Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Scott Prouty Caught Mitt Romney Telling the Truth About Mitt Romney (http://slickdeals.net/f/5906334-scott-prouty-caught-mitt-romney-telling-the-truth-about-mitt-romney)

bsg75 03-13-2013 10:43 PM

Scott Prouty Caught Mitt Romney Telling the Truth About Mitt Romney
 
NEW YORK -- The man who changed the 2012 election is named Scott Prouty.

[huffingtonpost.com]
Interesting story. I wonder how long before some liberal benefactor offers him a scholarship to law school?

kharvel 03-14-2013 02:03 AM

This guy is a true-blooded American patriot.

andyfico 03-14-2013 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsg75 (Post 58208698)
NEW YORK -- The man who changed the 2012 election is named Scott Prouty.

[huffingtonpost.com]
Interesting story. I wonder how long before some liberal benefactor offers him a scholarship to law school?

What would you like to discuss? Whether we think his name is cool?

bsg75 03-14-2013 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 58210574)
What would you like to discuss? Whether we think his name is cool?

I would like to provide a warm and friendly thread for the flying monkeys to start attacking him. He's sure got a funny-sounding name, good place to start.

JackHandey 03-14-2013 04:48 AM

Calling him a patriot is a bit extreme. He's a guy that caught something opportune on vid, and made a name for himself.

andyfico 03-14-2013 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsg75 (Post 58210608)
I would like to provide a warm and friendly thread for the flying monkeys to start attacking him. He's sure got a funny-sounding name, good place to start.

So your lack of a rational response just means this is a meaningless thread? Unless there is something I am not seeing in your flying monkey response.

Halfspin 03-14-2013 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 58211042)
Calling him a patriot is a bit extreme. He's a guy that caught something opportune on vid, and made a name for himself.

He's the guy who caught something opportune that the media abused.

When this video came out I had just finished reading, "How to win a local election [amazon.com]". The book was written by a democrat. The first rule he covers is to determine what you need to do to win the race. To do that you divide the voters into 3 groups.
A - the % that will vote for me no matter what.
B - the % that can be swayed.
C - the % that will vote for my opponent no matter what.

Then you determine if you can win enough votes from B to push your tally past 50%. If you look at elections post-reagan, assuming 47% will vote democrat isn't that far off.

This is the metric politicians use to view their opportunity for success and required effort to win. The media should have known better, but hey who are they to let facts disrupt a good plot?

BobDeal 03-14-2013 06:12 AM

The 47% gets it's revenege on the top 0.0025%. Justice is served on a bar table. It's the American way.

Radeck 03-14-2013 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roughnready (Post 58212094)
The 47% gets it's revenege on the top 0.0025%. Justice is served on a bar table. It's the American way.

yeah...because only the top 0.0025% is affected by Obamacare taxes, diminished freedoms, an ever-expanding nanny state, the NSA surveillance state he has expanded, and a debt time-bomb to name just a few areas....newflash: Obama is in the pockets of the 0.0025% as much as, if not more than, Romney and all your other scarey bogiemen....remind me, how many billionaires in the financial industry has he gone after for their roles in the 2008 meltdown? how much of his campaign money is raised from the 0.0025%? how many billionaires spent millions of their own money to get Obama elected? yeah...i thought so!

Deusxmachina 03-14-2013 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58212132)
oh, you mean like the patriots who provided vids or were witnesses of Obama saying he wants single-payer healthcare, people should not have guns, marxist "spread the wealth" ideas, telling the Russian president to tell Putin to be patient and that he (Obama) will have more freedom after the election (ie to betray the wishes of the american people), etc. in open defiance of american tradition and even the Constitution?

At least what Romney said is not about stabbing americans in the back or discussing ways to subvert the Constitution or take away rights of the american people or sell us out to the Russians.

but yeah, this guy is hero :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58212204)
yeah...because only the top 0.0025% is affected by Obamacare taxes, diminished freedoms, an ever-expanding nanny state, the NSA surveillance state he has expanded, and a debt time-bomb to name just a few areas....newflash: Obama is in the pockets of the 0.0025% as much as, if not more than, Romney and all your other scarey bogiemen....remind me, how many billionaires in the financial industry has he gone after for their roles in the 2008 meltdown? how much of his campaign money is raised from the 0.0025%? how many billionaires spent millions of their own money to get Obama elected? yeah...i thought so!

