View Full Version : Romney's a socialist?
Gargamel
07-31-12, 06:38 PM
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=LhpQnUn5
Romney was in Poland this week, touting their economic growth, saying its akin to a republican dream. *
According to the article, Poland:
- subsidizes childbirth
- has free tuition
- has free healthcare.*
- uses heavy government subsidies (from the eu)
Sounds pretty socialist to me.*
If this trip is supposed to show his ability to handle foreign policy, I think I'd rather have palin.*
At least she could see Russia.*
I think the only thing this whole foreign trip showed is that Romney is really dumb and unable to communicate effectively without constantly offending people in the host countries. The only thing he can do is play up his position to the domestic audience, but IMO he's consistently been rude and divisive in all three of his destinations. I'm almost relieved that he's as much of an idiot when it comes to handling foreign relations diplomatically as I feared he was.
Sorry, but at least Barry H.O. knows how to speak without running his mouth at everything he doesn't understand, and getting most of everybody outside the continental US angry at him. In the globalized society that we live in, you really need a leader who can not only represent American interests, but also respect others' and be able to participate in talks in a way that's forthcoming and balanced. All Romney's even tried to do on this trip was to score points with his key electorate, pump up his own apparent good qualities (arrogance and inability to meaningfully compromise apparently among them), and shamelessly raise funds with powerful lobby groups. And the best he could do with actual political leaders whom he doesn't see eye-to-eye with is just bluff and fake his way through. Ugh. Bad show. I hope he pays for it with moderate votes that he doesn't get.
Romney is not the first American politician to go overseas and laud the "socialist" aspects of a foreign country and he won't be the last. What is now interesting is now he is now blaming the press coverage for his woes overseas. This after he exerted so much time, energy and expense to get the press to notice what a "statesman" he is; you see, the media was paying so much attention to him when they should have been foucused on the state of the US economy:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94fc79c4-db30-11e1-a33a-00144feab49a.html#axzz22FUPZZTa
There was an admonition about not being able to stand the heat and staying out of kitchens (from a person with a rather unique viewpoint, right Mr. Truman?). Romney and his handlers are making him into the latest version of the man behind the curtain in Oz: "Don't look at me, look at the image on the screen!" Actually, I have grown very, very weary and wary of all the life-size cardboard cutouts that seem to populate American politics on all sides of the political spetrum...
...
I agree Romney missed several opportunities to shine but the fact is nobody here really cares about that right now given the domestic situation. I'm surprised he even made the trip. The Dems will try to make a big deal about his supposed gaffes (anything but run on the presidents record) but I think it won't change anyone's mind either way.
Hey, at least he didn't try to hug the queen... :)
I'm surprised he even made the trip.
He did it because he and his handlers aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer...
...
He did it because he and his handlers aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer...
...
I agree with that. Everyone knows that the foreign press is hostile to a republican more than even the domestic media. Just look at every article they've published about the Repubs since the Eisenhower administration. If you could pick out 50 positive ones out of the many thousands i'd be very surprised.
You don't walk into that lions den and make glib comments. That's just asking for it and he did it three times!
But will it matter over here? I don't think so. It doesn't seem to be making a big splash in my neck of the woods which is about as blue as it gets.
Romney is further proof that the upper ranks of the GOP have lost touch with the current America. I think they need to have a hard reboot and try again seriously for 2016.
I agree Romney missed several opportunities to shine but the fact is nobody here really cares about that right now given the domestic situation. I'm surprised he even made the trip. The Dems will try to make a big deal about his supposed gaffes (anything but run on the presidents record) but I think it won't change anyone's mind either way.
Hey, at least he didn't try to hug the queen... :)
To be fair on the guy, he just said what most Brits had been saying for the past seven years! It's just he doesn't get the British custom that it's only US that can bash ourselves, no-one else is allowed. Self-deprication doesn't work when someone else does it for you! :O:
To be fair on the guy, he just said what most Brits had been saying for the past seven years! It's just he doesn't get the British custom that it's only US that can bash ourselves, no-one else is allowed. Self-deprication doesn't work when someone else does it for you! :O:
Exactly. We're like that too and that's why I think he should have known better.
In all fairness, I can't say I like Barry O's stance on foreign policy. He has proven himself to be a disingenuous backstabber and opportunist in foreign affairs. But he is way and above more diplomatic, capable of compromise, and heck - understanding and adapting to situations - than Romney is. In the meantime, what Romney showed on this trip, aside from bad manners, is his utter inability to even understand something as basic as Israel-Palestine (all I got from his comments on Palestine is that he knows NOTHING about Palestine other than what he learned in church - and I say that as someone highly unsympathetic to the PLO) or US-Russia, or US-Europe, or US-UK relations (I mean really? These should international politics 101 for anybody in office in the US...)
