Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

Originally Posted by shine

this is america . land of the free . that means you are free to become a millionaire or some deadass living in your truck . your choice. to vote against obama because he is a failure is acceptable even if you dont like romney. but to vote against a man because he is successful is ridiculous . all we can do is read what is out there and even then you have to be careful the source. kennedy was rich but everyone loved him even though he was worse than clinton.
i want a man in office who understands the economy and can lead us out of this hole. increasing welfare and food stamps wont get it done although it did get obama elected. jobs are the answer and the only answer.

by the way china owns only slightly over 8% of our debt.

I here ya!! I'm not saying to vote against Romney because he is successful! I's he really successful or is his Dad successful? did Romney start out with a lemon aid stand, deliver papers,cut grass,put himself thru college or pay off college debt? The question is Romney the Man he's portrait to be? He did not become a millionaire he was born a millionaire!! I believe Japan holds alot of our debt.(China and Japan don't get along at all)could get ugly!! Pete

There is nothing in Romney' or the republican's agenda that understands the working man's life. Or in my case,a retired man's life. The way it goes with them is it sounds like a company who is planning to cancel the pension of workers after yrs of service.
It's been many,many yrs since the Republicans has had anyone good. I mean 10's of yrs.

You can't say Romney understands the economy any better than a president who has served the office for four yrs. With him you can expect the rich to get richer and it stops there. The mess inherited by the current president is going to take more than fours yrs to straighten out. And it is that mess you want to elect??. Well none for me thank you.

While I think about it. Sure, all presidents before a election do go through a lame duck period in every election. But this president has said along the compromises are on the table. There is little doubt who has been holding the people and the country hostage. For that that party should be trialed and convicted of treason. Well at the very least it's leader should. Do we really want to reward the Republicans after what they have done by electing their guy??.

Originally Posted by prpmmp

I here ya!! I'm not saying to vote against Romney because he is successful! I's he really successful or is his Dad successful? did Romney start out with a lemon aid stand, deliver papers,cut grass,put himself thru college or pay off college debt? The question is Romney the Man he's portrait to be? He did not become a millionaire he was born a millionaire!! I believe Japan holds alot of our debt.(China and Japan don't get along at all)could get ugly!! Pete

But you seem to be holding it against him that he inherited wealth. Is Romney the only guy out there who inherited wealth and leveraged that into more success in the business world? I think not! At least he wasn't some Trust Fund Baby who ran around the playboy circuit, squandering his money on who knows what. So the guy got a good grubstake from his family who were successful before him? Why does that matter a whit? Like Shine said well, to vote against a man because he's successful is ridiculous, IMO, and you seem to agree on that point.

I do think that we need to remember as we post anywhere in this forum that we do have the occasional grandson/granddaughter/niece/nephew that may wander in while visiting, and we need to be careful that we don't let the passions of our "discussions" drive the language we use, or the statements we make. We used to say "Keep it PG13", but after the language in some of the recent PG13 movies I'm not sure that's right!! In short, just like in every other post we need to watch our language and tone, and consider that ladies and children may be reading what we write. Just my $0.02.

Hey!! Yes PG!! Not saying not to vote against because he is rich(they all are) Could he have been successful without all the money to start? He is really good at business or is it the people he hangs around with? What I think you are missing is who he is! Shine you above all should see this(you started a business and work hard and the wife work hard) what if your business did well(making money,good employees, the hole deal,)then Romney(corporations) open up shop down the street from you,you can't compete and close up(Thats America)When I moved here 20 some years ago 3 privately owned hardware stores were in business for 60 years plus within 10 mile radius. Home depot opened then Lowes,three hardware stores closed! Thats Romney thats corporate America all legal but sucks for people who put their heart and sole in there business!! Republicans and not small business friendly!! Pete

i compete every day but what i do not want is the idiot in office taking money from my family and redistributing it to some lazy clown who will not work. and that is exactly the agenda on the table in washington. . romney made his own . he did not inherit all his money. and by the way if the democrats get their way your kids will lose 55% of what you leave them. is that right ? you work all your life to build a future for your kids and the gov takes half of it away. i would suggest people read up on the new tax structure coming. it will drive more people to set on money rather than invest in new business . if given the choice of paying 14% on investment dividends or 39% of profit in a business which would you choose ? why would you invest and create new jobs ?

