[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In today’s volatile economic environment and political instability in places such as the Middle East, Romney easily will be worse than Bush if elected to office [/quote]
Well, lets look at this shall we:
Obama has proven over the last 4 years, he isn’t able to solve the problem, bring the country together in its time of need, or take responsibility for his record.
There is zero confidence right now, as evidenced by the massive cash reserves and sluggish velocity of money. Hmmm. I’m sure all these firms are just still worried about those evil Bush years and how they are still killing us 1,461 days later. Yeah that’s it.
Oh the middle east… The place that while our POTUS and SOS lied about the reason one of our citizens, loved by the people in that nation, was murdered for polictical gain, that same POTUS had srious aboligations to fufill at home and couldn’t make it to meet with PM’s or other countries or attend intel meetings. I mean POTUS had to attend such important things as speaking in Vegas, Hanging out with JAy-Z, going on Letterman and The Veiw. I mean shit, yeah Romney will do such a bad job… He reacted to the Libya murders instantly, while the POTUS laughed up lying to the American people about the murder on Letterman.
That is the ticket.[/quote]
Between you and the other guy, laughable terms like “Main Street Media” (you could have typed MSM I would have known you’re a die hard ‘conservative’ either way), and the idea that Bush’s war criminal status is somehow abated by the fact that the economy did ok under him for a little while, I don’t really know where to start. Just as a thought, do you know who put Saddam Hussein into power and then supported his regime? And then when Saddam didn’t want to let in US companies to come in and get major contracting jobs building electro-power plants and infrastructure and have access to oil, who decided that he had had enough, and decided to invade his country (Gulf War) only to put him back into power AGAIN because we liked the fact that he led the country under an iron grip and suppressed all religious extremism?
Isn’t it funny that the US supported all of this, and then all of a sudden he becomes a “big bad terrorist”. And to give an excuse for this invasion, the President, well actually Dick Cheney former CEO of Halliburton, great businessman who has “great business experience, just what this country needs”, who stood to give his former firm billions of dollars in contracts, invaded Iraq under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction.
100 years from now, people will be laughing and saying, holy fuck, how did these people really believe their government and not call them out on such bullshit? Well, the words “freedom” and “democracy” and “patriotism” come to mind. In fact, look at how people who stand up against wars are demonized as “unpatriotic”. Very democratic society we have, eh?
Look, it’s clear that you want to see the US as a bringer of “democracy” world wide. As they say, “we’re going to free the SHIT out of you”. There is some cognitive dissonance that people run into here. Either you truly believe in American exceptionalism and believe that we (the US) are the best nation in the world and we not only can but it is our right AND duty to impose this on other countries and consequently view ourselves as superior and at the same time view people in other countries who suffer from these policies as subhuman; OR, you view the US as a player on a world stage that should ultimately strive for cooperation and not topping various Latin American regimes that had popular support (Panama, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Venezuela (tried, succeeded for 72 hours and then failed), Peru, etc, etc) and in the Middle East (just open your daily paper). So, if you view things from the first side, then you don’t have any problems. But, when you think to yourself, well they’re people too, why am I enabling this exploitation, well then cognitive dissonance sets in. Very few people can think one thing and say another and still remain sane. Those kinds of people are politicians and executives at places like oil companies and major investment banks and engineering firms. But even then, most of those people truly believe that they are doing a good thing. It takes a true cynic, or sociopath, to believe one thing and say/act on another consistently.
Is it possible for the US to change (at least right now)? No
Our dependence for oil is unmatched and there is nothing that can ultimately stand in the way of it. I live in the US and am a citizen and reap the benefits of the exploitation of the third world as a result. It is hypocritical for me to condemn the system. However, I am simply stating the reality, which is available to anyone else who decides to look for it.
Here’s an important point:
Looking for the truth and stating it isn’t liberal. There is nothing liberal about that. I truly despise both words liberal and conservative, just like all the bullshit that you hear today like MSM (hint, the media isn’t as liberal as you think, and it doesn’t make you ‘aware’ to state that it is).