Obama is a politician, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word, but I have to give him some due as someone who is capable of navigating international diplomacy. Does he deserve the presidency for that? No, not really. Anything I say about Romney shouldn't be interpreted as a tacit approval of the other side. But Romney, who is also a politician in every bad sense of the world, also happens to be grossly incompetent as a diplomat. IMO that should be a disqualifier from presidency right there. He needs to change his tack and/or change his advisors, and quickly, otherwise he is rapidly going to lose support among moderates and I dare say even some neocons, because these groups generally care about foreign relations a lot. That, on top of the fact that the social conservatives are still shaky on him, does not bode well for him. All the campaign funds in the world can't hide the level of diplomatic incompetence he's shown so far.
The US needs soming who is willing to recognise the country is broke and give Government programs a massive haircut, from military spending to welfare. And Someone who will tell the banks where to get off next time they come crying for a bailout.
Niether Romney or Obama is this person, which one 'wins' is totally irrelivent - they will both lead America in the same direction... the wrong one. :nope:
A few gaffes by Romeny isnt even news, it just more pre-election petty partisan garbage..
nikimcbee
08-01-12, 02:50 AM
Sorry, but at least Barry H.O. knows how to speak without running his mouth
I totally disagree. Turn off the teleprompter and he's not so sharp.
nikimcbee
08-01-12, 02:52 AM
The US needs soming who is willing to recognise the country is broke and give Government programs a massive haircut, from military spending to welfare. And Someone who will tell the banks where to get off next time they come crying for a bailout.
Niether Romney or Obama is this person, which one 'wins' is totally irrelivent - they will both lead America in the same direction... the wrong one. :nope:
A few gaffes by Romeny isnt even news, it just more pre-election petty partisan garbage..
You sir, are spot on.:salute:
Oh, I agree with that entirely, as I said already. I'm just commenting on foreign policy specifically. I think on the big issues at home, both of them are stuck, with Obama probably being even more of a lame duck than Romney. But abroad, teleprompter or not, Obama at the very least seems to have better advisors, if nothing else, and did in fact court some positive diplomacy before he was even elected. What he did with it is another story, of course. But most of what I've been reading on this Romney trip has been foreign press rather than the US, and he's really tanked with them so far. He doesn't understand the Israel-Palestine problem, which like it or not, is gonna hang over practically the whole world and especially the Middle East for the near future. He has trouble understanding the UK, your biggest ally. And he has a poor grasp of recent history and key issues facing Europe, as shown by Europe. His staff have also behaved themselves poorly and made several irresponsible remarks on this trip, and haven't added to good publicity. Add to that his history of remarks on Russia and China, the "enemy" etc.
If I had to give Romney marks so far, he'd get an F from me on Israel/Palestine and therefore Middle East issues in general, an F on Russia, a D on China and Europe, and maybe a C on Britain. On most of those, what I've heard from Obama scores at least a B-, though his actual performance on most of these has been worse than that. The Obama administration's actual response to the situation in the Middle East has been especially pathetic, indecisive, inconsistent, often illegal and ultimately playing into the hands of forces that really, really dislike the US. Shockingly though, if Romney's remarks are anything to go by, I see him doing even worse on this front.
Romney just needs better advisors on foreign relations. If he keeps on this way, nobody who believes that the world outside the US borders matters will be able to take him seriously.
nikimcbee
08-01-12, 03:34 AM
Bah, it's all pre-election huffing and puffing.
Romney showed on this trip, aside from bad manners, is his utter inability to even understand something as basic as Israel-Palestine (all I got from his comments on Palestine is that he knows NOTHING about Palestine other than what he learned in church - and I say that as someone highly unsympathetic to the PLO
So where did you do your learning?
You seem to have great confidence in your assumed understanding of the conflict.
:haha:
Any way...the guy(Romney)don't impress very much either way.
I know it's rather a Romney-orientened discussion but to straighten some things out:
According to the article, Poland:
- subsidizes childbirth
the average salary in Poland is around 3500 PLN (around 1000$) which gives more or less 2400 PLN after the taxes (700$). The minimum wage is 1200 PLN (350$). For every born child you get almost exactly the same - around 1000 PLN. If you compare it to any other central and western-Europe standards, it's barely a subsidization. It's rather charity.
