Republican candidates for 2012

• Cleveland Buck

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080054 wrote:Considering all corporations inherently seek efficiency, and the government is an inefficient machine when it doesn't need to be. I would think a guy like Romney, with his business experience could do a thing or two. He was also not only the chief executive of companies but also the state of Massachusetts, so he has unparalleled experience in this regard. So I disagree here...

  The government isn't supposed to be a machine at all, let alone an efficient one. Fuck, the last thing I want is an efficient government machine stealing away our rights, property, and money.
  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080054 wrote:..and here.

  His economic adviser is another run-of-the-mill Keynesian that would do the same things Obama did and do the same damage. His plan includes zero cuts to federal spending, only slight reductions in baseline increases. He is the same shit, just a different day.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BGFalcons82;1080068 wrote:I've read hundreds of your posts and not once did I get the inclination that you believe the job of the federal government is to centrally plan the whole economy. Matter of fact, your champion is entirely against any central planning from the federal level that is not duly authorized by the Constitution/Amendments.
  
  Please clarify that you do not believe what you typed.
  
  If you do believe it is the federal government's responsibility to centrally plan the whole economy, then you are clearly backing the wrong candidate. If anyone believes this tenet, then we are truly doomed as a free society, as Quaker has noted on dozens of occasions.

  Of course the government shouldn't be centrally planning anything. But that is exactly what they do. So telling me that Romney is qualified to turn around the economy is saying that he is qualified to centrally plan the economy, because he certainly isn't going to change that, unless I missed his plans for the end of the Federal Reserve and gutting of the federal budget. He isn't qualified. No one is. Central planning fails every time.
• sjmvsfscs08

  sleeper;1080069 wrote:And how is he going to solve the USA's budget crisis? By going to war with Iran? I haven't seen anything from Mitt on how he's going to reduce the deficit, or in bigger terms the National debt. Ron Paul is going to get $1 trillion in his first year, how much is Romney going to cut?

  Ron Paul wouldn't get shit through Congress and everyone knows it.
  
  Where did Romney say he was going to go to war with Iran? He is not warmonger and never has been, he said "I will have a US military so strong that no one would think of challenging us." Which, if you are a good listener...means "I like the Army, vote for me," and nothing else. He has never said he wants to invade anything.
• sleeper

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080084 wrote:Ron Paul wouldn't get shit through Congress and everyone knows it.
  
  Where did Romney say he was going to go to war with Iran? He is not warmonger and never has been, he said "I will have a US military so strong that no one would think of challenging us." Which, if you are a good listener...means "I like the Army, vote for me." and nothing else. He has never said he wants to invade anything.

  Ron Paul would simply use the power of the Veto to prevent these insane unbalanced budgets. Way to dodge my question as well.
  
  Where is Romney going to get all the money for the world's strongest military? He's an idiot, I'd never vote for him.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Cleveland Buck;1080079 wrote:Of course the government shouldn't be centrally planning anything. But that is exactly what they do. So telling me that Romney is qualified to turn around the economy is saying that he is qualified to centrally plan the economy, because he certainly isn't going to change that, unless I missed his plans for the end of the Federal Reserve and gutting of the federal budget. He isn't qualified. No one is. Central planning fails every time.

  That's not what I would say. I would suggest that I guy who with masters in business admin and corporate law, built companies in the private sector, and was a governor...would actually have some expertise on what regulations are redundant and need to be removed to allow America to become more competitive. It's not about centrally planning anything, it's about knowing what holds us back from economic prosperity, and I would think a guy who has experience--and success--on both sides of the issue (private and public) would know a thing or two about it.
• majorspark

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080084 wrote:Where did Romney say he was going to go to war with Iran? He is not warmonger and never has been, he said "I will have a US military so strong that no one would think of challenging us." Which, if you are a good listener...means "I like the Army, vote for me," and nothing else. He has never said he wants to invade anything.

  Romney did say in a debate he would use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuke if all other means failed.
• sjmvsfscs08

  sleeper;1080089 wrote:Ron Paul would simply use the power of the Veto to prevent these insane unbalanced budgets. Way to dodge my question as well.
  
  Where is Romney going to get all the money for the world's strongest military? He's an idiot, I'd never vote for him.

  We already have the world's strongest military, and even if you cut it it would still be the strongest. Get it? It's political maneuvering...lying without actually lying. Yeah, the idiot is the guy who graduated top 5% from the best business and law schools in the world. Don't be such a moron.
  
  Veto =/= solve.
  
  And besides, even if he did cut $1 trillion in the first year, any economist worth his salt knows a drastic cut like that would be bad for the economy and that a quick but gradual decrease is clearly the best option. Something so abrupt would put thousands out of work and really hurt the economy.
  
