Early voting shows Romney +7.....

Doer

Well-Known Member
Oh, I see your problem. You can't see past the press. All this showboating to you is the substance????

WAKE UP. This is the showboating of Politics. US govt holds the purse string for FEMA to make Governors Kow-tow.

On the other hand, not so political... These are two officials in a Disaster photo op.

What did you expect, Heidi spit?
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Those are awesome polls UB. Are they oversampling Dems by even 1 percent? If they are, you can throw them out with the garbage, it ain't gonna happen. But, on the bright side, you can spoon with those polls after the election and tell yourself how the evil Republicans cheated, cause THE POLLS showed Obama should have won.
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
Oh? Christy no longer your buddy? Blah hahahahahaha!
When was he ever? And why do you direct your comments to people that don't support Obama , as if we all talk, think, and act alike?
Conservatism is nothing like Liberalism. Liberals are a cult of personality constantly pushing "forward" no matter what mistakes are made. The philosophy of the stupid.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
When was he ever? And why do you direct your comments to people that don't support Obama , as if we all talk, think, and act alike?
Conservatism is nothing like Liberalism. Liberals are a cult of personality constantly pushing "forward" no matter what mistakes are made. The philosophy of the stupid.
I wouldn't say stupid, intellectually lazy maybe, but not stupid. I have yet to see them propose a solution that doesn't involve some other persons property first. Morally bankrupt? sure, stupid, no.
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
6000 year old earth stupid . . or legit rape stupid . . or MItt trying to con us to think he is bipartisan stupid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/mitt-romney-massachusetts-budget-_n_2051922.html?ref=topbar
"
WASHINGTON -- Over the past month, Mitt Romney touted similarities between the fiscal mess he inherited as Massachusetts governor and the current U.S. budget deficit, arguing that he reached bipartisan solutions to his state's problems and would do so again if elected president. His campaign bills the new theme as Romney's "closing argument" for the 2012 race, and presented it at all three presidential debates, in swing-state television ads and on the stump.
"I was elected as a Republican governor in a state with a legislature that was 85 percent Democrat," Romney said last week outside a construction services company in Ames, Iowa. "We were looking at a multi-billion dollar budget gap. But instead of fighting with one another, we came together to solve our problems."
A detailed Huffington Post review of Romney's budget proposals from his first year in office, however, reveals that he advocated deep cuts to programs serving the state's most vulnerable -- even when those cuts had little effect on the state's fiscal position. Romney's aggressive reductions to social programs did not earn support across the aisle. The state legislature ended up overriding more than 115 Romney vetoes in his first year as governor.
"There was no magic in the Romney approach," recalled former Democratic state Rep. Dan Bosley. It was "cut as many social programs as you can." Bosley added: "If we didn't override every one of his vetoes, we overrode most of his vetoes. … There wasn't a bipartisan effort to run government." "
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
So you're saying you don't hold a single liberal political opinion?
For me, it would be most of their social issues that don't involve taking from others first. The ones that involve more freedom I'm all for.

The bitch of it is, if I'm in the mindset that our deficit spending is the #1 complaint I have, I have to crawl in bed with the religious right. There's really not a viable party that follows socially liberal and fiscally conservative ideals other than the Libertarian party, which imo is still not viable. I relate to the classic liberal platform but it's been hijacked.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Agreed, a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government is exactly what we need.

I'm of the opposite mindset, that the religious right is exactly what is slowly decaying our country, which means I'd have to crawl in bed with incompetent idiots if I voted.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Agreed, a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government is exactly what we need.

I'm of the opposite mindset, that the religious right is exactly what is slowly decaying our country, which means I'd have to crawl in bed with incompetent idiots if I voted.
Could be.....

I used to think the moral majority was a major threat to my way of life, but as their influence has waned the torch has been passed to the politically correct. The PC crowd is causing the havoc the MM crowd caused 30 years ago. I'm not a fan of anyone that wants to tell me how to live, currently the left is winning this tug of war over who gets to tell me how to think.

Neither bed looks clean or comfortable to me to be honest, it's just that like I said, I feel our fiscal situation trumps any other concerns I have.

It's really sucky right now. I used to make a good chunk of change playing online poker but some R came up with "click a mouse, lose your house" and poof, it was gone. But do I go dem? I would have been more inclined if they didn't put the Patriot act on steroids instead of repealing it while expanding unfunded wars. So in my eyes, I see a party spending money on things that DO NOT build an economy, that will dig a hole that will be ever more painful to climb out of that is also shitting all over my civil liberties. Too unpalatable for me. Way too similar to Bushney right now.
 

beenthere

New Member
Agreed, a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government is exactly what we need.

I'm of the opposite mindset, that the religious right is exactly what is slowly decaying our country, which means I'd have to crawl in bed with incompetent idiots if I voted.
With all due respect Pada, I don't think you know what a real liberal is.
I may be mistaken but every "liberal" i've seen on this forum is actually a progressive.
What say you?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I can't really comment on that as different people probably label themselves different things.

I believe most of us hold some liberal opinions and some conservative opinions. I think it's a mistake to put yourself into any single category and automatically side with it. Military tacticians use that in battle to divide a powerful enemy into many weaker ones.


Liberal;

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Liberalism;

1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Progressive;

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

What's in bold is what I personally agree with
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member

  • I think it's a mistake to put yourself into any single category and automatically side with it.




Yet you have no problem doing it to other people.... Hypocrite...
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"I think it's a mistake to put YOURSELF into any single category and automatically side with it."

This is a statement about ones self, it has no bearing on anyone else.


You're an angry, hateful person. I genuinely feel sorry for you.
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
"I think it's a mistake to put YOURSELF into any single category and automatically side with it."
Welcome to election season. You can only vote for one person. Right now is the time to show how one is different from the opposition.
Its AFTER election that we come together. As long as there is a president who understands bills start with congress, then we should be just fine.
 

SUPERBONG

Active Member
Their campaigns are financed by the same giant multinational corporations. They only differ significantly on issues that the ivory tower dwellers do not care about, such as abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana, intelligent design, stupid crap like that which drives a wedge through the citizenry and makes them feel like they're really voting for something important (LOL.)
But on the real issues, such as foreign policy, war, military spending, the national debt, etc the differences are so insignificant they aren't worth mentioning. They obviously take their orders from the same corporatist-globalist NWO bildeberger scumf*cks behind closed doors. Obamney and Rombama probably get together in secret and have a good laugh at the idiots that take their little show seriously.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I think that's the problem inherent in the system. They shouldn't be battling to divide us based on things we disagree on. I'm sure Obama has political opinions with foundations in the Republican party and I'm sure Romney has political opinions with foundations in the Democratic party, but they're labeled Dem/Rep. It's like the "pro-life/pro-choice" debate. Nobody is "anti-life" and nobody is "anti-choice". They use these words to demonize the opposition before any debate takes place. Staunch Rep's/Dem's automatically demonize the opposition, regardless of what they might actually believe in. There are probably more things the majority of us agree with than disagree with, but the leaders focus on the disagreements to keep us fighting among each other instead of solving any of the actual problems. At this point, I'm not sure if it'll change until the system implodes on itself and we're all forced to fix it or dissolve. The way our government runs is unsustainable in the long run, and I think what happened to the USSR will eventually happen to the USA if nothing changes.

It's like a cavity. Do we go to the dentist and get it filled now or do we wait until it decays away completely? We might disagree on which toothpaste to use, but we all agree that brushing your teeth is the right thing to do to avoid problems.
 
Top