Don't mess with Texas!

kharvel 03-14-2013 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 58211042)
Calling him a patriot is a bit extreme. He's a guy that caught something opportune on vid, and made a name for himself.

He went out of his way and put his job and himself at risk to expose a Manchurian candidate. That's what patriots do.

kharvel 03-14-2013 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58212132)
oh, you mean like the patriots who provided vids or were witnesses of Obama saying he wants single-payer healthcare, people should not have guns, marxist "spread the wealth" ideas, telling the Russian president to tell Putin to be patient and that he (Obama) will have more freedom after the election (ie to betray the wishes of the american people), etc. in open defiance of american tradition and even the Constitution?

Yes, absolutely. These people are patriots as well. Patriots are those who bring extreme transparency to the government. That may include Private Manning as well, if we were to ignore the illegality of his actions.

Quote:

At least what Romney said is not about stabbing americans in the back or discussing ways to subvert the Constitution or take away rights of the american people or sell us out to the Russians.

but yeah, this guy is hero :rolleyes:
Romney was being honest about himself and his views in that video. The video brought transparency on Romney, transparency that was virtually absent prior to the video. That's why Prouty is a hero.

Radeck 03-14-2013 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58217110)
He went out of his way and put his job and himself at risk to expose a Manchurian candidate. That's what patriots do.

:rofl2:

JackHandey 03-14-2013 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58217110)
He went out of his way and put his job and himself at risk to expose a Manchurian candidate. That's what patriots do.

Meh. It could equally be argued that if someone actually finds themselves in a position to have legal standing to force BHO to produce his past documents supporting his education and citizenship, and something proves to be awry, that they too would be patriots (under the brand of logic you present). I wonder if you would have the same equanimity, were things to play out that way.

He's a guy that took a risk, with the chance it would pay off nicely or maybe even just to get himself the proverbial "15 minutes". Whether or not a candidate would be suitable for the job itself is something up for debate... However, I see no basis to imply that MR is a "manchurian candidate".

The irony here, is that BHO actually fits the profile for being a "manchurian candidate" far more so than MR.

bonkman 03-14-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 58211932)
He's the guy who caught something opportune that the media abused.

When this video came out I had just finished reading, "How to win a local election [amazon.com]". The book was written by a democrat. The first rule he covers is to determine what you need to do to win the race. To do that you divide the voters into 3 groups.
A - the % that will vote for me no matter what.
B - the % that can be swayed.
C - the % that will vote for my opponent no matter what.

Then you determine if you can win enough votes from B to push your tally past 50%. If you look at elections post-reagan, assuming 47% will vote democrat isn't that far off.

This is the metric politicians use to view their opportunity for success and required effort to win. The media should have known better, but hey who are they to let facts disrupt a good plot?

I don't think it was saying "47% won't vote for me" that was the problem. It was his reasoning for WHY they wouldn't vote for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58217110)
He went out of his way and put his job and himself at risk to expose a Manchurian candidate. That's what patriots do.

I think you need to reread that story.

Rebound 03-14-2013 11:35 AM

What amazes me is how hard the guy had to work to get the media to publish the video. It didn't "go viral" overnight, it took him a lot of time and effort, and then the media credited Jimmy Carter's grandson for "discovering" it.

Yeah, he "discovered" it when this guy wrote to him 50 times urging him to look at the video.

kharvel 03-14-2013 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 58219418)
Meh. It could equally be argued that if someone actually finds themselves in a position to have legal standing to force BHO to produce his past documents supporting his education and citizenship, and something proves to be awry, that they too would be patriots (under the brand of logic you present). I wonder if you would have the same equanimity, were things to play out that way.

Yes, absolutely. I tend to support candidates that don't have hidden agendas.

Quote:

He's a guy that took a risk, with the chance it would pay off nicely or maybe even just to get himself the proverbial "15 minutes".
If that was true, why did he come out into public 6 MONTHS after the video came out? He could have come out the day after election in order to capitalize on the public attention but he chose not to do so.

Quote:

Whether or not a candidate would be suitable for the job itself is something up for debate... However, I see no basis to imply that MR is a "manchurian candidate".
He is a Manchurian candidate because he says stuff in private to close allies that he wouldn't dare to say to the general voting public.

Quote:

The irony here, is that BHO actually fits the profile for being a "manchurian candidate" far more so than MR.
A Manchurian candidate tries to hide his true agenda. The video of Romney proves that because he hasn't said anything like that in public before. If you show a video of Obama saying stuff in private, how different would that be from what he has said in public?

vivahate 03-14-2013 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58220132)
I tend to support candidates that don't have hidden agendas.

I tend to support the candidates that give me $1m and promise me a round-table discussion with the President and Alex Trebek

Wait... I'm being ridiculous? You started it!

JackHandey 03-14-2013 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58220132)
Yes, absolutely. I tend to support candidates that don't have hidden agendas.

Obama hasn't exactly had a shortage of that.

Quote:

If that was true, why did he come out into public 6 MONTHS after the video came out? He could have come out the day after election in order to capitalize on the public attention but he chose not to do so.
Perhaps he was unsure about how it would play out, had Romney actually won? Maybe his situation changed, to a point where the risk was less or he stopped caring? Who knows his motivations, really. It's just as absurd to assume he did something heroically, without knowing why, and without assured consequences.

Quote:

He is a Manchurian candidate because he says stuff in private to close allies that he wouldn't dare to say to the general voting public.
Hm. That would describe ANY politician.

Quote:

A Manchurian candidate tries to hide his true agenda. The video of Romney proves that because he hasn't said anything like that in public before. If you show a video of Obama saying stuff in private, how different would that be from what he has said in public?
A manchurian candidate tries to destroy things from the inside out, as a double agent... Committing espionage, and is a traitor. That would be a definition easy enough to ascribe to BHO, and rather difficult to ascribe to MR. What you describe is a hypocrite. Which is just as easy to ascribe to BHO as many politicians, from both sides of the aisle.

kharvel 03-14-2013 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 58221910)
A manchurian candidate tries to destroy things from the inside out, as a double agent... Committing espionage, and is a traitor. That would be a definition easy enough to ascribe to BHO, and rather difficult to ascribe to MR. What you describe is a hypocrite. Which is just as easy to ascribe to BHO as many politicians, from both sides of the aisle.

I claim that Romney would have destroyed things from the inside out as the POTUS. He would have destroyed the middle class. He would have made the poor poorer. He would have increased military spending to protect more FOREIGNERS and MUSLIMS and build FOREIGN nations while reducing food stamp outlays to U.S. citizens If that's not a definition of a Manchurian candidate, then I don't know what is.

bridgeburner 03-14-2013 03:23 PM

What's funny about this is that, even the republicans who might be upset at his actions can't argue with the fact that the man is literally a hero. He saved a woman by jumping into a canal to cut her out of her seatbelt when she crashed.

JackHandey 03-14-2013 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 58225196)
What's funny about this is that, even the republicans who might be upset at his actions can't argue with the fact that the man is literally a hero. He saved a woman by jumping into a canal to cut her out of her seatbelt when she crashed.

The problem there lies with that his heroics have nothing to do with why lefties try to praise him. In essence, his past heroics are irrelevant and a red herring for purposes of this discussion.

andyfico 03-15-2013 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224734)
I claim that Romney would have destroyed things from the inside out as the POTUS. He would have destroyed the middle class. He would have made the poor poorer. He would have increased military spending to protect more FOREIGNERS and MUSLIMS and build FOREIGN nations while reducing food stamp outlays to U.S. citizens If that's not a definition of a Manchurian candidate, then I don't know what is.

Can I look into your crystal ball too?

JackHandey 03-15-2013 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224734)
I claim that Romney would have destroyed things from the inside out as the POTUS. He would have destroyed the middle class. He would have made the poor poorer. He would have increased military spending to protect more FOREIGNERS and MUSLIMS and build FOREIGN nations while reducing food stamp outlays to U.S. citizens If that's not a definition of a Manchurian candidate, then I don't know what is.

