Pres Debate: 10/16/2012

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]StevenF wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Not really sure what I’m getting at, except maybe a kind of “What else would you expect?”
[/quote]

I would expect people to let go of this false notion that life is “fair”. I would also expect grown people in 2012 to come to grips with the fact life isn’t, never was and never will be easy.

I expect people to look at those with more than they do, and challenge themselves to get to that point and beyond. Not tear down others to their level to feel better about themselves.

You can accomplish anything in America. No one ever said you weren’t going to have to work for it. [/quote]

well said. The have-nots CHOOSE to be have-nots.
[/quote]

Not to get confused here. Not everyone is born into opportunity. Some people are born into worlds that are horrid shells of hope.

It is the choice to not pull yourself out, educate yourself, find worth in yourself beyond how much money you have and give your kids more opportunity than you had.

342

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Not really sure what I’m getting at, except maybe a kind of “What else would you expect?”
[/quote]

I would expect people to let go of this false notion that life is “fair”. I would also expect grown people in 2012 to come to grips with the fact life isn’t, never was and never will be easy.

I expect people to look at those with more than they do, and challenge themselves to get to that point and beyond. Not tear down others to their level to feel better about themselves.

You can accomplish anything in America. No one ever said you weren’t going to have to work for it. [/quote]

well said. The have-nots CHOOSE to be have-nots.
[/quote]

I agree with what Beans said, but this is pushing it. A child is born addicted to opiates every hour in this country. Studies have shown that kids born to addict mothers have a monumentally more difficult time learning even the most basic skills throughout childhood and exhibit much higher rates of all sorts of cognitive deficiencies and mental disabilities. The poor are not always so by choice.[/quote]

Well, it was the mother’s choice to ruin her child’s life before it even had a chance. But yes you are correct. Mental disabilities are a different animal than what I was speaking about.

343

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Not really sure what I’m getting at, except maybe a kind of “What else would you expect?”
[/quote]

I would expect people to let go of this false notion that life is “fair”. I would also expect grown people in 2012 to come to grips with the fact life isn’t, never was and never will be easy.

I expect people to look at those with more than they do, and challenge themselves to get to that point and beyond. Not tear down others to their level to feel better about themselves.

You can accomplish anything in America. No one ever said you weren’t going to have to work for it. [/quote]

well said. The have-nots CHOOSE to be have-nots.
[/quote]

I agree with what Beans said, but this is pushing it. A child is born addicted to opiates every hour in this country. Studies have shown that kids born to addict mothers have a monumentally more difficult time learning even the most basic skills throughout childhood and exhibit much higher rates of all sorts of cognitive deficiencies and mental disabilities. The poor are not always so by choice.[/quote]

Well, it was the mother’s choice to ruin her child’s life before it even had a chance. But yes you are correct. Mental disabilities are a different animal than what I was speaking about.[/quote]
Ya, you and I are on the same page here.

344

I should re-phrase, most have-nots are have-nots by choice. I am a have-not, but you bet your ass I’m working my way up.

345

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I own a small business and all I’ve seen over the past four years are rising taxes, more regulation and constant threats by the President of the United States that I am not paying my fair share. And on top of that he spit in my face when he said that “you didn’t build that…someone else did it for you.”

[/quote]

Hope you don’t make more than 250k… With Obama care, and the way ohio looks, all told, according to Kiplinger, you’re looking at a roughtly 10-12% increase in Federal taxes.

Enjoy that.

I’m fucked as well, but not as much as you, lol.[/quote]

My response to a second Obama term should we all be so unlucky to experience will be the same reaction I had to his first term. Stop hiring and stay out of the stock market. In addition to this I’ve already informed my employees that if Obama should win and consequently raise my taxes to punish me because I am a successful small business owner I will lower their wages and raise prices to make up for 2/3rds of the tax hike. I will shoulder the other 1/3rd. No expansion, no hiring, lower wages and higher prices. If that’s the kind of economy that Obama wants I am more than happy to give it to him!

And I assure you there are many, many others just like me who will respond in a similar fashion.

