[UgSlayer]

(08-13-2012 10:03 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Putin is Nikita Khrushchev To Obama being JFK. JFK was a white shoe beta in his first years and the Soviets dicked him around accordingly. He eventually manned up to the task but Khrushchev made a game of toying with him.





I can't even think of whom is more of a bumbling beta Romney or Obama both are wimps. Biden and Ryan seem more like top dogs then their bosses IMO.

Biden seems more like an old bumbling idiot than top dog.

[kosko]

(08-14-2012 08:57 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 10:03 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Putin is Nikita Khrushchev To Obama being JFK. JFK was a white shoe beta in his first years and the Soviets dicked him around accordingly. He eventually manned up to the task but Khrushchev made a game of toying with him.





I can't even think of whom is more of a bumbling beta Romney or Obama both are wimps. Biden and Ryan seem more like top dogs then their bosses IMO.

Biden seems more like an old bumbling idiot than top dog.

Exactly.

Bush was a complete moron also but you could not dispute him being Alpha. He attempted to go toe - to - toe with Putin and nearly started WWIII in the process from the debacle in South Ossetia and Georgia.

Obama is a appeaser and Bush did not try to appease Putin at all.

[The_CEO]

(08-14-2012 08:15 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 07:40 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

-"let's run down what we know about Ryan's collection of Tough Choices. Ryan claims, as Romney recently has, that he can affect growth by closing loopholes, but he has never specified which loopholes, and as we're learning from the Tax Policy Center, there aren't enough loopholes to close to achieve the desired ends. (Hence, you're stuck raising taxes on the middle class, or scuppering the entire government, or both.)
His plan to balance the budget is to not balance the budget. He's considered a "deficit hawk" -- but as he's put his rubber stamp on all of the Bush administration's budget-busting initiatives, that's a lot like calling an arsonist a fire-fighter. As Jacob Weisberg learned, to some chagrin, Ryan's budget plan "projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050."-

If Jacob Weisberg says so it must be true.

"Let’s look at some of the budget busting, deficit spending things Paul Ryan supported under Bush.

Ryan supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for them. Ryan supported adding the cost of these wars to the national debt borrowing from China to fund them.

Paul Ryan voted for the largest expansion of entitlement spending since Lyndon Johnson enacted Medicare in 1965. He supported the Bush Medicare Drug bill without paying for it. Instead, the enormous cost was just added to the deficit Again, we borrowed from China to pay for it.

Paul Ryan supported the Bush Highway bill, the largest in history. That earmark-ridden bill included the famous bridge to no where.

He supported the Bush tax cuts, the largest in history, without any off setting spending cuts. We just borrow the money from China to pay for them—and we still are. And he wants to double down on tax cuts for the top.

He supported TARP, the bailout of Wall Street Banks, enacted under Bush before Obama was inaugurated. When Obama took office, however, he voted against the second phase of TARP. Apparently, it matters who proposed it.

He supported the auto industry bailout, to his credit, while Romney was advocating Detroit going bankrupt. However, he blames Obama for the deficits as though Congress did not approve it.

Now Ryan spends his time blaming Obama for the huge debt the spending he voted for and ran up. Bush added $6.8 trillion to the debt. "

[kosko]

I think Ryan is just introducing the hard language of deep cuts especially to SS and Medicaid. Its going to happen regardless of whom gets in, its just the Republicans can openly push the dialogue on it because its built into their phony mantra. Obama wants the same shit but can't openly vouch for it.

Example:

The left pushed more wars and conflict during Obama's 4 years then during Bush's 8 years. Obama has continued all conflicts will starting new ones. Under the smokescreen of the Left he was able to easily do this with little scrutiny because well .. its not what the Left does. Left-wing whores like Micheal Moore and Amy Goodman have largely been silent on those fronts... go figure.

Ryan looks like a bloody hypocrite because he is just a typical Capital Hill shill.. they all are shills and all will continue to blow up spending and draw things down as they please. Supposedly he wants to but discretionary spending to roughly 0.75% of GDP. All without touching Defense of course lmao. This guy is joke and nothing more than proxy to normalize the debate on austerity cuts that the Govt plans to make.

All the talk on MSM has been about his budget plan in which Romney has "said" repeatedly he isn't going to fuck with since he has his own. As I said its nothing more then doublespeak and spin to soften to harsh words of the destruction of entitlement spending in America.

The biggest swindle will be when SS and Medicaid are gutted and sold for peanuts just as when the Boomers are about to retire..... Everything you see the theater, spin, phony rhetoric with shill think tank whores on CNN spewing out half-truths is just the warm up to the main event which will lead to this. It will not be in one swoop but I believe in two more terms the goose will be cooked. I have no idea whom will be President when it goes down but I don't think it matters.

All this talk on the most useless position in the Executive cabinet. The buzz in the press talks as if Ryan would have any powers other then shaking veterans and old lady hands and raising money once in office.

