(09-07-2011, 07:19 PM)Cracker Wrote: We buy shit because of the name.

Hey now! I am not carrying a handbag from Walmart. No fuckin' way.

I stopped buying. I don't trust my government now, so I stopped being a consumeristic cow. When my government gets a clue and I know I will be able to replace money I invest in the economy, I might ease up a bit.

I don't think I'll ever go back to buying stuff just to have it. I finally grew up.

Well..it's kinda dumb just to buy stuff to have it. I buy stuff because I want it.

(09-07-2011, 07:36 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Well..it's kinda dumb just to buy stuff to have it. I buy stuff because I want it.

You are shameless.

You have too much, Duchess. Look around and tell me it isn't so.

This guy hit Obama's strategy on the head: "In his chicago world view, gubmint money = walking around cash = success. That is the extent of his understanding of economics and private business operation. " haha

I'm getting back into Hapkido, screw this..............at least for another 2 months. It'll do me some good.

Hrumph. I was doing the kid taxi service thing and I missed the whole debate. Highlights anyone?

(05-10-2011, 12:10 PM)IMaDick Wrote: I would vote for a Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin ticket but only if Rush runs their campaign.

(09-07-2011, 11:45 PM)username Wrote: Highlights anyone?

I didn't waste my time tuning in.

The pundits will tell me what I need to know.

They know things.

(09-07-2011, 11:45 PM)username Wrote: Hrumph. I was doing the kid taxi service thing and I missed the whole debate. Highlights anyone?

I had to take a business call during the last 20 minutes, but caught the meat of the debate.

Romney Vs. Perry:
The debate was focused on Perry vs. Romney. They got the most questions and air time. Perry picked on Romney for having one of the lowest records for job creation in his state (47^th), despite his touted business experience. Romney picked on Perry for his state having one of the highest drop out rates. Perry said Dukakis did better at job creation in Mass than did Romney. Romney, in turn, said George W did better at job creation in Texas than did Perry.

Social Security:
Perry held strong with his contention that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Keeping SS as it stands is lying to our children, he said. He didn't say whether he was advocating tossing the SS system entirely or keeping it with a major overhaul. Romney retorted that SS is necessary and good, but the system needs to be looked at and modified. All the other candidates seemed to agree that reform is needed for SS, except for Cain. Cain wants to do away with SS as we know it and give workers the option to take out personal retirement accounts instead, he cites Chile as the model for reforming the system. (Cain won't say "privatize" because it hurt him in the past, imo, but Chile did indeed privatize its equivalent of Social Security.)

Immigration:
All candidates agree that illegal immigration is a big problem that needs to be curtailed by fences along the borders and better border control. Huntsman adds that the US has to also stop being a magnet for illegals; no more under the table jobs and free services to entice illegals.

Health Care:
All candidates agree that ObamaCare bites and they all say they will have it repealed as soon as they are elected. Bachmann says she will get it repealed, but she says she is more practical than the other candidates and knows it will take time and hard work to do so. She is the gal with the right contacts to make it happen, she says. Perry reminds Romney that his state's mandatory health care plan had some flaws in Mass. Romney reminds Perry that his state has one of the highest percentages of uninsured (25% in Texas). Romney further reminds Perry that Perry supported Hillary-Care.

Paul wants the Federal government to get the hell out of everything and let the states handle things; he favors heavy deregulation.

Cain wants 9 9 9: 9 percent business tax, income tax, and sales tax. Payroll tax eliminated. He thinks it most fair and not-revenue based. 9 9 9 across the board.

Huntsman wants to fix SS and says it's important for future generations. He thinks the US focus should be on legal immigration as much as illegal immigration; we should be seeking to legally attract immigrants with brain-power and something to add. He is proud that his state had the highest level of job creation (Utah).

Gingrich doesn't like the debate moderators or the media trying to get the Republicans to fight with each other. It's a fucking debate, but all candidates heartily agree and the audience claps. All candidates agree with Gingrich that Obama sucks and needs to go.