Originally Posted by 1gary

There is nothing in Romney' or the republican's agenda that understands the working man's life. Or in my case,a retired man's life. The way it goes with them is it sounds like a company who is planning to cancel the pension of workers after yrs of service.
It's been many,many yrs since the Republicans has had anyone good. I mean 10's of yrs.

You can't say Romney understands the economy any better than a president who has served the office for four yrs. With him you can expect the rich to get richer and it stops there. The mess inherited by the current president is going to take more than fours yrs to straighten out. And it is that mess you want to elect??. Well none for me thank you.

While I think about it. Sure, all presidents before a election do go through a lame duck period in every election. But this president has said along the compromises are on the table. There is little doubt who has been holding the people and the country hostage. For that that party should be trialed and convicted of treason. Well at the very least it's leader should. Do we really want to reward the Republicans after what they have done by electing their guy??.

Your watching too much TV. President lies every day about what the GOP does. Yes they are signing ridiculous laws that change, street names and such, but their doing it because the cards on the table from the democrats is down right scary. They did the same with the health care law, but back then, Dems had power enough to use the filibuster.. Actually go to Mitt Romney for President | Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America in 2012 and read thru his policies

Originally Posted by prpmmp

There is way to much money out there,yes its capitalism and you worked hard for it but come on what is better one person to win 100 million or 100 people to win a million each? A hundred millionaires would spend more of that money to keep the economy moving rather than one person with 100 in the bank. Pete

The real answer to your question as stated is NEITHER. I've gone over the discussion of what money is several times so won't do the long version again, but the synopsis is...........money has no intrinsic value, it only represents the value created by an exchange between two or more willing partners in trade. To say that "...there is too much money out there....." in the context you constructed is to imply that money itself is the value rather than a representation, or IOU if you will. That's where a lot of folks go wrong and why we elect economic morons who either believe the same thing, or tell lies to support the uninformed view. If money had intrinsic value then printing a second dollar bill would double wealth. In reality, printing a second dollar bill cuts the underlying value of both bills in half...........one of the causes of inflation, and why current Federal Reserve policy is very dangerous.

The second implied error in your construct is that "...putting money in the bank...." is less valuable than spending it. Perhaps you're confusing a bank with a mattress. When money is put in the hands of bankers they put that money to work by lending it to creative/reliable people who in tern increase it's value. It's a part of the mecahnism that grows a successful economy and leads to higher worth societies. In reality, if the money (or actually the underlying earned value it represents) it redistributed to someone who gave no value in exchange then that underlying value is diminished, even if that someone spends it. By redistributing value without a willingly agreed to exchange of mutual value you shrink an economy. That's the insidious nature of wellfare, it devalues an economy as well as the individual. That errosion is very slight, moves very slowly, which is why so many don't see it, but decline occurs. That's why Europe is in such trouble today, and why every society in history that's tried to be redistributionist has ultimately failed. All of this goes to the old parable "if you give a man a fish you feed him once, if you teach him to fish you feed him for life." This is not to denegrate charity (which is one of the more honorable human traits), but extorting money for political advantage by redistributing it to ultimately buy votes is not charity....................it's theft.

BTW, Mitt Romney gave all of the money he inherited from his parents to charity. If you're unaware of that then you're not getting your info from a reliable source. That's not to say he didn't have advantage in having a good education provided by a well to do family, but as others have said in different ways, he didn't just sit on his butt, he did something with that education. You're free to disagree with how he applied his learning, but to criticize it as unearned is typical leftist slander.

