Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Raising the tax rates won't even come close to closing the deficit, that is not where the problem is.

Then how about ending the 2 wars that cost how many Trillion already and your boy wants us to get involved with Iran too... He Haw...

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

Then how about ending the 2 wars that cost how many Trillion already and your boy wants us to get involved with Iran too... He Haw...

Couldn't agree with you more on that one, we should be out of Afghanistan today.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Couldn't agree with you more on that one, we should be out of Afghanistan today.

And Romeny wants to duke it out with IRAN.. I will vote against him JUST because he has that position. A republican can't cry about the debt and then want to get involved in another war. It is just not logical... A republican can't start 2 wars and then cry about the debt. A republican can't start the ball rolling on the bailouts and then cry about the debt simply because their guy who got the ball rolling is no longer in office.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

And Romeny wants to duke it out with IRAN.. I will vote against him JUST because he has that position. A republican can't cry about the debt and then want to get involved in another war. It is just not logical... A republican can't start 2 wars and then cry about the debt. A republican can't start the ball rolling on the bailouts and then cry about the debt simply because their guy who got the ball rolling is no longer in office.

We never should have gone into Iraq, but are you saying we shouldn't have originally gone into Afghanistan?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

You didn't try debating me, you kept coming at me false information and some stupid notion that I said all unemployed people would vote for Obama, which I never said. I even corrected myself to say that most freeloaders would vote for Obama (obviously a few will vote for Obama) and then you started attacking personally. If that is your way of debating then you need a lot of polish.

Keep twisting

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

We never should have gone into Iraq, but are you saying we shouldn't have originally gone into Afghanistan?

Yes I am. No country has ever won a war in Afghanistan in over 2000 years. Going to war in Afghanistan Bankrupt the Soviet Union. Yet we are arrogant enough to go all in thinking we would make history??? At the end of the day we got Bin Laden with a small elite force.... Wouldn't that have been a method that could be used from the get go? We went into Iraq so George Bush could show his father that he was up to the task... We went into Afghanistan as vengence for 911 when all along a small elite force was all that was needed.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yes I am. No country has ever won a war in Afghanistan in over 2000 years. Going to war in Afghanistan Bankrupt the Soviet Union. Yet we are arrogant enough to go all in thinking we would make history??? At the end of the day we got Bin Laden with a small elite force.... Wouldn't that have been a method that could be used from the get go? We went into Iraq so George Bush could show his father that he was up to the task... We went into Afghanistan as vengence for 911 when all along a small elite force was all that was needed.

I disagree with on that, we won the war, pretty easily at that, modern warfare has no relation to 2,000 years, but we should have been out of there right away.

As far as Iraq, I agree with you and I am assuming you weren't for Obama's Libya war.

But lets face it, stopping the wars would help but the real problem is entitlement spending. Ignoring it won't make the problem go away.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by jms62

And Romeny wants to duke it out with IRAN.. I will vote against him JUST because he has that position. A republican can't cry about the debt and then want to get involved in another war. It is just not logical... A republican can't start 2 wars and then cry about the debt. A republican can't start the ball rolling on the bailouts and then cry about the debt simply because their guy who got the ball rolling is no longer in office.

I think the issue is more complicated than this. We can debate whether we should have gotten involved in the wars in the first place and theier cost, but that is not going to change the position we are in now and we we have to go forward. We can just pull all our troops but the question that then has to be asked is what happens after that. If we just leave these countries open to be taken over by terrorists, then we are inviting an even bigger war than we are in now.

As far as Iran goes, I do not believe that Romney wants to get into a war with Iran, but that he has a fundemental difference with Obama on how to handle preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. I believe that Obama has been very weak on this issue and has not done enough to stop it. Obama is coming off as a leader unwilling to use force and it seems that those with an agenda against the U.S. are starting to test him. If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, we just may see a much bigger war then what we are in right now and I think Romney is more likely to take action to prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I disagree with on that, we won the war, pretty easily at that, modern warfare has no relation to 2,000 years, but we should have been out of there right away.

As far as Iraq, I agree with you.

But lets face it, stopping the wars would help but the real problem is entitlement spending. Ignoring it won't make the problem go away.

We won the war? Why because GWB declared victory? We are still there and we have kids dying weekly. We have not won the war becuase it isn't over and oh by the way it looks like it will bankrupt us also... Your definition of victory is a hell of a lot different than mine.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by pointman

I think the issue is more complicated than this. We can debate whether we should have gotten involved in the wars in the first place and theier cost, but that is not going to change the position we are in now and we we have to go forward. We can just pull all our troops but the question that then has to be asked is what happens after that. If we just leave these countries open to be taken over by terrorists, then we are inviting an even bigger war than we are in now.

As far as Iran goes, I do not believe that Romney wants to get into a war with Iran, but that he has a fundemental difference with Obama on how to handle preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. I believe that Obama has been very weak on this issue and has not done enough to stop it. Obama is coming off as a leader unwilling to use force and it seems that those with an agenda against the U.S. are starting to test him. If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, we just may see a much bigger war then what we are in right now and I think Romney is more likely to take action to prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb.

