2012 ELECTION

[username]

Seems like it's down to Newt or Romney. Who the hell names their kid Newt?

Maybe Paul would have better luck running as an independent.

[username]

I don't know what the big shiznit is over Romney's taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong but if he's paying 15% taxes on dividends that means he already PAID income taxes on the money he earned and then invested it which is now getting taxed at a 15% rate, right?

Double taxation?

[Cracker]

I don't know what the big shiznit is over Romney's taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong but if he's paying 15% taxes on dividends that means he already PAID income taxes on the money he earned and then invested it which is now getting taxed at a 15% rate, right?

Double taxation?

At least triple because you pay taxes when you spend it, too, then taxes on what you bought if you keep it. We get fucked. I don't like to think about it too much.

[HairOfTheDog]

What do you think about Obama suddenly deciding he is going to reorganize six government agencies by combing them into one?

I think it's a good strategy that will appeal to some independents and those that are on the fence.

It won't work for those like you that strongly believe O.M.G. (Obama must go), but it's still good strategy.

Wool meet eye's.

How can you remain so fucking stupid and not kill yourself with a plastic butter knife?

It's not a stupid inference Dick, she's right. I agree that it's a smart campaign strategy, though I myself am on the fence about whether it's actually a practical policy (fucking sue me, I like to reseaarch before claiming that I know all of the implications). I do believe that it will appeal to the Independents, who could sway the vote.
Sometimes smart campaign strategy/promise and smart policy are inconsistent. The candidates figure out the true implications later, much to our chagrin (or, on rare ocassion, pleasure).

P.s. Hit me with your best shot Dick. I've still got a Dick shine glowing - smiling at your non-moobs photo... Sign, sign, everywhere a sign...

[IMaDick]

What do you think about Obama suddenly deciding he is going to reorganize six government agencies by combing them into one?

I think it's a good strategy that will appeal to some independents and those that are on the fence.

It won't work for those like you that strongly believe O.M.G. (Obama must go), but it's still good strategy.

Wool meet eye's.

How can you remain so fucking stupid and not kill yourself with a plastic butter knife?

It's not a stupid inference Dick, she's right. I agree that it's a smart campaign strategy, though I myself am on the fence about whether it's actually a practical policy (fucking sue me, I like to reseaarch before claiming that I know all of the implications). I do believe that it will appeal to the Independents, who could sway the vote.
Sometimes smart campaign strategy/promise and smart policy are inconsistent. The candidates figure out the true implications later, much to our chagrin (or, on rare ocassion, pleasure).

P.s. Hit me with your best shot Dick. I've still got a Dick shine glowing - smiling at your non-moobs photo... Sign, sign, everywhere a sign...

I'm an independent and it does not appeal to me.

It is exactly what I expect from a phony, not all people are fooled or dazzled by bullshit.

By the way since you think research is the answer, consider my post part of it.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm an independent and it does not appeal to me.

It is exactly what I expect from a phony, not all people are fooled or dazzled by bullshit.

By the way since you think research is the answer, consider my post part of it.

I don't agree or disagree with you yet, have to check it out further. I'm nerdy that way. I do agree with you that not all people are fooled or dazzled by bullshit (thus my passion to investigate, beyond your posts), but many people - Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Independent - do gravitate and vote towards the shiny, sadly.

[username]

I'm an independent and it does not appeal to me.

It is exactly what I expect from a phony, not all people are fooled or dazzled by bullshit.

By the way since you think research is the answer, consider my post part of it.

Please show me one "un phony" presidential candidate. They're all fucking phony/catering to their special interests. Ron Paul might be the exception and he's largely viewed as "unelectable".

[HairOfTheDog]

To run for any position representing a diverse demographic, some "phoniness" (or acting, or compromising, or .positioning, or bullshitting, or whatever you want to call it) will be necessary to win, in my opinion. No way to get elected otherwise, regardless of the party. I don't think that's all bad. No one person and their true views/beliefs/morals could possibly reflect those of a whole country.

A US Presidential candidate should be expected to look beyond his/her personal preferences when deciding/speaking on behalf of a nation. He/she is supposed ot represent "us" as a whole, not his/her own interests. I'm not voting for someone based on who he/she is as a person; I'm voting on his/her ability to represent what I perceive as the country's best interests (which is skewed based on my own best interests within the country). Since we are deliciously diverse as a country, there will be a shitload of ecstatic people and a shitload of erratic people, no matter who wins.