- has free tuition It's too complicated to argue with it here, but let's say it's true.
- has free healthcare.*
not true at all. If you are employed you pay an obligatory contribution for your health insurance. If you pay it, you get a document (or like in my district a chip card) which proves that you pay the contributions. If you visit a doctor, you have to show the document/card. You won't get any help without it. I'm unemployed and my father's contribution is higher bcoz of that.
- uses heavy government subsidies (from the eu)
true. However, 2012 is the last year when Poland will get more than it PAYS for the EU. (you can check for any of Skybird's whining posts saying that "Germany has to pay for everyone". It's true in the case of Poland, but as I said - starting the next year we will get less and less, and we will have to pay more and more. That's how the EU is organized, I guess...
Sounds pretty socialist to me.*
yes.
if only it was true :har:
In general, the part of article concerning Poland is 50% crap and 50% a fairy-tale.
For Poles (and it was confirmed by some Americanist Professors) Romney's visit was another "thanks for Pulaski and Iraq".
I don't assume that I have easy answers - noone does, but I have no issue saying what I said there. He doesn't understand the first thing about the Palestinian "state", life within it, the way it works (or doesn't), the reasons for it, or the relation this problem has to other problems in the region. You do not deal with a two-sided issue by giving one side a blank cheque (as he seems to have done both on the issue of Palestine and the issue of Iran). I don't believe for one second that he actually means a blank cheque at all, but his remarks were irresponsible. His comments on the Palestinians that were trumpeted by various media outlets as being racist? Well, they were darn close. They weren't so much racist as they were uninformed, condescending and disingenuous. He has no problem writing off Palestinian economic, social and political problems to assumed cultural and ideological inferiority, in spite of the fact that there are some very concrete obstacles to the infrastructure of that "state" in terms of both economics and politics put up by you-know-who. All I read behind these comments is that Romney doesn't believe in a Palestinian state, or the Palestinians; he equates Israel to a god-given biblical entity; and he does not want to look at it from any other perspective. And he's willing to let Israel call the shots at will in a region that is already massively destabilized by recent events. His basis for this is poor understanding. He couldn't get basic economic facts right. He couldn't even acknowledge some of the key claims made by one side. This is not a responsible way to go about anything.
It goes without saying that to the current Israeli government, he's a godsend. Or at least he talks like one. Of course the "blank cheque" is more like an invitation for conservative pro-Israeli groups to give him a few to fund his rather cynical campaign. I know that he won't actually be a godsend to Israel at all, but he'll act like one in situations where, in my view, it's completely irresponsible to.
This doesn't require special understanding. And if you want my personal stake in this, I have close personal connections and family in Israel and yet I have no issue of taking things on balance. Please don't hold this whole "you're not there, you don't get it" thing over me. You seem to have an awful lot of confidence in your right to start :haha: ing at every mention of Israel by someone who doesn't live there.
This doesn't require special understanding. And if you want my personal stake in this, I have close personal connections and family in Israel and yet I have no issue of taking things on balance. Please don't hold this whole "you're not there, you don't get it" thing over me. You seem to have an awful lot of confidence in your right to start :haha: ing at every mention of Israel by someone who doesn't live there.
Fair enough but....what is balanced view may vary a lot.:haha:
I'm not fan of those biblical lovers of Israel myself yet i would probably disagree with you about lots of issues regarding Palestinian Israeli conflict.
Bottom line is that West Bank without European money heavily invested in infrastructure and government would quickly fall apart as independent state...the investments in infrastructure is what actually keeps Palestinians afloat.
Israeli presence in WB also creates a lot of jobs as well.
As for now living standards they are much better than most non oil ME states...
Gaza is lost case....
Palestinians had opportunity for their own state on 97% of west bank territory...and they missed it on few occasions when Israeli government and public opinion was in favor of that...now lets wait for second coming lol.
.............
Any way Romney....
Respenus
08-01-12, 07:42 AM
true. However, 2012 is the last year when Poland will get more than it PAYS for the EU. (you can check for any of Skybird's whining posts saying that "Germany has to pay for everyone". It's true in the case of Poland, but as I said - starting the next year we will get less and less, and we will have to pay more and more. That's how the EU is organized, I guess...
I also apologise for kidnapping the thread, but I cannot believe that Poland, who is currently the biggest net recipient (in absolute terms, data found in this Deutsche Bank report) (http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000273546.pdf), will in the span of one year become a net payer. As to why, there are several things we should look at.