As for that insane notion that "....so and so doesn't understand the working man's plight.....(or whatever version is spewed)" that's pure, unadulterated BS. If you're going to try that game be prepared to point out what in Pres. Obama's life qualified him for that. He too was raised in a life of privelege (different perhaps than that of Romney, but still priveleged).............so in saying that Romney is disqualifed for that reason, so too is Obama....................just a silly, silly notion.............

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

The real answer to your question as stated is NEITHER. I've gone over the discussion of what money is several times so won't do the long version again, but the synopsis is...........money has no intrinsic value, it only represents the value created by an exchange between two or more willing partners in trade. To say that "...there is too much money out there....." in the context you constructed is to imply that money itself is the value rather than a representation, or IOU if you will. That's where a lot of folks go wrong and why we elect economic morons who either believe the same thing, or tell lies to support the uninformed view. If money had intrinsic value then printing a second dollar bill would double wealth. In reality, printing a second dollar bill cuts the underlying value of both bills in half...........one of the causes of inflation, and why current Federal Reserve policy is very dangerous.

The second implied error in your construct is that "...putting money in the bank...." is less valuable than spending it. Perhaps you're confusing a bank with a mattress. When money is put in the hands of bankers they put that money to work by lending it to creative/reliable people who in tern increase it's value. It's a part of the mecahnism that grows a successful economy and leads to higher worth societies. In reality, if the money (or actually the underlying earned value it represents) it redistributed to someone who gave no value in exchange then that underlying value is diminished, even if that someone spends it. By redistributing value without a willingly agreed to exchange of mutual value you shrink an economy. That's the insidious nature of wellfare, it devalues an economy as well as the individual. That errosion is very slight, moves very slowly, which is why so many don't see it, but decline occurs. That's why Europe is in such trouble today, and why every society in history that's tried to be redistributionist has ultimately failed. All of this goes to the old parable "if you give a man a fish you feed him once, if you teach him to fish you feed him for life." This is not to denegrate charity (which is one of the more honorable human traits), but extorting money for political advantage by redistributing it to ultimately buy votes is not charity....................it's theft.

BTW, Mitt Romney gave all of the money he inherited from his parents to charity. If you're unaware of that then you're not getting your info from a reliable source. That's not to say he didn't have advantage in having a good education provided by a well to do family, but as others have said in different ways, he didn't just sit on his butt, he did something with that education. You're free to disagree with how he applied his learning, but to criticize it as unearned is typical leftist slander.

As for that insane notion that "....so and so doesn't understand the working man's plight.....(or whatever version is spewed)" that's pure, unadulterated BS. If you're going to try that game be prepared to point out what in Pres. Obama's life qualified him for that. He too was raised in a life of privelege (different perhaps than that of Romney, but still priveleged).............so in saying that Romney is disqualifed for that reason, so too is Obama....................just a silly, silly notion.............

Yeah Rush er Bob your right!! Physco Babble always works!! The money I;m talking about is what a person earns working then spending it to survive(not your 5 guys playing poker with the worlds wealth and when one wins it all he gets to loan it back the the other four just to keep playing!!)you can call it anything you want but people need it to survive!!I never said I was pro Obama!! I was asking what does Romney have to offer and is he the man!! So he gave it to Charity!! Pocket change!! Pete

Bob-the same theory people try to apply to Obama because he is a lawyer and therefore doesn't understand the economy vs Romney who is a businessman.You don't go through 4 yrs of being in the office of president and being surrounded by the best and brightest and not have anything rub off on you to know about the economy.

It is a rare commodity to be able to speak to a president of a company in one moment and the next moment be able to speak to that companies workers and understand both. Obama has that talent and Romney has to have a adviser close by so he doesn't screw up. The most recent tape of his real views is telling. The fact is he would treat me,a retired person, like a employee of his that he is trying to be rid of's pension.

History is truth.The Republicans hasn't had anyone good in that office for 10's of yrs and given Romney's background or lack there of,change for the sake of change,is just bad logic.