  Romney's supports the cut, cap, and balance and has pledged to do so. Economic growth would go a long way towards the deficit too and I trust Romney more than Paul.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Cleveland Buck;1080075 wrote:The government isn't supposed to be a machine at all, let alone an efficient one. Fuck, the last thing I want is an efficient government machine stealing away our rights, property, and money.

  You're a libertarian aren't you?
• sjmvsfscs08

  majorspark;1080095 wrote:Romney did say in a debate he would use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuke if all other means failed.

  Okay? "if all other means failed" is pretty undefinable. He could let Israel do it before the US got involved. Boom. No war.
• sjmvsfscs08

  
• sleeper

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080103 wrote:We already have the world's strongest military, and even if you cut it it would still be the strongest. Get it? It's political maneuvering...lying without actually lying. Yeah, the idiot is the guy who graduated top 5% from the best business and law schools in the world. Don't be such a moron.
  
  Veto =/= solve.
  
  And besides, even if he did cut $1 trillion in the first year, any economist worth his salt knows a drastic cut like that would be bad for the economy and that a quick but gradual decrease is clearly the best option. Something so abrupt would put thousands out of work and really hurt the economy.
  
  Romney's supports the cut, cap, and balance and has pledged to do so. Economic growth would go a long way towards the deficit too and I trust Romney more than Paul.

  #1 Pretty sad you are willing to vote for a candidate who you yourself claims as a liar.
  
  #2 No shit cutting $1 trillion in spending would be bad for the economy short term. Keyword: short term. The problem is solvable now if we act now, the coming collapse will send America back into the stone age. At least if we hurt the short term economy we'll have a fighting chance in the future.
  
  #3 Romney doesn't give a rats ass about cut cap and balance. His plan is pure political fluff and he'll be just like Obama, spend, spend, spend.
  
  I'll pass.
• sleeper

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080112 wrote:Okay? "if all other means failed" is pretty undefinable. He could let Israel do it before the US got involved. Boom. No war.

  And since the USA apparently is above the sovereign nation of Israel, and we look out for their interests, that means we'll go to war too. Romney wouldn't be as eager to go as Santorum, but he would welcome a war with Iran.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080084 wrote:Where did Romney say he was going to go to war with Iran? He is not warmonger and never has been, he said "I will have a US military so strong that no one would think of challenging us." Which, if you are a good listener...means "I like the Army, vote for me," and nothing else. He has never said he wants to invade anything.

  I do agree that Romney personally isn't as bloodthirsty as Santorum or Gingrich, who would welcome World War 3 with open arms as long as we can kill us some Muslims. The major problem with that is that Romney has no principles. Yes he will pander to whatever crowd he is speaking in front of, but he will also be swayed by the lobby money and the bankers that own his ass.
  
  There are a lot of rich and powerful people that want nonstop endless wars and bloodshed. They make billions and billions of dollar from it. Mitt is all to happy to play ball with them. When Europe needs another bailout, guess who will convince Mitt to send trillions more of our dollars? You think he will deregulate the economy, but the biggest banks and drug companies and oil companies wrote most of these regulations. So do you believe Mitt will turn away their money to do the right things? You have no idea what Romney will do, because he has no idea what he will do. He needs to see the money on the table before he figures it out.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  The real thing Romney has not mentioned at all is how he would deal with the current DoD cuts, and the possible $500 Billion in cuts that could come if nothing is done in January 2013.
  
  Romney says he wants to increase the number of Navy ships, which makes no sense since we do not have the need nor the money for it.
  He would continue the previous policy of increasing defense budget in order to get that military. Problem is, the funds are not needed.
  All that is needed is to curb defense spending and spend smarter. Romney hasn't talked jack about how he would do that.
  
  Oh, and I can't forgot how Romney was against New START last year. The treaty has resulted in so far, 18 cases of U.S. inspectors in Russia looking at Russian nuclear weapons and gaining more insight than ever on the Russian nuclear arsenal.
• I Wear Pants

  Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't most Republicans not like START?
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1079879 wrote:...
  
  Even if you don't think there should be either of those things could you explain why you think people shouldn't be able to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone?

  Sure...and I appreciate the way you framed the question.
  
  Routine and repetitive habits and activities tend to influence and mold culture. We as individuals collectively own that culture along with the environment that it too can change. in society. We get to decide what that is to a certain degree. Through representation we have the ability to encourage certain practices and deter others. We do so in a manner that attempts to throttle or grow activities that lend to the culture and environment that collectively we can all live with and desire. Unalienable human rights get excluded from such decisions.
  
  Individually it would be rare for everyone to be satisfied but collectively it is a pursued outcome.
  
