The "I hate Mitt Romney" thread :)

[Hargood]

Obviously he won't argue what I will.

In order to pay for wars just like anything else it does, government must remove (RE: steal) the resources from somewhere as it is incapable of doing without. Just some of these resources include soldiers, whom might otherwise could've been working boosting the economy doing their favorite thing while one of the bigger resources includes payment, which comes two ways: firstly, via taxes; secondly, by printing more dollars - which creates inflation.

Aside from that, war also tends to destroy supplies of a global resource, which as is the case in the middle east happens to be oil, causing prices of said resource, especially oil, to increase significantly.

Woah a second there. A soldier that would be otherwise boosting the Economy? How? Are you trying to say that during those wars we had "TOO many Jobs" that we didn't have enough Americans to fill them? It must have been a "Booming" time! I must have missed that.

..and I honestly don't see a Fight to instill the "Bush Tax Hikes" created to fund the wars. Sorry. I see the debates of the "Bush Tax Cuts", but Hey... I could just be hearing "Cuts" instead of "Hikes". Who knows.

As for Printing Money I'll Give. That was done. However it was Done for the economy, not the national Debt that took the brunt of the Wars. I DEFINITLY am against it. It's the Path to making the American Dollar the value of the Paso. However, Who would appose my view on that?:
Obama defends Fed decision to print more dollars in face of growing criticism | The Daily Caller

If you REALLY want to know what hurt our Economy... I'll Throw everyone a bone. Just Go Google things like "Fannie Mae" and "Freedie Mac".....

(2006: You can now own a small, one Plot Card-Board Town House that has only one Bathroom for a low Price in the $600 Thousands. But hey... It's in a great Area!!!)

 

[stagnant94]

the one thing i do dislike is how many people are saying that mexicans are stealing their jobs, yeah, only jobs that people don't really want to do. if they were skilled workers they wouldn't have gone into america. the only jobs they're taking are picking up your crap and cleaning

 

[Crooksin]

the one thing i do dislike is how many people are saying that mexicans are stealing their jobs, yeah, only jobs that people don't really want to do. if they were skilled workers they wouldn't have gone into america. the only jobs they're taking are picking up your crap and cleaning

The issue with "Mexicans stealing all our jobs" isn't that they are Mexicans taking people's jobs, its that they are ILLEGAL aliens who take jobs for much less than minimum wage because they are desperate AND at the same time don't pay any taxes what so ever on their pay because it is illegal work but they still use Government services. You can't really say its the jobs that people don't want when there are millions of unemployed citizens (who do pay taxes and do work for minimum wage) desperately seeking jobs that illegal aliens are working at for 2/3/4 dollars a day.

Why wouldn't you go into America if you were a skilled worker? Is that not what the American economy needs? (if you are tax-paying citizen of course) We are talking Mexico here, one of the highest murder rates in the world, a drug cartel always looking over you, very poor country with a powerful and rich country right next door. As a Mexican, your choices are between America or South America and the former will allow you to prosper ten fold compared to the latter. I completely understand why a Mexican would climb a fence into America hoping for a new life, but to curb the high number of illegal aliens, they should put into place a system that allows them to be granted citizenship a lot easier, at least they will be paying taxes at that point.

 

[Jersey Dagmar]

The issue with "Mexicans stealing all our jobs" isn't that they are Mexicans taking people's jobs, its that they are ILLEGAL aliens who take jobs for much less than minimum wage because they are desperate AND at the same time don't pay any taxes what so ever on their pay because it is illegal work but they still use Government services. You can't really say its the jobs that people don't want when there are millions of unemployed citizens (who do pay taxes and do work for minimum wage) desperately seeking jobs that illegal aliens are working at for 2/3/4 dollars a day.

Why wouldn't you go into America if you were a skilled worker? Is that not what the American economy needs? (if you are tax-paying citizen of course) We are talking Mexico here, one of the highest murder rates in the world, a drug cartel always looking over you, very poor country with a powerful and rich country right next door. As a Mexican, your choices are between America or South America and the former will allow you to prosper ten fold compared to the latter. I completely understand why a Mexican would climb a fence into America hoping for a new life, but to curb the high number of illegal aliens, they should put into place a system that allows them to be granted citizenship a lot easier, at least they will be paying taxes at that point.