[/quote]

And you’ll do what if Romney wins?

And why?

Mufasa
[/quote]

Expand my business, hire more people and hold prices down.

And the “why” of the matter should seem obvious. In Mitt Romney we will have a President who will not punish success by raising taxes on small businesses.

Can I be any clearer than that?[/quote]

No…

You are actually VERY clear, Zeb.

Mufasa[/quote]

Now I have a question for you.

Why would any small business owner, such as myself do anything other than cut wages, raise prices and hunker down and not expand with Obama as President?

[/quote]

Zeb:

There are things that I can say…and even want to say…but I won’t say.

As a non-business owner, it would be beyond arrogance and hubris for me to comment on how you choose to run your business.

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s not hubris if I am asking for your opinion. Furthermore, about 60% of ALL new hires are for small business. That alone is causing the horrible “recovery”.

You and every other American needs to be aware that the main reason our economy seems to be stuck in neutral is because of Obama and his horrendous treatment of those of us who make the wheel of the economy spin.

So please feel free to comment on why I and my small business peers should move forward under tax hikes, insults and threats from the President of the United States.

346

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today’s Gallup has Romney up 52-45.[/quote]

Does it seem strange to anyone that Gallup is so far off from every other poll?
[/quote]

Larger picture is the up-tick here and Rasmussen. Actually # aside.

347

Some funny drama happening out here in Hollyweird…

Eva Longoria re-tweeted a vulgar tweet posted by one of her followers, sparking the ire of conservatives on Twitter…

“I have no idea why any woman/minority can vote for Romney,” the tweet read. “You have to be stupid to vote for such a racist/misogynistic twat.”

The Hollywood sissies are shaking in the Priuses, spilling their Starbucks coffee all over their iPads.

348

Zeb:

Let me give it a little more thought, okay?

Mufasa

349

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Check out Jon Stewart DESTROY the Obama Libya attacks LOL…

http://nation.foxnews.com/daily-show/2012/10/02/jon-stewart-totally-obliterates-obama-s-libya-response[/quote]

Woah. I know, I know, “oh yeah, you like the guy when he says something you like.” Fair enough. However, that was a pretty good presentation, humor aside. Now, I’ve seen chronologies on this laid out, already. It’s what has fired me up on this issue, in fact. Look, I want some answers.

How is Anderson Cooper and CNN scooping the Administration and our intel services? Well, actually, they (CNN) claim it was intel sources who gave them the scoop. So, you’re telling me there was no early assessment, within 24-48 hours, giving equal weight to the event having been a terrorist attack? Obama was offended? I’m offended at the implication that we don’t deserve answers. [/quote]

It was known immediately that:

(1) indirect fire (i.e., mortar or rockets – takes team of 3 or more typically, plus careful and knowledgeble siting and planning) was used;

(2) breaching weapons were used on the door/gate (apparently an anti-tank weapon or like, probably takes a team of 3 trained soldiers — not an easy weapon to use without killing yourself)

(3) RPGs were used

(4) teams of people with small arms and grenades came in without being killed by 1-3 or each other.

This is a group of 20+ organized soldier that knew what the fuck they were doing, planned this carefully over a period of time, and were almost certainly military trained.

I KNEW it was organized terrorist when I first saw the report. I’m just a fucking former grunt.

For them to act “confused” or whatever is complete bullshit on the highest order.

(Relevance of the picture — “And these blast points; too accurate for Sandpeople. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise … Obi-Wan Kenobi”

350

“'Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?” Romney challenged…Obama countered, “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often.”

As president, [Obama] will receive $191,300 annually for life - win or lose in next month’s election - and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his presidential pension kicks in immediately after leaving office.

Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.

The federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers…

But what about Romney?..for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero. Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.'"

So Obama has a multi-million dollar public pension and Romney has no public pension because he took no wages as Governor in the public sector? Why can’t Romney defend himself more effectively against this bullshit?

352

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“'Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?” Romney challenged…Obama countered, “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often.”