I want someone who will really focus on macro economics and understands fiscal policy, who can also put the war on terrorism into accurate perspective and focus after a decade. We need someone who is truly a global thinker. Cain is out. Huntsman is out (sadly, imo). Gingrich is a fucking elf -I hate his face, so I'm unfairly biased against anything that comes out of his mouth. Santorum is a smart and articulate idealist (possible future candidate, but not ready yet, in my opinion). Paul intrigues me, but he's so extreme and his Federal deregulation (more state and business control) ideas are sound but can't be effectively implemented over night and without painful transition, so he'll probably be dead before his policiies could truly take hold, Obama has failed economically, but got handed a "war on terrororism" and a declining economy when he took office. I honestly don't know if a new US President and cabinet could do better or if 4 years simply wasn't long enough for Obama and friends to make headway. Romney seems the guy most able to appeal to a majority (if the Bible Belt can really keep religion and politics separate) and have a chance against Obama. I don't vote by party, so I feel fucked, again. No one is particularly strong on the majority of issues that I care about. Still deciding who is least objectionable.

P.s. Dick, finally figured out how to post a private photo. I'm the older broad. I think I have a big adam's apple. Not big on getting my pic taken and don't do self mirror shots - too bad. I would have realized sooner that middle aged women (at least this one) should wear a bra at all times. (My little butterfly is always a photo beauty though - I'm thinking of her future too when I cast a vote; complicated.)

[Duchess]

I'm the older broad. I think I have a big adam's apple. Not big on getting my pic taken and don't do self mirror shots - too bad. I would have realized sooner that middle aged women (at least this one) should wear a bra at all times. (My little butterfly is always a photo beauty though - I'm thinking of her future too when I cast a vote; complicated.)

Thanks for the photo! I moved a copy of it to our photo thread that has no chat, just pix.

[IMaDick]

[/i]

I think I need to get a little closer.

Sally who?

[Duchess]

She's really cute, huh.

[thekid65]

To run for any position representing a diverse demographic, some "phoniness" (or acting, or compromising, or .positioning, or bullshitting, or whatever you want to call it) will be necessary to win, in my opinion. No way to get elected otherwise, regardless of the party. I don't think that's all bad. No one person and their true views/beliefs/morals could possibly reflect those of a whole country.

A US Presidential candidate should be expected to look beyond his/her personal preferences when deciding/speaking on behalf of a nation. He/she is supposed ot represent "us" as a whole, not his/her own interests. I'm not voting for someone based on who he/she is as a person; I'm voting on his/her ability to represent what I perceive as the country's best interests (which is skewed based on my own best interests within the country). Since we are deliciously diverse as a country, there will be a shitload of ecstatic people and a shitload of erratic people, no matter who wins.

I want someone who will really focus on macro economics and understands fiscal policy, who can also put the war on terrorism into accurate perspective and focus after a decade. We need someone who is truly a global thinker. Cain is out. Huntsman is out (sadly, imo). Gingrich is a fucking elf -I hate his face, so I'm unfairly biased against anything that comes out of his mouth. Santorum is a smart and articulate idealist (possible future candidate, but not ready yet, in my opinion). Paul intrigues me, but he's so extreme and his Federal deregulation (more state and business control) ideas are sound but can't be effectively implemented over night and without painful transition, so he'll probably be dead before his policiies could truly take hold, Obama has failed economically, but got handed a "war on terrororism" and a declining economy when he took office. I honestly don't know if a new US President and cabinet could do better or if 4 years simply wasn't long enough for Obama and friends to make headway. Romney seems the guy most able to appeal to a majority (if the Bible Belt can really keep religion and politics separate) and have a chance against Obama. I don't vote by party, so I feel fucked, again. No one is particularly strong on the majority of issues that I care about. Still deciding who is least objectionable.

P.s. Dick, finally figured out how to post a private photo. I'm the older broad. I think I have a big adam's apple. Not big on getting my pic taken and don't do self mirror shots - too bad. I would have realized sooner that middle aged women (at least this one) should wear a bra at all times. (My little butterfly is always a photo beauty though - I'm thinking of her future too when I cast a vote; complicated.)

Nice picture. Larger version would be even nicer!

Anyhoo..funny you mention the appearance of candidates. I know I shouldnt, but I'll tend to judge on that too. Take Perry...he just looks like a conniving weasel to me. I'm personally not happy with any of the GOP candidates so far, but think that Obama has to go. I was a Cain guy..too bad he couldnt keep his dick in his pants.

[Cracker]

Pretty lady.

I'm glad Obama is concerned with the middle class now, but I don't believe him for one fucking second. He has a few credibility issues since he gets caught lying and blames everything on everybody else.

Raising too much money for your campaign is too big of a liability. It takes your entire presidency to pay those back off with favors. He will "owe" contributors a butt load again this time. I don't think we can afford to keep paying his campaign "debts".

[IMaDick]

Another year of not knowing where the contributions for Obama came from.

Oh joy.

[username]

Superpacs are from the debil.

[IMaDick]

Superpacs are from the debil.

Liberals are from the Devil, and they want to take the rest of us to hell so they have company.

[Duchess]

I don't think I know any Liberals.

[IMaDick]

I don't think I know any Liberals.

Do you know anyone who drives a red compact car? everyone who drives one of those is a liberal.

[Duchess]

No, I don't think I do.

[IMaDick]

No, I don't think I do.

Hmmmmm? It seems to me...