As opposed to BHO's current destruction of the middle class, and actually making things worse for the poor, to boot? Overtaxing those that are producing income to expand healthcare offerings for those that either do not, or are underpaid, and then reduce the actual coverage and then taxing to higher degrees is counterproductive, to the extreme. Those that have health insurance are paying more and more as a result of this, to obtain less.

Your assertion that he would have increased military spending purely to protect foreigners is unsubstantiated. Further, BHO desires to increase min wage... Which will raise prices across the board, and make the food stamps provided less valuable. Rather than expanding food stamps and raising min wage, it would be far more productive to impose price regulation.

Your criticisms of MR are purely speculation, but we have direct evidence of what BHO is and has been doing. Personally, the only difference between the two that I see is which civil rights they would trample on and the rate at which they would destroy the country. I believe that MR would do less damage, and at a much slower rate than BHO.

fsyowad 03-15-2013 09:02 AM

Don't you know.... You never disrespect anyone bringing you your food. Lol!!

Really though, It just goes to show you... when the truth is on your side , one man can bring down an army. Or in this case a bunch of angry old bloated white guys, who live in denial.

Rebound 03-15-2013 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58220132)

He is a Manchurian candidate because he says stuff in private to close allies that he wouldn't dare to say to the general voting public.

A Manchurian candidate tries to hide his true agenda. The video of Romney proves that because he hasn't said anything like that in public before. If you show a video of Obama saying stuff in private, how different would that be from what he has said in public?

The funny thing about that video is that I totally agreed with what Romnry was saying. If you listen to it, what he was saying was that the GOP needed to moderate it's message and reach out to moderate and independent voters. And he was correct that, in terms of his electoral strategy, there's no point in trying to reach out to the 40-47% of voters who were going with Obama no matter what.

Unfortunately for him, his party ignored this plea, and decided to thumb their noses at moderates, and they got their butts kicked.

kharvel 03-15-2013 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 58234998)
As opposed to BHO's current destruction of the middle class

Where is this destruction of the middle class?

Quote:

actually making things worse for the poor, to boot?
How is he making things worse for the poor? From what I understand, everyone is complaining that Obama is making life too easy for the poor by giving out free stuff. Are you arguging that Obama is NOT giving enough free stuff to the poor?

Quote:

Overtaxing those that are producing income
"Overtaxing" is a relative term. Someone today is feeling overtaxed if they're taxed at Clinton-era levels. A Clinton-era taxpayer may feel overtaxed if they're paying Nixon-era tax rates. I see nothing wrong with going back to Clinton-era tax rates.

Quote:

to expand healthcare offerings for those that either do not, or are underpaid, and then reduce the actual coverage and then taxing to higher degrees is counterproductive, to the extreme. Those that have health insurance are paying more and more as a result of this, to obtain less.
Someone has to pay for all those uninsured. We were already paying for them before but now it's just more explicit and transparent.

Quote:

Your assertion that he would have increased military spending purely to protect foreigners is unsubstantiated.
We have a strategic nuclear triad to protect us from attacks. We just need a maximum of 4 supercarrier battle groups (2 for each coast) to protect our shores from foreign invasion/attacks. Anything more is deployed across the world in foreign and muslim countries and they are there to protect foreigners and muslims. Why do you think Europe could afford such generous social benefits for decades? Because they don't have to spend hundreds of billions on defense to protect them from the Commies. They had the US taxpayers for that.

Quote:

Further, BHO desires to increase min wage... Which will raise prices across the board, and make the food stamps provided less valuable. Rather than expanding food stamps and raising min wage, it would be far more productive to impose price regulation.
Are you implying that Romney would impose price regulations if he was POTUS?

Quote:

Your criticisms of MR are purely speculation, but we have direct evidence of what BHO is and has been doing.
What direct evidence? Is the current unemployment rate the direct evidence you're referring to?

Quote:

Personally, the only difference between the two that I see is which civil rights they would trample on and the rate at which they would destroy the country. I believe that MR would do less damage, and at a much slower rate than BHO.
So you agree with the premise that Mitt Romney would have destroyed the USA.