The real movers in the Exectuve consist of Heads of NSA, Joint Chiefs, Sec of State & Defense, etc. The VP is far down the list and probably just fetches these folks water. A man like Panetta or even Hillary has more weight and influence whiten the Executive ranks then a lowly VP. The VP is high profile and indeed 2nd in succession...but not power. So really in closing all this talk on Ryan is fuking fluff and pixie dust.

It is news and such but judging from polls it has not had any positive effect for Romney as I stated before in the thread nobody gives a fuck about this election and turnouts will be at record lows. The zero-Ryan effect proves it.

His budget plan is a non-factor in the big picture of things.

Just my 2cents

[ElJefe]

I'm a conservative, but reading this article from Stockman was a breath of fresh-air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinio...ef=general

I do not know the details of the Ryan proposal, but what he writes sounds plausible. This might be the article that makes me vote Obama. Oy vey...

[RandalGraves]

"irrelevant Iran"

And you didn't stop reading the article there? Haha, what a joke.

[tenderman100]

(08-15-2012 12:33 AM)kosko Wrote:  

I think Ryan is just introducing the hard language of deep cuts especially to SS and Medicaid. Its going to happen regardless of whom gets in, its just the Republicans can openly push the dialogue on it because its built into their phony mantra. Obama wants the same shit but can't openly vouch for it.

That's because Obama is a pussy.

[porscheguy]

(08-15-2012 05:25 PM)RandalGraves Wrote:  

"irrelevant Iran"

And you didn't stop reading the article there? Haha, what a joke.

Iran is totally irrelevant.

[RandalGraves]

What happens in Iran regarding nuclear proliferation over the next few years will change geopolitics in the entire Middle East region forever and will likely have a huge impact on the petro-dollar. Not to mention that Iran has been been linked to terrorism across the globe. But sorry, this is off-topic.

[kosko]

(08-15-2012 07:32 PM)RandalGraves Wrote:  

What happens in Iran regarding nuclear proliferation over the next few years will change geopolitics in the entire Middle East region forever and will likely have a huge impact on the petro-dollar. Not to mention that Iran has been been linked to terrorism across the globe. But sorry, this is off-topic.

Just like Israel?

....Give it a rest.

[ElJefe]

(08-16-2012 02:40 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 07:32 PM)RandalGraves Wrote:  

What happens in Iran regarding nuclear proliferation over the next few years will change geopolitics in the entire Middle East region forever and will likely have a huge impact on the petro-dollar. Not to mention that Iran has been been linked to terrorism across the globe. But sorry, this is off-topic.

Just like Israel?

....Give it a rest.

http://news.yahoo.com/tumour-israel-soon...48418.html

[porscheguy]

(08-17-2012 04:17 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(08-16-2012 02:40 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 07:32 PM)RandalGraves Wrote:  

What happens in Iran regarding nuclear proliferation over the next few years will change geopolitics in the entire Middle East region forever and will likely have a huge impact on the petro-dollar. Not to mention that Iran has been been linked to terrorism across the globe. But sorry, this is off-topic.

Just like Israel?

....Give it a rest.

http://news.yahoo.com/tumour-israel-soon...48418.html

Iran is what some Asians would call a "paper tiger." They've been doing this bullshit since they threw out the Shah. At the end of the day, Iran knows what's at stake if they nuke Israel or anyone else.

[Capitán Peligroso]

(08-15-2012 04:31 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

I'm a conservative, but reading this article from Stockman was a breath of fresh-air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinio...ef=general

I do not know the details of the Ryan proposal, but what he writes sounds plausible. This might be the article that makes me vote Obama. Oy vey...

What are the defining characteristics of conservatism that make you identify with it? What makes you a conservative?

[Deluge]

(08-15-2012 04:31 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

I'm a conservative, but reading this article from Stockman was a breath of fresh-air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinio...ef=general

I do not know the details of the Ryan proposal, but what he writes sounds plausible. This might be the article that makes me vote Obama. Oy vey...

It's kind of hard to believe that people who claim to be fiscal conservatives would let the Ryan plan increase your budget deficit by $2.3 trillion, whatever it takes to fund more tax cuts and keep the contribution $$$ and get that post-politics consulting gig I guess.

Meanwhile:

Quote:

Howard Fineman wrote in The Huffington Post that “Ryan turns out, upon closer inspection, not to be a purifying ideologue, but rather a young, power-hungry, ladder-climbing trimmer.” The self-styled deficit cutter backed W.’s deficit-exploding agenda, and the tut-tutting critic of the Obama stimulus grabbed for the president’s stimulus money.

At least Ron Paul is consistent.

Quote:

Even Catholic bishops, who had to be dragged toward compassion in the pedophilia scandal, were dismayed at how uncompassionate Ryan’s budget was.