As president, [Obama] will receive $191,300 annually for life - win or lose in next month’s election - and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his presidential pension kicks in immediately after leaving office.

Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.

The federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers…

But what about Romney?..for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero. Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.'"

So Obama has a multi-million dollar public pension and Romney has no public pension because he took no wages as Governor in the public sector? Why can’t Romney defend himself more effectively against this bullshit?[/quote]

I thought the same thing. I don’t understand why these guys, both of 'em, aren’t more informed and quicker on the draw. Seriously.[/quote]

I’ve said the same thing on occasion and then I realize it’s very much like watching a football game. “Why didn’t he just cut up the middle it was wide open?” I guess it just looks a lot easier when you are home relaxing watching it on TV

355

One thing that needs to be better understood by people is the courage it must take to start your own business and become successful. I imagine restless nights, guilt for lay offs that people wish they did not have to do, family life, second guessing, dealing with competitors, internal strife in your own organization and so much more.

I can see many people assuming those who are successful as those who are born into wealth (nothing like money making money) had their parents pay their college, their grad school, their first home and even their wedding. Many people resent this because they had to get a paper route at 12, work at a fast food joint at 15, work construction during the day and serve at night during college while others had it easier. It is just two different worlds.

Voting is an emotional issue not just a rational act. Romney represents an individual out of touch with middle America because of his father’s success. He went to prep schools and good universities such as Stanford, Brigham Young, and Harvard most likely on his father’s dime. While Obama represents another part of America which is absentee father, and did not finish paying off his student loans from Harvard law until '07 or something.

***That said I have the utmost respect for the entrepeneur and the investment in themselves and their business. The entrepeneurial spirit is the lifeblood of the economy and is admirable and respectable. The success small business owners get is well deserved considering most small businesses fail. Small businesses should not be burdened by taxes and their growth should be celebrated. It does not matter how smart you are the intestinal fortitude to start your own business is admirable and what the potential of that business could be for a community may be immeasurable. What America needs to realize though is that their is a difference between a Rockefeller (old money) and a Steve Jobs.

356

If you got a chance good video (not related by any means) by Clayton Christenson

Clayton Christensen Applies Disruptive Innovation to the Individual

357

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

While Obama represents another part of America which is absentee father, and did not finish paying off his student loans from Harvard law until '07 or something.

[/quote]

'04 he claims:

'But according to their tax returns, which are available on the White House website, the Obamas had a healthy, six-figure income by the year 2000 (the earliest return available). And for at least two years before his loans were paid off, Obama, by his own definition, made so much they were wealthy enough to pay higher taxes.

Here’s a rundown of the president’s income, according to his tax returns, in the years before he paid off his student loans:

2004: $207,647

2003: $238,327

2002: $259,394

2001: $272,759

2000: $240,505

In 2001 and 2002, the Obamas would have met the $250,000 standard the president has set for those wealthy enough to afford to pay more taxes.

It’s also notable that the Obamas didn’t claim deductions for student loans on any of those years, most likely because they made too much money to qualify for the student loan deduction.’

358

Nice is that his wife’s salary or his as she was legal counsel for a prominent Chicago hospital?

359

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Nice is that his wife’s salary or his as she was legal counsel for a prominent Chicago hospital?[/quote]

They filed jointly so it’s both their incomes. Michelle worked as a “diversity consultant” for the University of Chicago Hospital. When Obama obtained a $1 million earmark for the hospital his wife’s salary suddenly increased by more than 250%. The Obama’s tales of rusty cars and struggling with debts is a fantasy. They bought a $277,500 condo in 1993 and a few years later moved into a $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park.

360

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Nice is that his wife’s salary or his as she was legal counsel for a prominent Chicago hospital?[/quote]

They filed jointly so it’s both their incomes. Michelle worked as a “diversity consultant” for the University of Chicago Hospital. When Obama obtained a $1 million earmark for the hospital his wife’s salary suddenly increased by more than 250%. The Obama’s tales of rusty cars and struggling with debts is a fantasy. They bought a $277,500 condo in 1993 and a few years later moved into a $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park.[/quote]

Sources?