This.

As much as I bitch about how the U.S. is, it's nothing compared to what Mexico is. I have no problems with Mexicans wanting to come over here and get a better life. However, I just want them to be legal citizens.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Woah a second there. A soldier that would be otherwise boosting the Economy? How? Are you trying to say that during those wars we had "TOO many Jobs" that we didn't have enough Americans to fill them? It must have been a "Booming" time! I must have missed that.

..and I honestly don't see a Fight to instill the "Bush Tax Hikes" created to fund the wars. Sorry. I see the debates of the "Bush Tax Cuts", but Hey... I could just be hearing "Cuts" instead of "Hikes". Who knows.

As for Printing Money I'll Give. That was done. However it was Done for the economy, not the national Debt that took the brunt of the Wars. I DEFINITLY am against it. It's the Path to making the American Dollar the value of the Paso. However, Who would appose my view on that?:
Obama defends Fed decision to print more dollars in face of growing criticism | The Daily Caller

If you REALLY want to know what hurt our Economy... I'll Throw everyone a bone. Just Go Google things like "Fannie Mae" and "Freedie Mac".....

(2006: You can now own a small, one Plot Card-Board Town House that has only one Bathroom for a low Price in the $600 Thousands. But hey... It's in a great Area!!!)

Do not attempt to confuse me for the modern-day "liberal", because from where I'm standing, you're quite liberal yourself in the modern terminology (wherein liberal falsely equates to more government).

Once again: the biggest problem with war (and government) is it misallocates resources from one area in the private industry to the public industry, misallocation due to that these jobs are inevitably taken where what would otherwise be natural as war is a coercive event while government is itself a coercive entity. (I'd expect the modern-day "conservative" to understand as much.)

Every single ship we build for war; every single aircraft we build for war; every single soldier we pay for war. These are all resources that have been coerced from the private market, resources that would've otherwise benefited the market for the better.

Therefore, the problem with Bush were not his tax cuts, but going to war in the first place. (But even those tax cuts are themselves part of the problem, as all they do is support the legitimacy of theft since they only cut into tax-rates rather than abolish the IRS.

The wars dragged us into debt, whether you like it or not, which will require either taxes to increase or more printing of the U.S. Dollar. They are just as much as the problem as Bush bailing out the banks, Obama bailing out the auto industry, and as much as Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. For any rational person, the one does not excuse the other.

 

[stagnant94]

The issue with "Mexicans stealing all our jobs" isn't that they are Mexicans taking people's jobs, its that they are ILLEGAL aliens who take jobs for much less than minimum wage because they are desperate AND at the same time don't pay any taxes what so ever on their pay because it is illegal work but they still use Government services. You can't really say its the jobs that people don't want when there are millions of unemployed citizens (who do pay taxes and do work for minimum wage) desperately seeking jobs that illegal aliens are working at for 2/3/4 dollars a day.

Why wouldn't you go into America if you were a skilled worker? Is that not what the American economy needs? (if you are tax-paying citizen of course) We are talking Mexico here, one of the highest murder rates in the world, a drug cartel always looking over you, very poor country with a powerful and rich country right next door. As a Mexican, your choices are between America or South America and the former will allow you to prosper ten fold compared to the latter. I completely understand why a Mexican would climb a fence into America hoping for a new life, but to curb the high number of illegal aliens, they should put into place a system that allows them to be granted citizenship a lot easier, at least they will be paying taxes at that point.

i didn't realise this, thank you. i can of course understand why skilled workers would flee into america however i believe that it is more likely that unskilled workers will jump the fence. my main problem isn't with people who think like you. it's people who assume that mexicans are stealing jobs when they are only stealing jobs that people don't really want. but i can see from your post that was a misunderstanding on my part and those people are a select few

 

