Boring white guy (Paul Ryan) picked as boring white guy (Mitt Romney)'s VP

great post. the whole fucking country has moved into a mental hospital. it seems like every politician in washington is more concerned with getting themselves reelected than actually doing the job they were voted in to do in the first place. the extreme partisanship has to stop before anything can get better. and it goes to both sides, not just the conservatives.
 
Hahah funny. Are my parents comfortable? Yes. My dad works his ass off to provide for our family and i would be pissed to see that all his hard work go to waste. @JimmyOnFire__: "We promise equal opportunity not equal outcome" - Rep Paul Ryan. I gotta say, I like it. Obama wants to give every American an equal outcome. Romney wants to give an equal opportunity. I don't understand what's so fucking wrong with having money?!?! If I busy my ass and make $200,000 a year I feel like I would deserve it. Obama gave people who sit around and don't do shit the idea that they deserve to have the same income as someone who opens up their own business and work 60 hour work weeks. It's a fucking joke.
 
you seem to be under the delusion that the american dream is still a thing. its not. working hard doesnt automatically mean you'll make money anymore. most poor people arent poor because they're lazy, its because its officially harder to change your social status in america than it is in most of europe.
 
I agree. And I think both parties want that changed. The difference is that the democratic party thinks that everyone should automatically be given that American dream. I understand that hard work doesnt automatically give you success. But the people who do work their ass off and is able to provide for their family shouldn't be punished for it! Like I said before, they want to give everyone an equal opportunity, not automatically gce everyone the same success regardless of their effort.
 
i dont know enough about it to say whether or not thats what the republicans want so i guess i'll have to take your word for it, but everything i've read or heard suggests that the republicans dont really care whether or not everyone has equal opportunities. then again, our definition of opportunity could be different. for example, you talked about someone opening their own business and working 60 hours per week, which is something that most people dont have the opportunity to do because they dont have the resources in the first place. i dunno if thats something you include when you talk about everyone having equal opportunities
 
what was? the quote you were commenting to doesn't make much sense with "that seems reasonable." there wasn't much there that could be seen as reasonable or unreasonable
 
Why the fuck are you liberals scared that Romney will raise taxes on the middle class? If Obama gets elected than taxes will go up for EVERYBODY because he wants to help support the lives of those who don't pay taxes because they don't have jobs! Get a fucking clue people.
 
Also, why do you liberals care that he's going to kill social security? The program is a cluster fuck catastrophe in the first place and it literally will not exist by the time any of us are eligible to receive it any ways.
 
Republicans dont care about any one what so ever, there so selfish. Just like all democrats are all liberal marijuana smoking hippies.
 
I remember when America was a country that applauded successful businessmen-now they are crooks... Interesting. Also-this country has absolutely zero political center.... It's either people trading insults over far right lunatics or lefty socialists ruining America (where now success means you're a-what was it, crook). The US presidency has become a global joke to every other country in the world because it's more about money and ego's than democracy... Look, who puts themselves forward for the Job? Mostly very wealthy people with zero political experience (relatively speaking in context with running one of the most powerful nations on earth). Im kinda expecting Romney to win because once he officially becomes the nominee-the funds at his disposal are massive..... Which brings me to the point that you can literally buy the presidency if you have the resources.... Kennedy did it and I suspect Romney will as well. For these guys, they have achieved everything in life.... More money than they know what to do with, family etc... What else is there to achieve.... Become president. It's also a poisoned chalice... You'll never come out the other side unscathed... Obama has 50% of the country that love him and 50% of the country that hate him... What's that all about..!? So to me, the best person for president is probably out there, a very smart guy (or woman) who probably can't afford the campaign, but more likely has a few brain cells and sees it for what it is these days... A giant cluster fuck.... And wants nothing to do with it. How many of you would honestly want to be president? In modern political America, that is more divided than ever before, it is an impossible job where all current applicants are hugely in qualified... But that's what you've got to choose from to be your leader... This is going to be a car crash election. On a side note-any chance of a more center independent candidate running and being in with a chance?
 
Really, no middle? I still fail to see where Obama has shown himself to be a far left Marxist, it just sounds good to conservatives.

And anyone who tries to be centrist in the conservative party gets run out by the tea party, look at what happened to Gingrich when he dared to suggest radical change in either direction was a bad idea.
 
You're blind then. Socialized medicine is a very radical concept and is what I consider to be the ideas of those who are far left Marxist.
 
Socialized medicine is a very radical concept? Are you fucking kidding me? Maybe radical to idiots like you, but to the rest of the world, it's the only way.
 
you're still being sarcastic, yes? like i said, i dont know enough to have a well informed opinion about it, but from what i've read it seems like republicans aren't concerned with whether or not people are given the same opportunities to find success. but, again, that may very well not be the case.

if you aren't still being sarcastic then...idk. seems like you'd agree with what i said if you think republicans are selfish
 
I think the posts above prove my point about very little chance of political compromise in the US... The general population sit on either the left or right. There is no middle ground-I kinda blame the 24hr entertainment channels like CNN and Fox News.... I'd rather watch Bravo TV for actual facts. That said-anyone watching HBO's The Newsroom? I think it's spectacular... If a little over written! Holy monologue after monologue batman! But it is politically very relevant.
 
I think he does a good job of portraying a centerist/slight conservative.

As for the monologues, thats Sorkin for you, I dont know if you ever watched the West Wing.
 