Mitt Romney expects his running mate to help deliver the Catholic vote and smooth over any discomfort among Catholics about Mormonism. (This is the first major-party ticket to go Protestant-less.) Yet after Ryan claimed his budget was shaped by his faith, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops deemed it immoral.

“A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons,” the bishops wrote in a letter to Congress.

The Jesuits were even more tart, with one group writing to Ryan that “Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The nuns-on-the-bus also rapped the knuckles of the former altar boy who now takes his three kids to Mass. As Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of the Catholic social justice group Network, told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, it’s sad that a Catholic doesn’t understand that “we need to have each other’s backs. Only wealthy people can ever begin to pretend that they can live in a gated community all by themselves.”

Even Ryan’s former parish priest in Janesville weighed in. Father Stephen Umhoefer told the Center for Media and Democracy, “You can’t tell somebody that in 10 years your economic situation is going to be just wonderful because meanwhile your kids may starve to death.”

[ElJefe]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...to-go.html

I have a great deal of respect for Ferguson, and it was especially interesting he mentioned the other article I linked to above.

For more info on Romney's economic policies, there's also

http://economistsforromney.com/

quite a few serious names on that list - almost all from the neo-classical school, though. I tried to find a corresponding page for Obama, but couldn't. Hmmm....

[The_CEO]

(08-20-2012 03:51 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...to-go.html

I have a great deal of respect for Ferguson, and it was especially interesting he mentioned the other article I linked to above.

For more info on Romney's economic policies, there's also

http://economistsforromney.com/

quite a few serious names on that list - almost all from the neo-classical school, though. I tried to find a corresponding page for Obama, but couldn't. Hmmm....

"-- Newsweek did not fact-check Ferguson's cover story, according to Dylan Byers, a media reporter at Politico. Byers wrote on Twitter that a Newsweek spokesman said the magazine does not have a fact-checking department, and that "we, like other news organisations today, rely on our writers to submit factually accurate material."

"Matt O'Brien, associate business editor at The Atlantic, wrote a stinging blog post fact-checking Ferguson's cover story, writing that "we got an exercise in Ferguson's specialty -- counterfactual history."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...ma/261306/

[Belize King]

I love this forum. It's wild how most of the players on the forum knows that the president isn't shit and won't change shit. Alot of us are on the Ron Paul, lib/small government but see that the Republicans have little chance in beating Obama.

I wonder what Conservatives really think about Romney and do they really believe he has a chance at winning. By the donations, it seems as though they do. Either way, Obama is Bush II and Romney is Obama lite.

My only fear regarding the Presidency is his foriegn policy. I don't understand the U.S. love for Isreal, and wonder if either Obama or Romney will drag us into conflict with Iran. Why not leave it to NATO and fuck Isreal. Time will tell. I can tell you from where I am at in Kuwait, shit seems to be poppin off pretty soon. We are prepping for something.

[ElJefe]

Read the piece, some interesting points, id like to see a rebuttal. The writer you referenced is at least as liberal as Ferguson is a neo-con. Ferguson has a historical perspective that most people in government lack, but i dont know how solid his economics are and itd be good to know more about why simpson-bowles didnt pass.

[Vicious]

(08-20-2012 03:07 PM)TexasMade Wrote:  

I love this forum. It's wild how most of the players on the forum knows that the president isn't shit and won't change shit. Alot of us are on the Ron Paul, lib/small government but see that the Republicans have little chance in beating Obama.

It really has nothing to do with The President. He "won't change shit" because ultimately grand changes are not popular with his constituents. The masses that elect him (or any president) are sheep that desire stability despite what they claim.

[ElJefe]

Why Israel? A better question is why Saudi? How much easier would life be if we didn't just turn the whole middle east into a big glass crater? We tolerate the arabs even when theyre sabotaging our efforts to help them. They wouldnt tolerate us for a second if it wasnt because they were so feeble and incompetent. Check out TE Lawrence Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Great stuff!

[Capitán Peligroso]

Quote:

It really has nothing to do with The President. He "won't change shit" because ultimately grand changes are not popular with his constituents. The masses that elect him (or any president) are sheep that desire stability despite what they claim.

This, and anyone that knows anything about Obama's political history knows that he's an incrementalist and an institutionalist, which means he's going to make slow changes and try not to upset the apple cart too much. This makes him the conservative in this race. Romney's not a conservative, and he never was. He's always adjusted his political positions according to what was politically expedient at the time. This makes him neither liberal nor conservative, but a political opportunist who will say anything to get himself elected. Maybe against certain other opponents this might have worked, but against Obama it won't. If Romney is going to win, it will take something major happening geopolitically, like a massive domestic terrorist attack, or $5-6 a gallon gas, or both.

[ElJefe]

A poltical opportunist or a competent executive?

Who do you think gets more done? The man who plays realpolitik or the ideologue?

Not saying I know, just wondering