Now, concerning the points you made:
- I never said that people are worried about Bush right now. You just want to create a scenario where you believe that I am arguing that Obama and his (perceived) failure is a fault of Bush’s. I mentioned Bush in the context that, Romney, will become a worse President than him.
An ambassador died in a politically volatile nation. It happens, they know the risks. What is a proper response? “Hey, we’re invading guys, common lets go, time to bring democracy”.
Looking at the point the other guy made, that the US goal is the “military industrial complex”, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t even know what that means and heard this words for the first time in his life. That’s not a goal, that’s a system.
The goal is to create regimes in other countries that are sympathetic to the US, who really have no choice but to exploit their local people because the US needs cheap labor or it needs land/resources virtually for free.
Here’s how it works:
- Leaders are set up in other countries
- Leader is met with economic advisors from the US and various companies
- Companies offer proposals for many types of public infrastructure works, damns, electric power plants, roads, etc, that benefit maybe 5% of the population of that country and make the divide between rich/poor exponentially bigger. And of course, that the government does not have money for
- If leader approves, government is helped by the World Bank by establishing a loan
- Said country eventually defaults on loan
- Said country is made to pay with even cheaper prices on their resources, voting on UN resolutions that benefit the US, etc
- Of course, if said leader refuses the loan, political instability is created. New leader is then elected. Or, army is sent in under some pretense of local people suffering (see Saddam Hussein).
Look, here’s the bottom line:
You are very passionate towards this perceived “Republican” cause. You have created this world in your head, and not just you but millions of others, where there are millions of big bad liberals coming to steal all your money in the form of welfare. Here’s a hint: no one likes being on welfare, and the those who abuse it aren’t a reason to eliminate it for those who don’t.
Final thought: The reason I typed out all of this stuff in my previous 3 or 4 posts is to highlight my view that there is literally no way that Romney can handle this situation in a “better” fashion than Obama, which is what you guys have been trying to perpetuate. There won’t be this epiphany, and “the South will rise again” type of shit; what will happen is the Romney gets the US into a war or two, increases military spending SUBSTANTIALLY (as he has clearly said he would), and the US is even more fucked 4 years out. Then the blame is forked over onto Obama, saying he left Romney a “mess to clean up”.
Obama isn’t making economic policies. PhD economists are. Economics can’t really be called a science, more like a collection of weakly (and many largely unsubstantiated) theories. Nothing about Mitt Romney working in PE will be any sort of help or even matter. At all. If you really think that Romney is going to come in and say “Hey guys, don’t worry, I worked for Bain capital and made a shit ton of money, I got this” and then fucking poof, everything is “good” again (whatever that means) then you are delusional.
And before you claim that this isn’t a claim, take another look. Romney hasn’t given ANY definitive economic plan. He’s said a bunch of shit about lowering taxes for the middle class. At least he showed his real idea (whole 47% thing) and then didn’t back down from it. First thing he hasn’t flip flopped on, because if he did goodbye campaign, and all of those people in that room who donated 50k a piece wouldn’t be too happy with their money going down the drain now would they?
The US under Obama or Romney will keep printing money indefinitely. It’s not like there is some major change in economic thought even from economist to economist, MUCH LESS between two parties.
Foreign policy is the major game changer, and Romney has a catastrophic one (from the little we’ve seen already).
I probably just wasted 5 minutes of my time, because arguing with someone (not the post quoted) that will justify Bush as being a good president and blaming the “MSM” as perpetuating the idea that he is bad instead of looking at the fact that he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths will not try and look at the big picture anyways.
Once again, there is nothing liberal with looking at the truth. And there is nothing ‘conservative’ or ‘republican’ when attempting to say “well your president sucks too” or ignoring straight facts.[/quote]
God, but I hate know-it-all 20 somethings.[/quote]
Well in this case, you’re saying you hate top economists and national security advisers who have been through the system and various extremely well educated people. Because I didn’t just give my opinion, or make extrapolations on facts. I restate what people who know much more than me about the issue know and have experienced.
But, nope, they’re “liberals”.
And lol at the repeated attacks on age. If I was 80 and said this, as well as having worked as an economist for a firm who does things such as these, would I then have “respect” in your eyes?
Because if that is the case then there are books that give this view.