Oh and for context-I'm British but live in America and pay a lot of tax here... Yet cannot vote, so I'm having my say here'!! Sucks to be honest, if you pay you should have a say... Anyway, I digress.... America needs a fiscally responsible, politically experienced and successful, center right president for the next term to get America back on track financially. This candidate also needs to be able to tell the tea party to fuck off, end wars (since 03 you could have launched over 3000 mars curiosity expeditions... Imagine what we could do with science if we funded the shit out of it! )
 
Shit iPhone- a change to the American medical system is gonna take a lot longer than 4 years..... It's going to take more like 15 - 20..... Baby steps. The insurance companies have too much power for a kick off (not even starting on the pharm companies). But America is an inpatient nation and also has a huge diverse population-you only need a small percentage of that to be against change and you're in stalemate (ie now). There is no single right answer, there is no one guy (or woman) who can change everything. To me, obamas undoing is simply trying to change too much, too fast.... Americans are never going to be able to agree across the board because the social demographic is so diverse.
 
I question the legitimacy of this source, the translation of the data it presents, and its credibility all together. You can clearly tell that this source is biased in the first paragraph and I don't trust biased media outlets.
 
God if only we would pay more attention to science and generally forward progressing stuff rather than bombing the desert...

The amount of money this government spends on weapons is so stupid... If only we'd spend even 1/100th of a % extra on NASA developments, shit would be ridiculous, and people would probably be able to live on mars by now...

Damnit USSR, why'd you have to lose the space race... If you made it to the moon even a year or two after America and kept on coming as the States did, we as a human race could have been on Mars by 1983... Damn Soyuz 1 failures... Fucking Brezhnev for forcing it early... /space race rant...
 
You're exactly right. America needs to go into a period of isolationism so we can invest the governments in invention (aka NASA). Invention inspires prosperity and its a shame that Obama crippled NASA's budget. Can you imagine the ideas the only have on paper there, its fascinating to think about. Now only if they had the funds to make these ideas a reality because under Obama they will never.
 
Pretty much every far right organization has said the same thing. Hes a Republican not a true conservative. You can google and find all sorts of Libertarians who point out the same thing.
 
Mars is NOT the final frontier and its stupid how we perceive that getting a man on Mars is the ultimate when it comes to space exploration. We as a whole know so much more about Mars than we do with other celestial bodies and we need to start exploring these other bodies because of what is presently unknown about them. My general philosophy towards space exploration is that we need to invest more in the unknown because that presents much more opportunity than what is already known.
 
Maybe its because these far right organizations you speak of have expert economists working for them who in turn produce data that begs to differ than that of the data presented in you're link. The most valid source now a days is our own personal opinions because of the lack of unbiased information we have at our disposal. My personal belief is that the best way to develop a strong opinion is by reading various kinds of different media outlets so you can see the perspective of both biases.This also allows you to take the best from both sides and is the sole reason why I consider myself a libertarian. I am more liberal when it comes to social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and I am fiscally conservative when it comes to government involvement in the free market. So I am voting for Romney because I believe that the struggling economy is at the top of the pyramid when it comes to problems in this country. If I thought that civil rights issues were at the top, well than I would vote for Obama.
 
Huh? I said most libertarian organizations support that claim...

Not to mention Im not sure how any libertarian could vote for Romney, considering his past and how little of a dent in the deficit his budget will create... Even if you believe that the Ryan budget was going to put a huge dent in spending, the first thing Romney did after choosing Ryan was distance himself from the budget, because no one even remotely close to the center will vote for a guy who wants to mess with medicare or social security. Romney will still spend, will still raise the deficit, just in different ways than Obama.
 
Why not have a standard tax rate for every American in this country. This is the only fair way to do it and it pleases both sides. The conservatives cant complain about the rich being taxed at a higher percentage than everyone else and the liberals can be happy because basic math would have it that the rich still pay more than everyone else.
 
Thats an interesting discussion to have, but it doesn't alter the fact that thats not something Romney is proposing, and that I think you are voting for a candidate who isn't nearly as libertarian as you think.
 
What you don't understand is that a flat tax rate is actually just a reverse graduated tax. Don't think of it as an equal rate, look at the impact it has on people and their lifestyles. A 20% tax will affect someone in a lower income bracket much, much more than a 20% tax would affect someone with a high income.

Graduated is the only way to go.
 
His response will be that you shouldn't punish someone for making more. Ill save him the effort of typing.
 
Which is why you make the standard rate as low as possible, so what if its just 10%. This puts more money in the pockets of everybody and pretty much forces the government to reduce the spending. If we do this and go into a period of isolationism than we can cut military and social program spending and invest it other places like in education for example. I know that this is never going to happen, but the fact of the matter is that the two party system and the electoral college essentially forces me and all other americans to vote for one guy or the other. If you vote for someone other than it is pretty much pointless. So therefore I am forced to choose Romney because my economic beliefs are closer to his than Obamas, and by that I mean much closer.
 
See this points out a MASSIVE problem in American politics, one faced by both Democrats and Republicans. The focus is always on tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts, which is 1 of 2 parts coupled with cutting spending. But in order for things to work BOTH must be done, and very rarely is anyone willing to have a long discussion about those spending cuts, and where they will be done, and who they will effect. Its much easier to just talk about cutting taxes, and ignore the hard part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top