maqroll Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Did I mis-hear it, or did Romney say something like "This election is all about making life better for the middle class" ? And Obama totally missed the tap-in opportunity of saying "No, it's about making life better for ALL Americans". The bemusing thing is that nowadays, the middle class is close to disappearing. If you were solidly middle class 15 years ago, chances are you're now either lower middle class, or poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 This one has been cracking me up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Haha the sarcasm in this election advert is good as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Looks like those ads were made by the sort of morons that voted for Ron Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Well...I must have been a moron in 2008... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I agree with the sentiment but it has always been the way. My generation will pay off your debt while curtailing progression for the next generation by not investing enough, and they'll react with heavy spending and you can see where this is going. I keep banging on about but the neo-liberal system is broken and is no longer worth sticking with. Time for a change but it won't come because too many people buy into the short-term thinking sold to them i.e. buying shit on credit etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Looks like those ads were made by the sort of morons that voted for Ron Paul. At least he's principled, I can understand why people would vote for him, a lot of whom would otherwise vote for Obama, I'd wager. But, yeah, his ideas are **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 At least he's principled, I can understand why people would vote for him, a lot of whom would otherwise vote for Obama, I'd wager. But, yeah, his ideas are **** up. I wouldn't class all of Paul's ideas as **** up. I mean granted, not every single one of his beliefs is perfect, but say he was ever elected, there would be bipartisanship which would block any of his "crazier" ideas from coming into place. Paul intrigues me quite a bit though because his is genuinely intelligent and I also think unlike alot of other politicians, he actually understands how things like the economy work. I did like him more in 2008 though, when he wasn't so mainstream and seen as the cool choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 I wouldn't class all of Paul's ideas as **** up. I mean granted, not every single one of his beliefs is perfect, but say he was ever elected, there would be bipartisanship which would block any of his "crazier" ideas from coming into place. Paul intrigues me quite a bit though because his is genuinely intelligent and I also think unlike alot of other politicians, he actually understands how things like the economy work. I did like him more in 2008 though, when he wasn't so mainstream and seen as the cool choice. His central premise is minimal government - but he takes it way too far, cutting benefits and loans and credits all in the interest of reducing the role of government as well as reducing the deficit. I understand the need to curb the seemingly inexorable growth of American debt, but doing this at the expense of investing for the future doesn't sound like fiscal sense to me. Reducing government surveillance, I'm all for it, of course. I don't expect you to agree with me, I've never excelled at economics anyway, so I'm sure others can articulate about social democracy (or whatever you call it) better than me. I hope I explained why, from my perspective, he'd be dangerous for the economy, if ever elected (which looks exceedingly unlikely now given his age) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Yeah, I mean Paul will never be elected, I can promise you that, I do not ever see a President outside of the GOP and Dems in our lifetimes. On his role of government, I am actually quite for it, although not quite as extreme as for what he calls for. I think states should have more power than the federal government and by cutting out many of the unnecessary departments and bureaucracies at the federal level, alot of money could be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Yeah, I mean Paul will never be elected, I can promise you that, I do not ever see a President outside of the GOP and Dems in our lifetimes. I know he holds many views the rest of the Republicans don't share, but he is still a member of the Republican party, and I don't see him leaving anytime soon, he's been there all his political life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Anyone who employes Peter Schiff as their economic 'advisor' is an idiot to be honest, it explains why Paul is one of those gold standard cranks. I don't particularly care if he's principled give his principles are nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 What's wrong with the gold standard? (Genuine question) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Also, article on Ron Paul, flavour of the month....a year ago And this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Anyone else not really caring which of Mr Speak-Left-Act-Far-Right* or Mr Speak-Far-Right-Act-Far-Right gets elected? *Socio-economic policy aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 it doesn't matter really, they're all in cahoots with corporations and big business anyway, so either one makes **** all difference. in some romney would be a more honest choice " we're **** repellent and we don't care". America will get what it deserves* * though that's applicable to us and every other democracy too tbf, the ability of pr bullshit to convince poor people to screw themselves over in the voting booth is a true victory for the strategists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Just puppets on a string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Anyone else not really caring which of Mr Speak-Left-Act-Far-Right* or Mr Speak-Far-Right-Act-Far-Right gets elected? *Socio-economic policy aside. Tbh, not really. I'm going mostly to vote on Senators/Local Representatives. If I feel like voting for president I will, but still don't care for either, so don't feel it worth voting for either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Anyone else not really caring which of Mr Speak-Left-Act-Far-Right* or Mr Speak-Far-Right-Act-Far-Right gets elected? *Socio-economic policy aside. The two party system is just a two headed monster. Like LockStock, I'm more interested in local issues. Massachusetts has three referendums: Make Medical Marijuana legal, Allow physician assisted suicide, Break car dealerships monopoly on access to certain vehicle parts (allows for independent mechanics to access same parts) I'll be voting YES on all three... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 The two party system is just a two headed monster. Like LockStock, I'm more interested in local issues. Massachusetts has three referendums: Make Medical Marijuana legal, Allow physician assisted suicide, Break car dealerships monopoly on access to certain vehicle parts (allows for independent mechanics to access same parts) I'll be voting YES on all three... Good luck to you. The more so since I've got this twinge in my back when I move in a certain way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts