The Obama vs Romney battles continues

We ought to stop wasting time focusing on Obama vs. Romney. This is exactly what the power structure wants us to do, waste time fussing and fighting over what he said she said.

This allows the institution that is government to continue operating unchanged for the most part as there is virtually no difference between the 2 candidates save some boring old nonsense rhetoric that is performed in front of the cameras like an awful piece of theater.

Nothing ever changes. The phony wars, the self created crises and the protection of Washington and Wall St. insiders will all stay the same. The increasing debt levels, the destruction of American jobs and the fleecing of the middle class will all stay the same.

The system is broken at its core and choosing between Democrat and Republican will solve nothing except to continue the existing system. I don't know what the answer is, perhaps a third party or a civil revolt. All I know is that the existing power structure will do everything in its power to maintain the status quo. And as long as that is the case, as long as the corporations and insiders receive more benefits than the average American, the country will never return to its former glory.

Sad to say, it's all downhill from here because we as a nation have completely lost our way and our moral compass. I believe that we can get it back but it's going to take lots of work and sacrifice.
 
jp said:
You're missing something. Might want to read up a little on their backgrounds.

What exactly are we missing? Looks like you are just another "hate the rich" camp member.

I KNOW Mitt Romney and his family and he is one of the most honest and charitable people you could ever meet.

Not to mention he GAVE AWAY his ENTIRE inheritance from his father to charity.

He gives MILLION and MILLIONS to charity, about 15% EVERY year.

Obummer gave 1% of his income to charity and Biden gave less than 1%
 
Caliexpat said:
We ought to stop wasting time focusing on Obama vs. Romney. This is exactly what the power structure wants us to do, waste time fussing and fighting over what he said she said.

This allows the institution that is government to continue operating unchanged for the most part as there is virtually no difference between the 2 candidates save some boring old nonsense rhetoric that is performed in front of the cameras like an awful piece of theater.

Nothing ever changes. The phony wars, the self created crises and the protection of Washington and Wall St. insiders will all stay the same. The increasing debt levels, the destruction of American jobs and the fleecing of the middle class will all stay the same.

The system is broken at its core and choosing between Democrat and Republican will solve nothing except to continue the existing system. I don't know what the answer is, perhaps a third party or a civil revolt. All I know is that the existing power structure will do everything in its power to maintain the status quo. And as long as that is the case, as long as the corporations and insiders receive more benefits than the average American, the country will never return to its former glory.

Sad to say, it's all downhill from here because we as a nation have completely lost our way and our moral compass. I believe that we can get it back but it's going to take lots of work and sacrifice.

"Basically no difference between the candidates" WTF???
 
YOenBA said:
I assume a good amount of you have been keeping up with the news involving the upcoming presidential election in the US. I came across this article in which Obama argues that Romney made up data about his welfare changes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/obama-romney-welfare-reform_n_1812171.html

Any thoughts?

The HuffPost has it's head so far up Obama's ass it's almost funny (if it weren't supposed to be a source of "news").

Obama HAS removed WORK from welfare. It is on paper and signed by him, there is NO denying it. Another attempt to turn the U.S. into another entitlement state of lazy idiots that will vote for whomever promises the most free stuff...reminds me a bit of Argentina.
 
I believe the answer is dissolution of the Union. It's the only way anything will ever change. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The federal government was not intended to be so strong. I've discussed this before - it began some 150 years ago and got worse and worse over the intervening century and a half, so we have to deal with what's in play today. I don't see how 315 million or so people can just reverse the way things are - there are too many of those people who believe their party is right and everyone else is wrong. In a way, they're right - there are too many diverse people under one umbrella to have any kind of real freedom.

There is no way the federal government will give up any of its power. Both parties are equally corrupt, the people of the US can't see the forest for the trees, and those in power want to keep it that way.

I tend to follow the Libertarian philosophy more than anything else. There are some elements of Libertarianism in the Republican party's STATED goals, but they never work as a party to do anything more than enhance their own pockets. Socially, as far as freedom of certain things (i.e., from religion for the most part, legalizing at least marijuana if not other things as well, even gay marriage and other social FREEDOMS which have no freaking business being legislated) I agree with Democrats, but just about everything else they stand for goes against what my experience in life has taught me will actually work.

I didn't vote in the last presidential election, nor in that year's congressional nor the midterm elections - it was the first time since I was 18 that I didn't vote. I was here, which makes for a semi-flaccid excuse, but the truth is, I had stopped caring. I was caught a little on the Obama wave of hope, as many middle-of-the-roaders were, hoping for something different. McCain, particularly with what he did with the vice presidential nomination, took any desire I had to vote for him away from me. So it was easy to say it was too difficult for me to vote absentee, strengthened a little by the fact that I couldn't prove residency in the States any longer and didn't look harder to see if I could still vote.

Personally, I could never vote for Obama this time after his last 4 years. He's as dirty as any other candidate that I have seen, if not more so in some ways, while so many people still thinking he's the Second Coming.

Romney is a mealy-mouthed, politically correct politician who will do nothing really different than any other Republican or Democratic candidate, except talk out of his a** about what he's going to do and then let things continue like normal.

The US has become way too big, both in terms of population quantity and the differences between groups, as well as its influence around the world. The powers-that-be in the US have gotten drunk off of power and what they see as free money. They are forcing everyone in the States to homogenize themselves to fit into what the majority (which isn't a simple majority, nor even a 2/3 majority) believe is best for everyone - at least what they have been led to believe by their respective parties. The States have less and less power to do anything against the federal government because they don't exercise what powers the Constitution gave them to begin with, under fear of losing funding at the federal trough for their own pet projects - taken from the population of the US at large and distributed across the country to people who waste and spend the money for political benefit.

I'd love to see Texas, for example, secede from the Union. See if other states don't follow suit. I think in this day and age, a war to keep the country together wouldn't really go over very well. I don't think the US would even be able to fight a war against the States today. Texas has the 14th largest economy in the world, still has a state militia (including an air force) and it wouldn't be easy with all of the other crap going on for the US to concentrate on that as well, and when one state secedes, I'll bet there will an epidemic of other states seceding as well.

I know a lot of people will start saying things like "well, let them - Texas is only successful because they are a part of the US." I might have agreed with that 20 years ago even, but now, no way - the US is holding people back, particularly Texas.

I think Texans made a huge a mistake when they joined the US in 1845. It was a very close thing when it did, having just 9 years previously won its independence from Mexico and Santa Ana the dictator. Many people were against joining the union, and suspicious of the US turning into a tyranny. No matter how you feel about slavery at the time (and I don't think anyone is FOR slavery, I'm talking about how it was abolished), it was tyranny at the point of a gun that held the US together in that moment.

There are now some 18% of the population of Texas that admit they would like to see an independent Texas. It won't take too much longer for that to grow, the way things are going.

With the US broken up into smaller countries, federal control over a mass of some 315 million people broken, people can be much freer to organize themselves as they see fit locally rather than be beholden to a tyrannical central power that has no interests in mind except the interests of continued power, and growing that power.
 
JWB said:
"Basically no difference between the candidates" WTF???

That is correct. This is because, while they are running and competing against each other, you will hear all the rhetorical and philosophical differences between the two parties.

However, once the new candidate is in office, be it a Democrat or a Republican, all bets are off. It's back to business as usual i.e. the larger agenda does NOT change.

The entire "race" for president of the United States is nothing more than a show. It's entertainment for the masses, nothing more than political theater, giving people the illusion that they have a choice in the matter, when in fact all they really have is "false choice".

The big picture, the larger agenda is the continuance of government as an institution, run by the few at the expense of the masses.

The fact that you and others waste time worrying and fighting over whether or not Romney is rich or didn't pay enough taxes is exactly the kind of nonsense that the power structure wants you to waste your time on. It plays right into the hands of the false left vs. right paradigm.

The time has come for us to recognize that we all share a common enemy i.e. the banksters, the corporations and Washington/Wall st crony insiders who are neither Republican nor Democrat. They are whatever they need to be in order to continue robbing the American people and maintain their oligarcal power.

As I said earlier, the system is broken at its core. Putting another Democrat or Republican into office serves nothing except to continue the existing system.

You cannot use the system to change the existing system.
 
nicoenarg said:
I didn't know this was a "bash Romney" post.

It isn't. You asked why the double standards, and I directed you to look at their backgrounds. They aren't remotely comparable candidates. They came from different backgrounds and took different paths into politics.

Obummer gave 1% of his income to charity and Biden gave less than 1%
Obama gave 14% of his income to charity in 2010. And paid a larger percentage of his income than Romney in charity and taxes for the previous two years.
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/01/29/wash-posts-parker-wildly-distorts-charitable-gi/186639)

The 1% figure is based on what the Obamas paid between 2000-2004, back when he was a state senator. As a general rule, when comparing two things its best to try and compare like for like.

You know Romney - good for you. I was glad he won the nomination.
 
jp said:
It isn't. You asked why the double standards, and I directed you to look at their backgrounds. They aren't remotely comparable candidates. They came from different backgrounds and took different paths into politics.

Obama gave 14% of his income to charity in 2010. And paid a larger percentage of his income than Romney in charity and taxes for the previous two years.
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/01/29/wash-posts-parker-wildly-distorts-charitable-gi/186639)

The 1% figure is based on what the Obamas paid between 2000-2004, back when he was a state senator. As a general rule, when comparing two things its best to try and compare like for like.

You know Romney - good for you. I was glad he won the nomination.

True, my bad in 2011 they paid 177,000 compared to Romney's 4,000,000. Evil rich man. Hates the poor and middle class. All this while Michelle has spent an "estimated" 10,000,000 on vacations.

And quoting MediaMatters? Please they are worse than HuffPo
 
Part of the reason for Romney's high rate of giving is his contributions to the Mormon Church. Members are expected to tithe 10 percent of their income. In Romney’s case, in 2010 he gave $2.9 million or 14 percent of his income to charity of which $1.5 million - close to 7 percent of his adjusted gross income - was to the Church.
 
Panini said:
Part of the reason for Romney's high rate of giving is his contributions to the Mormon Church. Members are expected to tithe 10 percent of their income. In Romney’s case, in 2010 he gave $2.9 million or 14 percent of his income to charity of which $1.5 million - close to 7 percent of his adjusted gross income - was to the Church.


And your point is?? Do you know ANYTHING about the Mormon Church's welfare and charity program?? It's one of the largest in the World and yes, much of the tithes received by the church go directly to the welfare and service projects.
 
Back
Top