[Omega Dragon]

the one thing i do dislike is how many people are saying that mexicans are stealing their jobs, yeah, only jobs that people don't really want to do. if they were skilled workers they wouldn't have gone into america. the only jobs they're taking are picking up your crap and cleaning

The issue with "Mexicans stealing all our jobs" isn't that they are Mexicans taking people's jobs, its that they are ILLEGAL aliens who take jobs for much less than minimum wage because they are desperate AND at the same time don't pay any taxes what so ever on their pay because it is illegal work but they still use Government services. You can't really say its the jobs that people don't want when there are millions of unemployed citizens (who do pay taxes and do work for minimum wage) desperately seeking jobs that illegal aliens are working at for 2/3/4 dollars a day.

Why wouldn't you go into America if you were a skilled worker? Is that not what the American economy needs? (if you are tax-paying citizen of course) We are talking Mexico here, one of the highest murder rates in the world, a drug cartel always looking over you, very poor country with a powerful and rich country right next door. As a Mexican, your choices are between America or South America and the former will allow you to prosper ten fold compared to the latter. I completely understand why a Mexican would climb a fence into America hoping for a new life, but to curb the high number of illegal aliens, they should put into place a system that allows them to be granted citizenship a lot easier, at least they will be paying taxes at that point.

I've yet to find either side to not be hypocritical, and illegal immigration is one of the biggest hypocrisies of each, in part because neither side wants to tackle the actual problem - supply & demand.

The fact is people come here illegally to work because they get more money than at home. One side thinks that by increasing border protection (and this "Great Wall of America" that will turn out to do nothing more than really prevent Americans from leaving as things get worse), that somehow it'll be hindered; the other side thinks all we gotta do is increase the fines for hiring illegals (despite that you cannot prove a corporation ever hired illegals in the first place).

The real problem is that many (not all) Americans, like the rest of the first-world society, don't want to compete for their jobs. They expect to be able to make a living wage from beginning to end, most of which is just based on their highborn birth in society (another remnant from the monarch age I might add). Though I'd wager it's even less excusable for Americans, since they of all first-world people should know better.

Therefore, to tackle the real problem requires just the opposite. Want to stop people from coming here illegally? Abolish the laws that make it more attractive to hire them. Without the supply, they're going elsewhere or back home.

 

[Jersey Dagmar]

I had a hearty chuckle.

 

[Crooksin]

I've yet to find either side to not be hypocritical, and illegal immigration is one of the biggest hypocrisies of each, in part because neither side wants to tackle the actual problem - supply & demand.

The fact is people come here illegally to work because they get more money than at home. One side thinks that by increasing border protection (and this "Great Wall of America" that will turn out to do nothing more than really prevent Americans from leaving as things get worse), that somehow it'll be hindered; the other side thinks all we gotta do is increase the fines for hiring illegals (despite that you cannot prove a corporation ever hired illegals in the first place).

The real problem is that many (not all) Americans, like the rest of the first-world society, don't want to compete for their jobs. They expect to be able to make a living wage from beginning to end, most of which is just based on their highborn birth in society (another remnant from the monarch age I might add). Though I'd wager it's even less excusable for Americans, since they of all first-world people should know better.

Therefore, to tackle the real problem requires just the opposite. Want to stop people from coming here illegally? Abolish the laws that make it more attractive to hire them. Without the supply, they're going elsewhere or back home.

I'm not saying that a flood of even legal immigrants from Mexico isn't a problem, they certainly are taking jobs in America that should rightfully belong to Americans themselves. I don't think this problem can be solved with how the living conditions in Mexico continue to be but rather dealt with. How I look at the immigration problem in America is not so different than the drug problem. All these increased laws and border patrol (I find the "Great Wall of America" to either be mostly symbolic or just a really fluffing bad idea by someone who isn't very logical at all) isn't really doing much at all, if any. There is still a flood of illegal aliens taking jobs for less money than what is the status quo and one big, glorified fence isn't going to stop anybody who's determined.

