassman21 wrote:
                  I'm not a republican. You still think I'm just some republican redneck that gets my information from Fox News. I get this from most liberal college kids so it comes as no surprise. I have more libertarian views than republican (there is a difference). I support small government. People like you think the government is the answer. If we step back, have small regulation to prevent corruption things will work out.
                  You say you don't get your information from Fox News, and yet you sound just like one of their talking heads when you make these assertions that the big bad Obama administration is over-regulating businesses and that "small government" is the answer. Economic freedoms are not what our founders fought for, it was personal freedoms, and for some of them, social freedoms. Taking what they call "small government" and applying it to your laissez-faire nonsense is completely perverting their intentions; multi-national corporations did not have much of a presence during their time, and if they knew how much these entities would control our politicians and our nation's policies in the future they would have been vehemently against them. I believe in a big government that promotes the general welfare, not a big government that infringes on our rights to privacy or taxes us for programs that do not benefit us.

                  And you claim to be closer to a Libertarian than a Republican, but if that's true then you must be the only Libertarian in the country who is voting for Romney. As you said here:

                  bassman21 wrote:
                  With that being said we do need to cut defense spending, but not at the expense of out safety. Defense is one area the government should get involved. how we raise our kids or what we put into our bodies is not.
                  Republicans are the party of regulating our lives and what we put in our bodies. They are the brains behind legislation such as the Patriot Act, and put supposed "Christian" values over the secular values our country was founded upon. Furthermore, they're the party that spends way more on the military than the military even asks for; you say you want enough money going towards defense to keep us safe, but Romney's plan would spend billions more than is actually necessary. This is all completely antithetical to the Libertarian philosophy of limited government, and every Libertarian I know is voting for either Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, with very few even voting for Obama. Romney is to Libertarianism what Hitler was to Socialism.

                  bassman21 wrote:
                  As for Romney sending jobs to China. In many cases companies must send some jobs overseas to stay in business. To complete in the free market you must keep your prices low to be competitive. Most of the jobs that are sent pay under $10 an hour anyway. Not enough Americans will pay more just to have something made in American. Furthermore there have been studies which show that sending many of the low paying jobs overseas creates more higher paying jobs for us. Finally moving these jobs overseas give people who otherwise would be starving in the streets a job.
                  This is some of the biggest BS I've ever read. You think the government should simply allow these companies to send jobs to China with no intervention? You think it's okay that in China they pay their employees less than a dollar an hour? You think it's justifiable on the grounds that we're giving jobs to the Chinese, hellish as they may be, even when that takes away thousands of menial jobs that less educated Americans could have at reasonable wages and with real safety regulations? Come on man, I can't even take you seriously with arguments like this.

                  bassman21 wrote:
                  Welfare programs hurt more than they help. They are intended for short term, but many stay on them for generations. The American Indians, rural Whites and African Americans are all good examples of how welfare hurts us. Many of them live in poor crime ridden areas and continue to be poor generation after generation. Many cities have been taken over by illegals who come here to reap our welfare programs. This is one reason why we are 16 trillion in debt. Clinton signed the republican backed Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996. People said it would put people on the streets to starve, but it had the opposite effect. People got off their lazy ass and went to work. I support programs to help the poor, but giving them free money isn't the answer. The programs that work are the ones that help them find jobs, daycare and housing. Democrats want to write them a check. Republicans and libertarian push for personal responsibility.
                  I love it when Republicans/Libertarians conveniently forget how terrible the Great Depression was under Herbert Hoover, and the amazing recovery under FDR.
                  TMNT wrote:
                  Movin` on up!! To the East side Blah blah Blah Movin on up Gaints lol.
                  Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                    • 1 year 8 months ago
                    • Posts: 7416
                    Just look at history if you think welfare programs are so horrible. You think all welfare recipients are lazy assholes who live in luxury by committing welfare fraud, and don't take initiative to improve their conditions? I doubt you've met a real poor person in your life.

                    And doesn't that directly contradict what you said earlier about how it's okay to ship all the low wage jobs to China? If so many of the jobs Americans could potentially have are over there, doesn't that make it kind of difficult for these low income families who rely on welfare to go out there and get a job in the first place? Either argue that welfare programs are harmful and encourage lazy behavior or that American companies should be entitled to employ people in any country they want, but please don't think you can effectively argue both.

                    bassman21 wrote:
                    As for defense spending we were on the verge on a nuclear holocaust at one time. Regan's policies kept us safe and ultimately lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
                    Reagan conveniently got into office while the Cold War was naturally coming to an end, and did nothing but prolong and instigate the theoretical war (remember his harmful interpretation of the nuclear disarmament treaty, his "evil empire" remark, and his wasteful "Star Wars" program). Of course, that's a story for another time, but the way you describe it falls in line with that standard Republican twisting of reality to make Reagan sound like a greater president than he actually was.