Opinion only: I think Bachmann is on her way out. She didn't flub, but she was flat and clearly not a Tier I candidate at this point. I really liked Huntsman, but I don't think he made a big enough impression to get closer to Romney or Perry. Gingrich, imo, has been reduced to a Republican Cheerleader. Paul is likely too extreme in his desire to take decision making out of DC to be elected. Santorum was a non factor. I think the debate solidified that the Republican race will be between Perry and Romney.

(09-08-2011, 01:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think the debate solidified that the Republican race will be between Perry and Romney.

If so . . . then Obama wins a second term and Dems control both houses.

"Start tilling the Rose Garden, Shelle . . . we gots greens to plant!"

(09-08-2011, 01:28 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(09-08-2011, 01:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think the debate solidified that the Republican race will be between Perry and Romney.

If so . . . then Obama wins a second term and Dems control both houses.

"Start tilling the Rose Garden, Shelle . . . we gots greens to plant!"

I can see it going either way if Perry or Romney pick up a lot of steam and Obama continues to stall. He was riding high on the Bin Laden kill, but not sure that's going to carry too much weight with voters a year from now. Job creation was a key topic in tonight's debate. Obama's job plan looks like a dud, to me. If either Republican candidate can tweak their current drafts and come up with a job creation plan that really resonates (and Obama's plan doesn't improve), maybe there will be a Republican in the White House come November?

(09-08-2011, 01:57 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-08-2011, 01:28 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(09-08-2011, 01:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think the debate solidified that the Republican race will be between Perry and Romney.

If so . . . then Obama wins a second term and Dems control both houses.

"Start tilling the Rose Garden, Shelle . . . we gots greens to plant!"

I can see it going either way if Perry or Romney pick up a lot of steam and Obama continues to stall. He was riding high on the Bin Laden kill, but not sure that's going to carry too much weight with voters a year from now. Job creation was a key topic in tonight's debate. Obama's job plan looks like a dud, to me. If either Republican candidate can tweak their current drafts and come up with a job creation plan that really resonates (and Obama's plan doesn't improve), maybe there will be a Republican in the White House come November?

Thanks for the debate summary. I agree that it could go either way. Obama has such a low approval rating on his handling of the economy; there's an "anybody but Obama" mentality out there that might carry the Republican contender to the White House. I think Romney would have a better chance with most independents than Perry.

Next up, Obama's job plan tonight. Woo-hoo.

(09-08-2011, 11:09 AM)username Wrote: Next up, Obama's job plan tonight.

He hadn't better pre-empt the NFL season opener, gawddamnit.

(09-08-2011, 11:15 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(09-08-2011, 11:09 AM)username Wrote: Next up, Obama's job plan tonight.

He hadn't better pre-empt the NFL season opener, gawddamnit.

He may replace the star spangled banner with his speech.

Obama can plan anything he likes, He still can't spend money without congress.

call your congressmen and women, tell them He's an idiot and if they even consider spending another 300 billion dollars they are idiots also.

From CNN...

A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

"What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.

Paul interjected to offer an explanation for how this was, more-or-less, the root choice of a free society. He added that communities and non-government institutions can fill the void that the public sector is currently playing.

"We never turned anybody away from the hospital," he said of his volunteer work for churches and his career as a doctor. "We have given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves ... that's the reason the cost is so high."

The answer may have struck a truly libertarian tone, but it was clearly overshadowed by the members of the crowd who enthusiastically cheered the prospect of letting a man die rather than picking up the tab for his coverage.

Who should pick up the tab? If a person is in a coma and has been for months, is literally wasting away into a shriveled heap on a bed, who pays for it? You put a pipe down their throats and feed them oatmeal. Add some sugar to their blood and hope for the best. You do not "kill them" They are already dead.

But they all feel better thinking they saved a life, even though I didn't see any of the people who reject Pauls answering offering up their bank accounts.

I think it would surprise some to find out just exactly what our Government has voted themselves exempt from when it comes to taxes, and laws that they impose on the rest of the country.