Krazen1211 03-15-2013 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224734)
I claim that Romney would have destroyed things from the inside out as the POTUS.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224734)
I claim that Romney would have destroyed things from the inside out as the POTUS.

See the last 4 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224734)
He would have destroyed the middle class. He would have made the poor poorer.

See the last 4 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224734)
He would have increased military spending to protect more FOREIGNERS and MUSLIMS and build FOREIGN nations while reducing food stamp outlays to U.S. citizens

See the last 4 years, at least for the first half.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224734)
If that's not a definition of a Manchurian candidate, then I don't know what is.

OK. :lmao:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58247674)
How is he making things worse for the poor? From what I understand, everyone is complaining that Obama is making life too easy for the poor by giving out free stuff. Are you arguging that Obama is NOT giving enough free stuff to the poor?

The Obama economy is manufacturing new poors faster than he is giving handouts to the old poors.

Hence, the rampant poverty of the Obama administration.

kharvel 03-15-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krazen1211 (Post 58247938)
OK.

See the last 4 years.

See the last 4 years.

See the last 4 years, at least for the first half.

The last 4 years, Obama saved us from a second Great Depression.

Quote:

The Obama economy is manufacturing new poors faster than he is giving handouts to the old poors.

Hence, the rampant poverty of the Obama administration.
Do you DENY that the "rampant poverty" would have bee much worse if Obama didn't take the measures to save the country from a second Great Depression?

Do you DENY that the "Obama economy" was in fact a creation of George W. Bush through his long-term, country-destroying policies implemented prior to Obama taking office?

Do you DENY that trickle-down economics has been proven to be ineffective and harmful to the U.S. economy?

124nic8 03-15-2013 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58248134)
Do you DENY that the "Obama economy" was in fact a creation of George W. Bush through his long-term, country-destroying policies implemented prior to Obama taking office?

Didn't you know that the moment a new POTUS takes office, the then current conditions are always the result of policies he has not implemented yet? :rolleyes:

Krazen1211 03-15-2013 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58248134)
The last 4 years, Obama saved us from a second Great Depression.



Do you DENY that the "rampant poverty" would have bee much worse if Obama didn't take the measures to save the country from a second Great Depression?

Do you DENY that the "Obama economy" was in fact a creation of George W. Bush through his long-term, country-destroying policies implemented prior to Obama taking office?

Do you DENY that trickle-down economics has been proven to be ineffective and harmful to the U.S. economy?


Ah, yes, the left sticks to the unprovable counterfactual.

The Obama economy is a creation of Obama, who has of course been in office for 4.2 years. The result is rampant poverty and declining incomes.

Naturally with laws like Obamacare penalizing full time employment, full time employment has shifted into part time employment, with the plumetting incomes and declining middle class.

Romney could not create so much rampant poverty if he tried.


So, yes 3 times.

Why does the left deny the rampant Obama poverty?

Krazen1211 03-15-2013 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 58249134)
Didn't you know that the moment a new POTUS takes office, the then current conditions are always the result of policies he has not implemented yet? :rolleyes:


Barack Obama took office over 4 years ago. The current conditions are what they are.

The left has to hide that.

The proof is in the pudding. Along with inventing a fictional Romney presidency, they have to invent a fictional Obama presidency as well.

124nic8 03-15-2013 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krazen1211 (Post 58251240)
Barack Obama took office over 4 years ago. The current conditions are what they are.

The left has to hide that.

I said THEN current conditions. No one is able to, or trying to hide the current conditions.

It is you who is trying the hide that the conditions on Jan 20, 2009 were put in place by Bush. And no one could change that disaster instantly.

Economists agree that financial crisis recessions always last longer.

Five Years After Crisis, No Normal Recovery [bloomberg.com]

Quote:

Our research makes the point that the aftermaths of severe financial crises are characterized by long, deep recessions in which crucial indicators such as unemployment and housing prices take far longer to hit bottom than they would after a normal recession. And the bottom is much deeper. Studies by the International Monetary Fund concluded much the
Though I'm sure you'll disagree with no substantiation as ususal.

Krazen1211 03-15-2013 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 58251760)
I said THEN current conditions. No one is able to, or trying to hide the current conditions.