I believe that if the Government was more relaxed with the immigration problem, or at least embraced it to a point (I.E creating a path to citizenship much easier to achieve) we would have all these Mexican immigrants paying more taxes and also being entitled to minimum wage. Generally, if an American employer had a choice between a fresh Mexican immigrant or an American citizen and BOTH could only be hired with minimum wage, they will choose the American. This isn't meant to be racist, but the constant and immense flow of people is a bad thing for the entire country, WAY more supply than demand.

Hopefully this will also tighten up job availability for Americans and Mexican immigrants-to-be will realize that jobs will be scarce for them. The real problem is Mexico though, the country is in turmoil and completely rooted in crime. If I was Mexican, I would also take the plunge into America for a better life and it is truly is terrible to see, but this also shouldn't be an American problem more than a Mexican one and even if this solution fails, there will still be a lot more tax money coming in, anyway.

 

[Omega Dragon]

I'm not saying that a flood of even legal immigrants from Mexico isn't a problem, they certainly are taking jobs in America that should rightfully belong to Americans themselves. I don't think this problem can be solved with how the living conditions in Mexico continue to be but rather dealt with. How I look at the immigration problem in America is not so different than the drug problem. All these increased laws and border patrol (I find the "Great Wall of America" to either be mostly symbolic or just a really f***ing bad idea by someone who isn't very logical at all) isn't really doing much at all, if any. There is still a flood of illegal aliens taking jobs for less money than what is the status quo and one big, glorified fence isn't going to stop anybody who's determined.

I believe that if the Government was more relaxed with the immigration problem, or at least embraced it to a point (I.E creating a path to citizenship much easier to achieve) we would have all these Mexican immigrants paying more taxes and also being entitled to minimum wage. Generally, if an American employer had a choice between a fresh Mexican immigrant or an American citizen and BOTH could only be hired with minimum wage, they will choose the American. This isn't meant to be racist, but the constant and immense flow of people is a bad thing for the entire country, WAY more supply than demand.

Hopefully this will also tighten up job availability for Americans and Mexican immigrants-to-be will realize that jobs will be scarce for them. The real problem is Mexico though, the country is in turmoil and completely rooted in crime. If I was Mexican, I would also take the plunge into America for a better life and it is truly is terrible to see, but this also shouldn't be an American problem more than a Mexican one and even if this solution fails, there will still be a lot more tax money coming in, anyway.

I agree Mexico is a big problem itself.

But again, we can only address our side of S&D, which is the supply side. (As crime not only in Mexico but all throughout central & south America is demanding of them coming here.) If in the process they learn they need to fix their own country, good; if they learn that it could be easier to fix things here, more power to them. Either way, we have plenty of problems here at home that could be fixed with all the resources government uses to "fix" other countries, and just one of them includes abolishing or - at the very least, slowly phasing out - a variety of laws.

Worst-case, I think illegal immigration should be at most, a state's right issue. If say Texas decides it doesn't want people from another country crossing their border, it shouldn't matter what someone up in Maine thinks, and vice versa.

 

[stagnant94]

erm.

coincidence? i think not

 

[Medea]

Okay. New topic. This one should appeal to everyone.

Which celebrities/news anchors/politicians do you like or respect, even though they are from a different party than your own? In other words, if your a democrat, which republicans do you respect? If your a republican, which democrats do you respect?

I'm a democrat and a few republicans I like are:

Dennis Miller, Ben Stein, Clint Eastwood, John Malkovich, Meatloaf, The "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kevin Sorbo, Don Imus and Bruce Willis. I also kind-of like Bill O'Reilly (the difference between his radio show and Fox News program is like night and day).

 

[Hargood]

Do not attempt to confuse me for the modern-day "liberal", because from where I'm standing, you're quite liberal yourself in the modern terminology (wherein liberal falsely equates to more government)...