                    bassman21 wrote:
                    There are a lot of lies about Romney out there. They take a small thing and blow it out of proportion to make him look bad. At the end of the day Romney is a moderate republican and is not a radical. About half of the country thinks he's a better option than Obama. If Obama had a plan that might help us I would give him four more year, but he doesn't. It's my opinion that his policies have extended the recession. At least Romney has something to offer.
                    Don't know exactly what lies you're talking about, but Romney is only a moderate on the national stage; did you not watch the Republican debates at all? He is such a lying, inconsistent asshole - even for a politician! - and relies on people like you to fall for his trap that the most appealing stance to you that he's taken is the one he actually believes. All Romney genuinely has to offer is tax cuts for the rich, billions of dollars in wasteful defense spending, and whatever else the Republican establishment asks of him.

                    thecrow174 wrote:
                    Romney can't be any worse than Obama.
                    And yet, bassman21, at least you're capable of articulating your beliefs pertinent to your decision. It's thecrow174's kind of mentality that I really can't stand.
                    TMNT wrote:
                    Movin` on up!! To the East side Blah blah Blah Movin on up Gaints lol.
                    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                      • 1 year 8 months ago
                      • Posts: 4514
                      I'm not going to reply to every comment you made for reasons I've already stated, but I iterate on one point.

                      With all due respect Mezase Master I think I know a little more about being poor than you do. I grew up poor and lived in a poor area. I knew people that were poor even to the point of not having lights or running water in their house. I've been in houses that had literately 1000s of roaches and houses that were literally falling apart. I saw a lot of fucked up stuff and had a lot of bad experiences that comes with being around poverty. Yes I thought just like them and saw conservatives as being the bad guys.

                      While my peers were generally poor to lower middle class I was also was around people over the years that had money. There was stuff that they had that I wanted. I got a job so I could get the things that I wanted. As I moved up in life I had to leave a lot of people behind. You'll be surprised how many people just flat out refuse to change. You'll find as you get older there will be a lot of people that will try and hold you back in life. People will even become jealous and try and hurt you just to make themselves feel better.

                      The quality of my life has gotten so much better once I've got away from the so called poor. In general people with some money are much better to be around and I have learned a lot from them. I'm not trying to badmouth all poor people because there are a lot of good ones. However once you learn that there is a better way to do things it only becomes frustrating when you are around people that don't even try to change their lives. The real issue is the mindset in the poor communities. Its what keeps them back and if someone tries to succeed they are viewed as a sellout.

                      I'm a conservative now because I have seen both sides and I know it is what truly works. I've seen the other side. Yes there are plenty of liberals who are wealthy, but in my experience most of them have never experienced being poor. Rich white kids go to college and suddenly have a bleeding heart. They think they can change the word and make a difference. It all sounds good in theory, but in logic it usually doesn't work. Personal responsibility, education, independence, entrepreneurship, a free market and trade is what works. As horrible as it sounds the best thing we can do for the poor is to stop giving to them. We can and should be helping them improve their lives, but ultimately its up to them to change it. Of course we should help people that truly need it, but there comes a time where we have to push them away if they are capable.

                      I'm so sick of hearing this nonsense that all Romney cares about is giving tax cuts to the rich. He supports the free market which creates jobs and has said more than once that he will not cut any more taxes for them. He's not my first choice, but he's the only one that has a chance of beating Obama. Gary Johnson has no chance and its a wasted vote. Besides I said I lean more toward libertarian. I never said I was one. Libertarians tend to have too extreme of views on government involvement. I think there should be more than libertarians think, but no where near what liberals do.
                      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                        • 1 year 8 months ago
                        • Posts: 9433
                        Sunriser wrote:
                        Wow, what a loaded question. I thought political discussions weren't allowed?

                        I thought so too.

                        Retrojunk isn't really about politics.
                        There is a battle between two wolves inside us all.

                        One is evil and the other one is good. Which wolf will win? The one you feed the most.

                        http://unbelievableyou.com/a-native-american-cherokee-story-two-wolves/
                        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                          • 1 year 8 months ago
                          • Posts: 2188
                          • Forum Mod
                          • Editor
                          Again, nothing in the rules against talking politics. Especially in the Chit Chat forum.
                          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                            • 1 year 8 months ago
                            • Posts: 410
                            thecrow174 wrote:
                            Sunriser wrote:
                            Wow, what a loaded question. I thought political discussions weren't allowed?

                            I thought so too.

                            Retrojunk isn't really about politics.


                            just seems to be a lively debate, no problem with that, i'm sure when we start resorting to childish name calling it will be locked!! j/k.
                            "Good Nyborg "
                            Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                              • 1 year 8 months ago
                              • Posts: 9433
                              The Ronin Identity wrote:
                              thecrow174 wrote:
                              Sunriser wrote:
                              Wow, what a loaded question. I thought political discussions weren't allowed?

                              I thought so too.

                              Retrojunk isn't really about politics.


                              just seems to be a lively debate, no problem with that, i'm sure when we start resorting to childish name calling it will be locked!! j/k.

                              Thank God none of that crap happened yet.
                              There is a battle between two wolves inside us all.

                              One is evil and the other one is good. Which wolf will win? The one you feed the most.

                              http://unbelievableyou.com/a-native-american-cherokee-story-two-wolves/
                              Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                • 1 year 8 months ago
                                • Posts: 6717
                                What amazingly in-depth and thoughtful opinions here, from both sides.