It is you who is trying the hide that the conditions on Jan 20, 2009 were put in place by Bush. And no one could change that disaster instantly.

Economists agree that financial crisis recessions always last longer.

Five Years After Crisis, No Normal Recovery [bloomberg.com]



Though I'm sure you'll disagree with no substantiation as ususal.


You won't have a normal recovery with the current man in the oval office.


This current man has served more time in the oval office than a majority of his predecessors, and all of his predecessors are judged by historians by their accomplishments. He has been President longer than Abraham Lincoln.


Lincoln of course has his accomplishments, and the current guy has rampant poverty and declining incomes.

JackHandey 03-15-2013 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58247674)
Where is this destruction of the middle class?

Unemployment up. Fewer jobs providing benefits. Jobs that provide benefits require greater employee payouts with less overall benefits. Higher level of taxation.

Quote:

How is he making things worse for the poor? From what I understand, everyone is complaining that Obama is making life too easy for the poor by giving out free stuff. Are you arguging that Obama is NOT giving enough free stuff to the poor?
What he is doing is not only counterproductive in that it creates a circumstance where there is more poor and fewer people to share the burden of subsidizing them, but he is also causing inflation to go up by increasing the min wage. My argument is that the free stuff he is giving is becoming rapidly devalued and is unsustainable. It's not only destructive to the economy, it's even counterproductive to those he is supposedly trying to benefit.

Quote:

"Overtaxing" is a relative term. Someone today is feeling overtaxed if they're taxed at Clinton-era levels. A Clinton-era taxpayer may feel overtaxed if they're paying Nixon-era tax rates. I see nothing wrong with going back to Clinton-era tax rates.
Lefties seem to want to revert back to 1791 for second amendment right technology access... How about reverting to 1791 tax rates?

Quote:

Someone has to pay for all those uninsured. We were already paying for them before but now it's just more explicit and transparent.
Incorrect, there will simply be more people that will overall be getting less medical coverage.

Quote:

have a strategic nuclear triad to protect us from attacks. We just need a maximum of 4 supercarrier battle groups (2 for each coast) to protect our shores from foreign invasion/attacks. Anything more is deployed across the world in foreign and muslim countries and they are there to protect foreigners and muslims. Why do you think Europe could afford such generous social benefits for decades? Because they don't have to spend hundreds of billions on defense to protect them from the Commies. They had the US taxpayers for that.
You're joking, aren't you? At least I hope you are. I agree with you in that socialism has been able to prevail in many european countries partially due to our military aid, and also due to their much smaller size/population density (socialism doesn't scale well). But, on the same token, we are also better off in that socialism has largely been only an economic system that has not fostered dictatorial governmental structures, as socialism largely has where we did not have the influence.

Quote:

Are you implying that Romney would impose price regulations if he was POTUS?
No, I am implying that it is a much more productive solution than increasing wages.

Quote:

What direct evidence? Is the current unemployment rate the direct evidence you're referring to?
The damage BHO has been doing to this country has been monumental. The only president that has done anything remotely comparable in damage to the constitution is FDR. What GWB did was bad enough, but was child's play compared to what BHO has done.

Quote:

So you agree with the premise that Mitt Romney would have destroyed the USA.
What I believe is that he would have damaged the country to a much lesser degree, and at a much slower rate than BHO. I'm not a big fan of MR, and never have been. I simply believe he was the lesser of evils.

jaaxxn 03-15-2013 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58216770)
Don't mess with Texas!

No need to. How could it possibly be more messed up (excluding Austin)?

jonsmith74 03-15-2013 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaaxxn (Post 58253058)
No need to. How could it possibly be more messed up (excluding Austin)?

Yeah...who wants government to have a balanced budget, job growth, income growth, [i]and[i] a part-time legislature???

Deusxmachina 03-16-2013 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58248134)
Do you DENY that the "Obama economy" was in fact a creation of George W. Bush through his long-term, country-destroying policies implemented prior to Obama taking office?

An economy helped brought about by Bernanke; whom Obama reappointed.

Don't forget the deregulation of the banks and things Clinton did. Even 124nic8 blames Clinton for that.
Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 58251760)
It is you who is trying the hide that the conditions on Jan 20, 2009 were put in place by Bush. And no one could change that disaster instantly.