I like that we are throwing liberal around as a bad word. I am Highly Highly offended that you would put me in such light......(LOL Kidding of course)

Once again: the biggest problem with war (and government) is it misallocates resources from one area in the private industry to the public industry, misallocation due to that these jobs are inevitably taken where what would otherwise be natural as war is a coercive event while government is itself a coercive entity. (I'd expect the modern-day "conservative" to understand as much'

Every single ship we build for war; every single aircraft we build for war; every single soldier we pay for war. These are all resources that have been coerced from the private market, resources that would've otherwise benefited the market for the better..

I could understand War "Restricts Trade" or "Haults Exporting", but You act as if we had to refine more materials that we did't have to participe in a modern war. I think the Iraq war proved that wrong. We didn't have to run Steel and Aluminum drives like the 1940's. I could also agree that Mom's wouldn't have to there hard earned spend money on sending care packages to their son's oversea's if if there wasn't a war going on, but other than that.....

Therefore, the problem with Bush were not his tax cuts, but going to war in the first place. (But even those tax cuts are themselves part of the problem, as all they do is support the legitimacy of theft since they only cut into tax-rates rather than abolish the IRS.

The wars dragged us into debt, whether you like it or not, which will require either taxes to increase or more printing of the U.S. Dollar. They are just as much as the problem as Bush bailing out the banks, Obama bailing out the auto industry, and as much as Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. For any rational person, the one does not excuse the other.

And you said it again 'The War Dragged Us into Debt.... The Federal Goverment... The NATIONAL Debt. We, the Tax Payer, hasn't Paid for it yet. The Debt is Still there. Believe Me, and It has nothing to do with me "Liking it".

And Obama Bailing out the auto Industry didn't hurt the Economy. What it did do is just tack on More Debt that the tax payers will have to pay for. ....In the Future.. Not in 2005. Bush Bailing out the Banks does the same thing. These are Not the Things that Ruined our Economy.. Those are things Presidents did to try to stimulate it again. (Not that those wouldn't be Failed Idea's)

and as much as Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. For any rational person, the one does not excuse the other.

Well, what I would think would be "Rational Person" would understand true Market Falls within the Economy instead of making up whatever they could to defend their distain for War. I'm Not pleading to you that "War Mongering" is right. I'm saying that out of all the problems that Happened during Bush's Term that made the economy Fall,(bushs fault or not) it wasn't because we had this Big o'war. Believe me, the National Defense Budget was there WAY before you and I were around to talk about it, and when it goes over budget, it isn't given to the tax payer untiil the Federal Goverment Raises Taxes. Plain and Simple.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Okay. New topic. This one should appeal to everyone.

Which celebrities/news anchors/politicians do you like or respect, even though they are from a different party than your own? In other words, if your a democrat, which republicans do you respect? If your a republican, which democrats do you respect?

I'm a democrat and a few republicans I like are:

Dennis Miller, Ben Stein, Clint Eastwood, John Malkovich, Meatloaf, The "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kevin Sorbo, Don Imus and Bruce Willis. I also kind-of like Bill O'Reilly (the difference between his radio show and Fox News program is like night and day).

I think this actually deserves to be its own thread, but since we're here... and I being an independent (AKA I don't support any party), I have a particularly big list. (And obviously for my leaning I could not post fellow independents, libertarians or capital-L libertarians.)

Dennis Miller
Meatloaf
Bruce Willis
Kevin Sorbo
Kid Rock
Jon Voight
Angelina Jolie
Gene Simmons
Chuck Norris
Ted Nugent
Trace Adkins
John Rich
LL Cool J
Mel Gibson
Steven Seagal
Sylvester Stallone
Bill Cosby
Stephen Baldwin
Dwayne Johnson
George Carlin
Adam Sandler
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Lance Armstrong
Karl Malone
J.D. Hayworth
Ron Paul
Alan Keyes
Dennis Kucinich
Ralph Nader
Condoleeza Rice
Mark Sanford
Henry Kissinger
Lou Dobbs
John Stossel
Neil Cavuto
Megyn Kelly
Neal Boortz
Oprah Winfrey
Willie Nelson
Matt Damon
Samuel L Jackson
Denzel Washington
Stephen King

(P.S. shadowqueenMedea: I think Clint Eastwood's a big-L Libertarian.)