There is one other thing to consider about Obama. He showed great courage, that most Presidents haven't had, at high aleast political risk,sending in the Seal Team like he did. Why??. He was representing all the American people.

Yet now,he is showing great restraint with the recent killing,not to get us snarled into another war. That defines leadership.

He is not a laywer, never was never has been, need to check the facts.

Originally Posted by prpmmp

yeah rush er bob your right!! Physco babble always works!! The money i;m talking about is what a person earns working then spending it to survive(not your 5 guys playing poker with the worlds wealth and when one wins it all he gets to loan it back the the other four just to keep playing!!)you can call it anything you want but people need it to survive!!i never said i was pro obama!! I was asking what does romney have to offer and is he the man!! So he gave it to charity!! Pocket change!! Pete

... :lol::lol::lol: ....

Originally Posted by rspears

I do think that we need to remember as we post anywhere in this forum that we do have the occasional grandson/granddaughter/niece/nephew that may wander in while visiting, and we need to be careful that we don't let the passions of our "discussions" drive the language we use, or the statements we make. We used to say "Keep it PG13", but after the language in some of the recent PG13 movies I'm not sure that's right!! In short, just like in every other post we need to watch our language and tone, and consider that ladies and children may be reading what we write. Just my $0.02.

It's not that I disagree with this point in chief. But Roger you seem to be consistently involved in off topic self serving posts. Last I knew there is one Admin and one Mod neither of which you are.So if you take um-bridge with a post,do like you always do and report it. Just like this post I felt I needed to get dragged into. Why am I posting this on the open forum??. Well I do think this was needed to be brought to the forefront. Roger,do think about what I am saying and reflect back on it. One other thing Roger.You do,like on this thread until now,get mad and take you bat and ball and leave the thread. Sure wish you would stop doing that. Your a member of this family as a member like the rest of us..............

Thanks,

Gary

You where right Roger about this topic on here. I originally said politics on a forum like this had no place,but now 62 pages long makes me wrong in my opinion. I'm saying that even through you titled the thread to take a swipe at me.

Originally Posted by 1gary

There is one other thing to consider about Obama. He showed great courage, that most Presidents haven't had, at high aleast political risk,sending in the Seal Team like he did. Why??. He was representing all the American people.

Yet now,he is showing great restraint with the recent killing,not to get us snarled into another war. That defines leadership.

One of the first things this dunderhead did when he took office was to remove the American flag from the tail of Air Force 1. That's all I need to know about him. Remember the early days of his press conferences? Not one American flag behind him, only some stupid "change" flags. Remember his refusal to wear an American flag pin on his lapel like everyone else? I think we're seeing him more frequently in rolled-up shirt sleeves so that he doesn't have to wear that pin. He looks to me more like a lower-management guy than the President of the United States.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want some non-American in the Oval Office. This man hates America. His frumpy wife hates America. He is not my president. She is not my first lady. These people are all about CHANGING AMERICA. I don't think America needs changing. The founding fathers set it up to work for everyone, but these guys want to take us back to unarmed serfdom. You guys who haven't read the Obamacare legislation really should take the time to educate yourselves. The disarming of American citizens is in there. Is that what you want? You want to be standin' there with nothing in your hand when the troops bust down your front door to search your home? Well, just keep votin' for those Democrats and that's where it's headed. Big money wants you to be a fully-controlled serf with no rights and no way to fight back. All of these candidates have to take the "One World Government" pledge or they wouldn't get the backing and support to become elected.

This guy makes Harry Truman look like a Republican.

I am of the opinion that neither of them should be President. What would be best for the Republic would be the election of all new and fresh patriot independents in the Oval Office and in Congress. Anything this side of that scenario will be unacceptable to me.

his goal has been to disarm us from day one. tech , i agree with you 100% . but at the moment getting rid of obama is job one. i would vote for george wallace over obama. anyone , i voted mcain in 08. i would vote for anything other than obama and take my chances.