                                No matter which candidate you back for the White House, both national parties are really going at it on the state level. I'm getting an earful of attack ads because we have a house seat up for grabs. Congressman Jay Inslee (D) resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives to campaign for Governor of Washington State.

                                For both political parties it's those state races where the real action is.
                                The Eldorado is dead. Long live the Eldorado.
                                Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                  • 1 year 8 months ago
                                  • Posts: 1666
                                  bassman21 wrote:
                                  I'm not going to reply to every comment you made for reasons I've already stated, but I iterate on one point.


                                  Although I disagree, I guess I understand that you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, as it were, and believe that most people should simply do the same.

                                  -----------

                                  But uninhibited free market principles really do keep people down.

                                  Walmart forces other businesses to close or send jobs overseas, refuses benefits or fulltime work to employees (even telling them to go on welfare if they need help!) They fire people for getting too sick to work.

                                  Amazon treats its employees like shit, pays them low wages, and pushes them to physical exhaustion with no regard. Frequent firings there, too.

                                  A charter (non-union) school in Chicago recently fired a teacher (after commending him earlier) for helping a student who had just been beaten by other students in the locker room, saying he should have been in the gym with the rest of the class.

                                  I can give dozens more examples of how free market policies allow businesses to run over smaller businesses, bring down everyone but themselves (*cough cough* Bain *cough*), and hurt their employees. Who in many cases no longer have any other options for a place to work. And since they are making minimum wage or barely over it, it's not like they can just move somewhere else (and get a job at another big company, or the same one at a different location?)

                                  That is the free market. It hurts America, and the government should restrict it. Not to hurt it, not to cut income, just make sure that it "plays by the rules".

                                  -----------

                                  Entrepreneurship is great. Now who was the last person who got to be in charge and live well from their idea? For every Jimmy John there are thousands of other people who couldn't make it. Keep in mind Jimmy John was fortunate enough to grow up in an area where he could make a success (out of his parents' garage.) If he lived in North Philly, I guarantee you he could not have done that.

                                  Education is great. Except a high school diploma won't get you a job better than flipping burgers now. So you've got to go to college. Which not everybody can just "borrow money from their parents" to do that. People can flip burgers, but the minimum wage won't let you make any sort of life. Even Mcdonalds can only hire so many people. Of the ones that do get it, just how many can get promoted to manager? How much independence and personal responsibility is possible? I lived in North Philly. My neighbors were very much independent and personally responsible. Most (besides the old blind man) had jobs. But they sure as hell would never get ahead. One damn thing after another would happen to them. Some people don't try to change their lives because they have tried and tried and tried already and it never works. Others don't try because they never realized they can. Maybe that is their own problem, but it would be nice if everyone could know from a young age that such things are possible. Because right now, that doesn't happen.

                                  And many of the biggest companies are helping to keep people down and not knowing about possibilities.

                                  -------------

                                  Just as an aside, I only did well in school because I was instilled with the desire to do so from a young age. My mother was a librarian. So I went to the library all the time. If your mom is not a librarian, and has to work in the afternoon or evening, you might not be able to go to the library. (Their funding was just cut here in Chicago, btw.) My father worked in market research. He was always bringing home cool stuff, showing me how ads are printed in four color process and stuff like that. If your dad doesn't work in an office he might not have stuff to bring home or to bring you there on Dec. 23 to hang out for half a day. I watched Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow and Square One. If Mr Romney had his druthers, PBS would go off the air. (It won't, even if he cuts funding as he wants to, because there are fortunately other people in this world who understand social responsibility, but he wouldn't mind at all if it did.)

                                  So hey, one person can get out of a bad situation. It doesn't mean everybody can, no matter how much they want to or try. Free market is incredibly shortsighted, and so is Romney, and he is hoping that enough people to vote for him are too.
                                  tangspot2 wrote:
                                  Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                                  Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                    • 1 year 8 months ago
                                    • Posts: 2188
                                    • Forum Mod
                                    • Editor
                                    Who's gonna work it out baby, who's gonna work it out?
                                    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                      • 1 year 8 months ago
                                      • Posts: 1666
                                      https://www.facebook.com/mattromney2012
                                      https://www.facebook.com/barryobama2012

                                      I think Matt is funnier than Barry but they are both pretty good.
                                      EDIT: there is also Rob Paul's page I just found
                                      https://www.facebook.com/robpaulwasforpres
                                      tangspot2 wrote:
                                      Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                                      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                        • 1 year 8 months ago
                                        • Posts: 6717
                                        Romnesia! Romnesia, are you kidding me?

                                        While Mitt Romney presents himself well in debates, the President's campaign gurus come up with name calling, this is both sad and uncalled for.
                                        The Eldorado is dead. Long live the Eldorado.
                                        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                          • 1 year 8 months ago
                                          • Posts: 6717
                                          eddstarr88 wrote:
                                          Romnesia, romnesia, are you kidding me?

                                          While Mitt Romney presents himself well in debates, the President's campaign gurus come up with name calling, this is both sad and uncalled for.
                                          The Eldorado is dead. Long live the Eldorado.
                                          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                          Search