 

[Hargood]

Okay. New topic. This one should appeal to everyone.

Which celebrities/news anchors/politicians do you like or respect, even though they are from a different party than your own? In other words, if your a democrat, which republicans do you respect? If your a republican, which democrats do you respect?

I'm a democrat and a few republicans I like are:

Dennis Miller, Ben Stein, Clint Eastwood, John Malkovich, Meatloaf, The "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kevin Sorbo, Don Imus and Bruce Willis. I also kind-of like Bill O'Reilly (the difference between his radio show and Fox News program is like night and day).

It's funny but even though I am not voting for them, I still have a great deal of respect for Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden. I also would never have one negative thing to say about Michelle Obama.

 

[Medea]

I could understand War "Restricts Trade" or "Haults Exporting", but You act as if we had to refine more materials that we did't have to participe in a modern war. I think the Iraq war proved that wrong. We didn't have to run Steel and Aluminum drives like the 1940's. I could also agree that Mom's wouldn't have to there hard earned spend money on sending care packages to their son's oversea's if if there wasn't a war going on, but other than that.....

I think the problem with the wars in the Middle East is that, other than profits for big oil, we don't have any economic assets to gain from winning. Sure, if our hopes to form democracies over there succeed, we'll have more security for Israel and ourselves (and that's actually debatable), but we're wasting money launching multi-million-dollar missles and drone bombs on people who use car boms, IEDs, and obsolete assault rifles.

It's not like WWII, when we opened up trade with civilized, advanced countries after defeating them. We had huge economic booms after that because those countries had a lot to offer us later. The Middle East is just a giant dust bowl with a few pools of oil. The money we are spending in the effort to crush terrorist insurgency is 20 billion a month (last time I checked). We aren't going to get that money back.

 

[Omega Dragon]

I think the problem with the wars in the Middle East is that, other than profits for big oil, we don't have any economic assets to gain from winning. Sure, if our hopes to form democracies over there succeed, we'll have more security for Israel and ourselves (and that's actually debatable), but we're wasting money launching multi-million-dollar missles and drone bombs on people who use car boms, IEDs, and obsolete assault rifles.

It's not like WWII, when we opened up trade with civilized, advanced countries after defeating them. We had huge economic booms after that because those countries had a lot to offer us later. The Middle East is just a giant dust bowl with a few pools of oil. The money we are spending in the effort to crush terrorist insurgency is 20 billion a month (last time I checked). We aren't going to get that money back.

But aside from what I've argued already, another problem is, especially in this case: the ability to harvest oil resources were destroyed in Iraq, causing oil to unnaturally inflate in the global market with China beginning to use more oil. Now the U.S. has made refined oil (gasoline) its #1 export, which while decreasing the global demand (albeit not by an effective amount) it already is burdening the price here.

(Which is why Iraq is considered a war for oil: because by going to war with Iraq, destroying their ability to harvest & refine oil, OPEC along with other oil suppliers and various oil investors can cause the price to increase.)

 

[Omega Dragon]

After what's been said by myself about corporations, I figured I'd quote this.

TAMPA, October 22, 2012 — In the wake of Ron Paul’s campaign and with Gary Johnson rising in the polls, libertarianism may just get a hearing for the first time in decades.
Already, the usual fallacies have resurfaced. If you don’t want the government to run education, you must be against education. If you don’t want the government to run healthcare, you must not want people to get healthcare.

This misunderstanding is often summed up with comments like, “I’m not sure I’m comfortable with an ‘every man for himself’ society.” This springs from the absurd assumption that human beings never confer benefits upon one another except when forced to do so at gunpoint.

One corollary of the “every man for himself” theory is that a libertarian society would “let corporations run wild,” resulting in a small, wealthy elite controlling all of the resources and exercising oligarchical rule over the rest of society. (So do we live in a libertarian society now?)

Read rest at link: Libertarians are not corporate apologists | Washington Times Communities

 

[Raijin]

 

[T1d3]

But I want him to president. so for me it would be scary to see Obama sitting in office for 4 more years