Waitasec, you guys. I thought this was all the fault of Reagan policies? ...Policies that 124nic8 says Clinton carried forward, and policies I assume kharvel says magically skipped over the Clinton years.

Deusxmachina 03-16-2013 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krazen1211 (Post 58251202)
Naturally with laws like Obamacare penalizing full time employment, full time employment has shifted into part time employment, with the plumetting incomes and declining middle class.

Romney could not create so much rampant poverty if he tried.

Don't forget the millions of people in the workforce who have apparently been abducted by aliens because they are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

If you have a bad economy and bad unemployment long enough, using government math, you eventually will have a 0% unemployment rate.

darkfrog 03-16-2013 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224734)
I claim that Romney would have destroyed things from the inside out as the POTUS. He would have destroyed the middle class. He would have made the poor poorer. He would have increased military spending to protect more FOREIGNERS and MUSLIMS and build FOREIGN nations while reducing food stamp outlays to U.S. citizens If that's not a definition of a Manchurian candidate, then I don't know what is.

That is readily apparent.

Someone that does things you don't like is not a Manchurian candidate. Maybe you should read the book or watch the movie.

jplayland 03-16-2013 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58220132)
Yes, absolutely. I tend to support candidates that don't have hidden agendas.

Bull. You support the person with the same hidden agenda as yourself, or the one who did a better job hiding their hidden agenda. The vast majority are crooks with the obvious hidden agenda of lining the pockets of themselves, friends, and family.

Corruption is about all that remains of our government.

kharvel 03-16-2013 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 58252768)
Unemployment up. Fewer jobs providing benefits. Jobs that provide benefits require greater employee payouts with less overall benefits. Higher level of taxation.

Firstly, unemployment is trending down. Secondly, until this year, the US. has been enjoying George W. Bush low taxation. There may be fewer jobs providing benefits but the blame for that lies with the "job creators" and "makers" who prefer to hoard their wealth rather than invest in their workers through benefits. Oh, the middle class is still existing and seems to be growing now with unemployment trending down. Please try to come up with better arguments next time.

Quote:

What he is doing is not only counterproductive in that it creates a circumstance where there is more poor and fewer people to share the burden of subsidizing them, but he is also causing inflation to go up by increasing the min wage.
The reason there are more poor people is because over the past 4 years, in an era of George W. Bush low taxes, the "job creators" have been hoarding their wealth or investing in foreign countries and not investing in the USA to create jobs.

Inflation has been nearly zero over the past 4 years..

Quote:

My argument is that the free stuff he is giving is becoming rapidly devalued and is unsustainable. It's not only destructive to the economy, it's even counterproductive to those he is supposedly trying to benefit.
Your argument is weak and lacks economic credibility. First, the "free stuff" is in the form of food stamps, some cash assistance, some rent assistance, and cell phones. These benefits has little impact on the overall macroeconomic picture since they represent a minuscule fraction of the total U.S. economic output. Therefore, no devaluation is taking place and if anything, it will just help fuel the economy through increased consumption.

Quote:

Lefties seem to want to revert back to 1791 for second amendment right technology access... How about reverting to 1791 tax rates?
Let's revert to the tax rates that generated the highest economic growth in the past 50 years. The Clinton-era tax rates are good candidates.

Quote:

Incorrect, there will simply be more people that will overall be getting less medical coverage.
That's because the costs of paying for the uninsured is being shifted from the government taxpayers to the free market. Do you prefer that the U.S. taxpayers continue to carry the burden of paying for the uninsured so that there may be more "medical coverage"?

Quote:

You're joking, aren't you? At least I hope you are. I agree with you in that socialism has been able to prevail in many european countries partially due to our military aid, and also due to their much smaller size/population density (socialism doesn't scale well). But, on the same token, we are also better off in that socialism has largely been only an economic system that has not fostered dictatorial governmental structures, as socialism largely has where we did not have the influence.
I never joke about our role as the world's policeman. Romney wanted to increase military expenditures so that the U.S. could police the world even more than it does today. That means only one thing: Romney wanted the U.S. taxpayers to fund the military to protect foreigners and muslims. Otherwise, what is the point of having overseas bases, white elephant fighter jets, and other unnecessary military expenditures when we could protect ourselves from attacks at less than $100B per annum?