  We through our government continue to do this even today.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I Wear Pants;1080282 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't most Republicans not like START?

  The ones that were smart were in favor of it. It passed 71-25.
  Senate Lugar, Voinovich, Alexander, Corker, Cochran and other voted for it.
  
  Senator Lugar, the most senior R who knows the most of anyone in the Senate related to anything Russia and nukes, was strongly in favor of it.
  
  The lay R's who know nothing of arms control were against it, but most of the R statesmen and experts, including all the foreign policy experts of the Bush years, Rice and Hadley, were in favor of it.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;1080030 wrote:So if you believe a state can outlaw gay sex then you also believe they can outlaw any sex at all if we're going to use that same logic.

  
  Yes, but as long as state legislatures and governors are elected by people who don't want sex outlawed, I think we'll be safe.
• majorspark

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080112 wrote:Okay? "if all other means failed" is pretty undefinable.

  If you look at the video of that statement he clearly defined what "all other means" were. Diplomatic efforts, sanctions, and actively aid elements inside of Iran with the purpose of overthrowing the regime. Then war.
  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080112 wrote:He could let Israel do it before the US got involved. Boom. No war.

  Let Israel do it sounds so nice and easy. Israel can't do it on their own. This is not Iraq or Syria. Isreal does not have the capacity to maintain a sustained military campaign against Iran that would be necessary to destroy their nuke program. They would need the support of the US and several other nations. We don't like openly tag teaming with the Israelis against the mooslims so that is unlikely. Its more likely we do it on our own allied with the British, French, and tacit aid of Sunni Arab gulf nations.
  
  Israel's strategy right now is to slow Iran's program enough to get past the US elections this fall in the hopes more hawkish president is elected. Thats why you are seeing Iranian scientists dropping dead. If its still Obama he will at least be off campaign mode and be more open to military actions.
• dwccrew

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080084 wrote:Ron Paul wouldn't get **** through Congress and everyone knows it.
  
  Where did Romney say he was going to go to war with Iran? He is not warmonger and never has been, he said "I will have a US military so strong that no one would think of challenging us." Which, if you are a good listener...means "I like the Army, vote for me," and nothing else. He has never said he wants to invade anything.

  How would Romney do that? The only way to make our military stronger is to take Ron Paul's advice and bring home every US troop that is spreadout acrossed the world. Have them on our soil securing our borders.
  
  If I want to keep my home safe, I don't go out into the neighborhood looking for intruders; I make sure I am at my home and that it is fortified.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  dwccrew;1080403 wrote:If I want to keep my home safe, I don't go out into the neighborhood looking for intruders; I make sure I am at my home and that it is fortified.

  This is a great way to put it. A more accurate way would be to say if I want to keep my home safe, I don't go invading other people homes that haven't done anything to me, or go and throw out the heads of households and then be shocked when the people that still live there hate me.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1080223 wrote:The real thing Romney has not mentioned at all is how he would deal with the current DoD cuts, and the possible $500 Billion in cuts that could come if nothing is done in January 2013.
  
  Romney says he wants to increase the number of Navy ships, which makes no sense since we do not have the need nor the money for it.
  He would continue the previous policy of increasing defense budget in order to get that military. Problem is, the funds are not needed.
  All that is needed is to curb defense spending and spend smarter. Romney hasn't talked jack about how he would do that.
  
  Oh, and I can't forgot how Romney was against New START last year. The treaty has resulted in so far, 18 cases of U.S. inspectors in Russia looking at Russian nuclear weapons and gaining more insight than ever on the Russian nuclear arsenal.

  Thats just it with Willard. You really don't know if he means this stuff or he is just posturing for votes. The guy has been in campaign mode ever since he left the governors office. It would not have looked good on his resume if he lost his re-election bid.
• sjmvsfscs08

  majorspark;1080402 wrote:Let Israel do it sounds so nice and easy. Israel can't do it on their own. T

  They would be doing it alone if Paul were President.
• I Wear Pants

  I saw a bunch of Ron Paul signs in Salem today. That made me happy.
  
  Question: As someone who is not affiliated with a party how do I go about voting in the primary?
• majorspark

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080501 wrote:They would be doing it alone if Paul were President.

  They would need some intervention by the Almighty.
  
  Israel would not do it if Paul were president. But say they did. The turmoil in that part of the world would be extreme. Large numbers of our naval vessels (commercial and military) passing through that area it would not take much to start shit. It would only take a few sunken American vessels or sky rocketing gas prices to place great pressure on Paul.
  
  This made me think of an interesting hypothetical. The POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. Congress has the power to delcare war. No where in the constitution does it say the president must ask them for it. The could conceivably declare it on their own. With the president under order to execute the war.