|
Post by StevePulaski on Jan 16, 2012 16:20:23 GMT -5
Politics aren't my strongest field, and whenever me and NP get started we can hardly stop. Past political fights have led to frustration, quibbles, and even the banishment of one member. We're lucky this forum doesn't have chairs .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 21:35:11 GMT -5
And ONE more Republican-Republican and all the final strands of America will die. They aren't going to live if Obama sticks around for another four years. So it looks like the election is a lose-lose. You're damn right that this election is a lose-lose situation! That is why I will not be voting for any presidential candidate. It will come down to Obama vs. Romney, and I GUARANTEE you that Romney will be our next president. I am not looking forward to having him run this country, but then again I would not want Obama to have a second term either. But yeah, Romney will become president, and this so-called psychic medium predicted it (I recommend emailing her): www.maureenhancock.com/Steve, don't take this the wrong way, but I am getting sick of how you keep complaining about the poor receiving welfare payment. Sure, there should be something like a drug test that they should take just so that they could be eligible, but you are unaware of just how WELL OFF the rich are. In fact, the richest people in this country pay absolutely NO TAXES! Courtesy of George W. Bush, who gave the rich tax cuts. Surprisingly, it seems that the richer you are, the less taxes you pay. That is all I'll say for now, but Steve you really need to brush up on your research on the monetary distribution in the United States. As HD would have put it "you are annoyingly misinformed." P.S. I really do hope that SOPA and PIPA will be eliminated soon, and for good, too.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Jan 17, 2012 8:45:48 GMT -5
I'm not wholly against welfare. I think that after a certain amount of time people should have to, in some way, "give back" to the community. Like community service or something. The reason I can't stand welfare is because I've seen people in my neighborhood and my grandmother's that have no ambition to work. They think that if they can get government money they'll be set for life. Where's the motivation to work is my question? If you keep giving people free money, no matter how much or how little, there is barely any motivation to work. Period.
I'm not totally for Romney. I think he is a fair candidate, but is dangerously indecisive. The more I think about it, the more I think Obama might lose. Think about this for a second. The people that are supporting Gingrich and Paul most likely know they both aren't getting very far. If it comes down to Obama vs. Romney, like you predict, do you think the Gingrich and Paul supporters are gonna say "gee, too bad Gingrich isn't in. My vote is for Obama." Nope. They'd vote for a rock running as a Republican before they cast a vote for Obama. That's the part of me that thinks he'll lose. But then, do you know how many people still like Obama? That's the part of me that thinks he'll win.
Anyway, sorry if I have gotten you upset about my welfare comments. I just find it disheartening that the salary I make is going to pay for some lazy, unmotivated louse with probably zero interest to work.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Jan 17, 2012 9:42:54 GMT -5
sorry if this post caused anyone trouble Government topics on the forum can get heated, but we always try to keep calm. We have drastically different views. You were trying to say something, then it derailed into something a lot bigger. There's no reason to delete the thread or lock it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 1:19:55 GMT -5
I'm not wholly against welfare. I think that after a certain amount of time people should have to, in some way, "give back" to the community. Like community service or something. The reason I can't stand welfare is because I've seen people in my neighborhood and my grandmother's that have no ambition to work. They think that if they can get government money they'll be set for life. Where's the motivation to work is my question? If you keep giving people free money, no matter how much or how little, there is barely any motivation to work. Period. I'm not totally for Romney. I think he is a fair candidate, but is dangerously indecisive. The more I think about it, the more I think Obama might lose. Think about this for a second. The people that are supporting Gingrich and Paul most likely know they both aren't getting very far. If it comes down to Obama vs. Romney, like you predict, do you think the Gingrich and Paul supporters are gonna say "gee, too bad Gingrich isn't in. My vote is for Obama." Nope. They'd vote for a rock running as a Republican before they cast a vote for Obama. That's the part of me that thinks he'll lose. But then, do you know how many people still like Obama? That's the part of me that thinks he'll win. Anyway, sorry if I have gotten you upset about my welfare comments. I just find it disheartening that the salary I make is going to pay for some lazy, unmotivated louse with probably zero interest to work. I totally see where you are coming from Steve, but I had to make sure if that were the case. Especially since you sounded too much like either Ebenezer Scrooge or Prince John (Robin Hood's Archnemesis). But yeah, I agree that there should be some restrictions with welfare, like having applicants be required to take a drug test should be one. Poor people need to try to make whatever money they can and not solely rely on welfare. Those who actually feel set for life by it and have no desire to work at all are just plain lazy, selfish, and have no respect for the middle class. As the saying goes: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class declines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2012 1:10:40 GMT -5
I don't think Romney's going to be a great choice. He'll be as corrupt as any other politician. Santorum, too conservative. Gingrich, too conservative. Paul, the only sensible choice. Let me be frank: I don't want Romney to win. I really don't, but that is just my prediction for the presidential election. While does seem like Gingrich is doing well right now, especially since he did well in the South Carolina primary, I am have a strong feeling that it will be Romney that will get the nomination and then beat Obama in the November presidential election. Again, these are just my "predictions" and NOT my desires.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Jan 28, 2012 9:16:58 GMT -5
Gingrich is a good candidate. Damn good. Next to Paul, he's my favorite. He worked with Regan - he knows what he's doing. He's not stupid. Romney is fine, but very indecisive. My support for him has decreased over the weeks.
|
|
|
Post by wes1016 on Feb 3, 2012 12:25:45 GMT -5
Newt is also out of his big head. he wants moon colonies. he also assumes he'll get a second term just because he won a single primary. while living on the moon seems cool it also seems real expensive. and expensive is not a word the us wants to be using now.
|
|