Quote:

No, I am implying that it is a much more productive solution than increasing wages.
You clearly don't know much about economics. Increasing wages is a form of price control. So by implication, you're arguing in favor of minimum wage.

Quote:

The damage BHO has been doing to this country has been monumental. The only president that has done anything remotely comparable in damage to the constitution is FDR. What GWB did was bad enough, but was child's play compared to what BHO has done.
I'm confused. Are we talking about economic destruction or constitutional destruction? If it is the former, then the current state of the U.S. economy undercuts your argument and it actually buttresses my argument that Mitt Romney would have made the economic situation much worse than Obama. If it is the latter, it is debatable whether Romney would have done the same thing as Obama today with regards to the "destruction" of the U.S. constitution.

Quote:

What I believe is that he would have damaged the country to a much lesser degree, and at a much slower rate than BHO. I'm not a big fan of MR, and never have been. I simply believe he was the lesser of evils.
That's all well and good. The bottom line that you believe that both Obama and Mitt Romney INTEND to destroy/damage the United States economically.

kharvel 03-16-2013 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58256646)
An economy helped brought about by Bernanke; whom Obama reappointed.

And. . .?

Quote:

Don't forget the deregulation of the banks and things Clinton did. Even 124nic8 blames Clinton for that.
I do blame Clinton for the deregulation of the banks. I also blame George W. Bush for not re-regulating the banks.

kharvel 03-16-2013 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 58261086)
Bull. You support the person with the same hidden agenda as yourself, or the one who did a better job hiding their hidden agenda.

So do you believe that I have the following hidden agendas:

1) Keeping Gitmo open
2) Extending the PATRIOT act
3) Drone strikes on U.S. citizens
4) "If you're not with us, then you're with the terrorists"
5) All the odious things in the National Defense Authorization Act

??

Deusxmachina 03-16-2013 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58262398)
Let's revert to the tax rates that generated the highest economic growth in the past 50 years. The Clinton-era tax rates are good candidates.

You want poor people to pay even more taxes than they do now. For shame.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58262474)
And. . .?

If I have to explain to you why reappointing someone who helped break the economy is a bad thing and why the person who did the reappointing deserves blame, I don't think you'll understand it anyway.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58262474)
I do blame Clinton for the deregulation of the banks. I also blame George W. Bush for not re-regulating the banks.

Clinton helped bring about the great recession. Good to know.

Why did Clinton cut capital gains taxes by a very large amount anyway? Is it because he loves rich people and hates poor people?

kharvel 03-16-2013 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58264436)
You want poor people to pay even more taxes than they do now. For shame.

Are you claiming that they paid more taxes in the Clinton era than they do now?

Quote:

If I have to explain to you why reappointing someone who helped break the economy is a bad thing
I agree that re-appointing of Alan Greenspan by George W. Bush was a bad thing. We are in agreement on that.

Quote:

and why the person who did the reappointing deserves blame, I don't think you'll understand it anyway.
I have absolutely no problem with George W Bush deserving the blame for re-appointing Alan Greenspan.

Quote:

Clinton helped bring about the great recession. Good to know.
It would also be good for you to know that Ronald Reagan also brought about the great recession.

Quote:

Why did Clinton cut capital gains taxes by a very large amount anyway? Is it because he loves rich people and hates poor people?
Clinton didn't. George W. Bush did.

Deusxmachina 03-16-2013 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58267376)
Are you claiming that they paid more taxes in the Clinton era than they do now?

15% income tax vs. 10% income tax = yes.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58267376)
Clinton didn't. George W. Bush did.

Clinton cut capital gains by a bigger % than Bush did. Why did he do that? It's because Clinton loves rich people and hates poor people, right? I'm told that's why Bush cut them later, so that must be it.

jonsmith74 03-16-2013 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58267376)
Clinton didn't. George W. Bush did.

Wow, so kharvel is exactly like 124nic8...he pretends to know what he's talking about.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 AM.


1999-2014