I don't agree with you but I respect your position.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

RUde you said lowering taxes is giving money away. You're talking as if the government is far more important than the individual.

The collective, as the Marxist hipster douches say. We don't owe this government a f.ucking thing. You don't want to pay taxes to a government that gave immunity to the people that caused this mess in the first place.The government will take the extra tax revenue and spend more. You are basically an enabler.

Seriously wtf are you all thinking? And to think those of you were starting to wake up.

that is a huge issue for me. and a huge part of why i don't want romney-he advocates removing some of the restraints placed on banks since they effed everyone up-except themselves of course. no criminal charges, big bonuses paid to the people who got their bonus money from the taxpayer funded bailout. ain't life grand? enrons pres and others got charged and jailed. name one banker who had similar occur?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

So what is the setting to not show up on currently logged on users?

you can go in and set yourself to 'hidden'. i did that a few years back because any time i logged in, another user (since banned) would immediately start pm'ing me. didn't want to advertise i was around, so i took advantage of that setting.
guess i can change it, never thought about it again til now!


it's under user cp edit options.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

And why does everyone Anti Romney have to be accused of wanting to raise taxes. I am not for raising taxes.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

We won the war? Why because GWB declared victory? We are still there and we have kids dying weekly. We have not won the war becuase it isn't over and oh by the way it looks like it will bankrupt us also... Your definition of victory is a hell of a lot different than mine.

Are you talking about Afghanistan? We were in Kabul in no time with the Northern Alliance. Taliban fighters were switching sides, we should have been gone then, that was years ago.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Raising the tax rates won't even come close to closing the deficit, that is not where the problem is.

true, spending cuts need to be done as well.

romney wants to raise defense spending, already the biggest single budget item for the fed.

did you know it takes every other country in the world added together on defense to equal our defense spending alone? and he wants to raise it. why?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yes I am. No country has ever won a war in Afghanistan in over 2000 years. Going to war in Afghanistan Bankrupt the Soviet Union. Yet we are arrogant enough to go all in thinking we would make history??? At the end of the day we got Bin Laden with a small elite force.... Wouldn't that have been a method that could be used from the get go? We went into Iraq so George Bush could show his father that he was up to the task... We went into Afghanistan as vengence for 911 when all along a small elite force was all that was needed.

We didn't go all in, that was the issue from the beginning. Both wars were fought without a clear military objective and are therefore by definition, not winnable. It has been the problem with the strategies since WWII, not once has a clear objective been defined for our efforts in any theater, that is why we have been fighting forever and not accomplishing a thing.

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you can go in and set yourself to 'hidden'. i did that a few years back because any time i logged in, another user (since banned) would immediately start pm'ing me. didn't want to advertise i was around, so i took advantage of that setting.
guess i can change it, never thought about it again til now!


it's under user cp edit options.

PD (aka. Pointman #2) probably doesn't know that because he is new to the board.

Oh wait. No...he, (they), (Nick) probably left it unhidden intentionally as part of the ruse.

My God...there's no telling how deep this thing may go.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

We didn't go all in, that was the issue from the beginning. Both wars were fought without a clear military objective and are therefore by definition, not winnable. It has been the problem with the strategies since WWII, not once has a clear objective been defined for our efforts in any theater, that is why we have been fighting forever and not accomplishing a thing.

This discussion is about the financial aspect not military strategy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I disagree with on that, we won the war, pretty easily at that, modern warfare has no relation to 2,000 years, but we should have been out of there right away.

As far as Iraq, I agree with you and I am assuming you weren't for Obama's Libya war.

But lets face it, stopping the wars would help but the real problem is entitlement spending. Ignoring it won't make the problem go away.

what war did we win?

and actually, modern warfare is comparable, especially in afganistan.
for comparison, the welsh successfully fought the much larger, richer england for centuries by using guerilla tactics. it was only when Edward 1 decided to install permanent garrisons (and built 8 state of the art castles in strategic areas) that wales was finally conquered.
lincolns (and others) huge fear towards the end of the civil war here was to have to face guerrilla warfare. luckily it didn't happen.

another great example? vietnam.
the 'war on terror' can't be fought conventionally. war in afganistan can't necessarily be either. unless we garrison troops all over that country, for years, we will never get a good grip on that country. is that what you want to see happen?
we've already spent billions on a country worth millions. to what end? and terrorism is still a threat, and will remain so.
yes, invading afganistan absolutely was a mistake. invading that country will prove a complete waste. we can't get that country to become peaceful, and we will fight there as long as we remain without a real end in sight. why? what will be gained?

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Danzig

true, spending cuts need to be done as well.

romney wants to raise defense spending, already the biggest single budget item for the fed.

did you know it takes every other country in the world added together on defense to equal our defense spending alone? and he wants to raise it. why?

I agree Danzig cuts needs to come from everywhere including the military.