First of all, you need to know about the different sources of the EU budget, with the biggest one today being the GNP resource (now the GNI resource). This is also a marginal resource, meaning that the EU budget is topped up by EU member states to the limits set out by the multianual financial framework (the EU budget is capped, meaning that it cannot spend more than the member states decided to attribute to it). The share of this resource is determined by the GNI of the particular member state in relation to the EU27 GNI. I cannot find right now what the percentage is, but in relation to what follows cannot be bigger than what you receive.
Poland receives both structural and cohesion funds. Structural funds are given to an administrative unit called NUTS 2. Regions that have a GDP lower than 75% of EU-25 average are eligible to receive aid under the Convergence objective of the Regional policy and from both the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the Cohesion fund. According to the latest data I could find (from 2008, found here (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Gross_domestic_product_%28GDP %29_per_inhabitant,_in_purchasing_power_standard_% 28PPS%29,_by_NUTS_2.PNG&filetimestamp=20111020141821)) the majority of Poland's NUTS2 region were below 50% average, a tad less than half were in the 50-75% range and only one region was between 75 and 100%, meaning that it was not eligible for structural funds. Even with the growth of Polish economy, the majority of your regions will remain eligible for some time to come.
Secondly, we must look at the Cohesion fund, whose funds are disbursed on a state level. For member states to be eligible, they must have an average EU25 GDP below 90%. As seen in this Eurostat table (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114), in 2011 Poland stood at 65% EU27 average (meaning that it is slightly higher when calculating with the EU25 average, but not enough to prevent you from getting funds). All of this together means that Poland can still draw sufficient monies from the EU regional policy and that in my opinion means that it will be a while before you'll be forced to pay more than you get (although that would be a good day for Poland, as it would mean that you have achieved a high level of development).
To cap it all up, for Skybird or anyone else, the debate around net payers and receivers is a very complex one and cannot be looked at merely from an accounting point of view, as money moves around freely in Europe and often comes back to the major exporters and highly developed states (we have to buy our machinery from somewhere, don't we?). I hope this helped clear the subject a bit.
Now back to Romney!
Romney is a Socialist anyway, if you vote for Bank bail outs like he did - you are a socialist. Simple as that.
Bailouts are about as captialist as 'collective farming'.
Sailor Steve
08-01-12, 09:39 AM
if you vote for Bank bail outs like he did
Romney supported the bailouts and is on record saying he would support more, but since he was never a member of the U.S. Congress he did not and could not vote for anything.
Nit-picking to a point, I admit, and I don't like him at all, but fair is fair.
Romney supported the bailouts and is on record saying he would support more, but since he was never a member of the U.S. Congress he did not and could not vote for anything.
Nit-picking to a point, I admit, and I don't like him at all, but fair is fair.
Oh sorry, (ahem) that then^
Armistead
08-01-12, 11:05 AM
I cringe at Romney, he may be dumber than Bush. It seems the GOP doesn't care what they put up for office. Romney comes across as an spoiled elitist, out of touch with the middle class. I don't want to vote for BHO either, again, hold my nose when I vote or just stay at home.
Sailor Steve
08-01-12, 11:07 AM
hold my nose when I vote or just stay at home.
Write in who you want.
I cringe at Romney, he may be dumber than Bush. It seems the GOP doesn't care what they put up for office. Romney comes across as an spoiled elitist, out of touch with the middle class. I don't want to vote for BHO either, again, hold my nose when I vote or just stay at home.
Hes just another 'yes' man thats all. You should still vote, maybe just dont vote for D or R. Every third party vote tells D & R they need to sort themselves out.
Write in who you want.
Or do what I'm going to do in our next elections, draw a big unhappy face on the ballot paper :yep:
Takeda Shingen
08-01-12, 11:40 AM
Or do what I'm going to do in our next elections, draw a big unhappy face on the ballot paper :yep:
If we only used paper ballots in Pennsylvania, I would now find myself with impetus to vote.
Ducimus
08-01-12, 11:57 AM
I cringe at Romney, he may be dumber than Bush. It seems the GOP doesn't care what they put up for office. Romney comes across as an spoiled elitist, out of touch with the middle class. I don't want to vote for BHO either, again, hold my nose when I vote or just stay at home.
Everything ive read, leads me to believe he's the upper class spokesman. The representative of the "upper 1%", with only their interests at heart. One article in particular that i read on CNN put me off to him. If i could remember it i'd link it but it was a few weeks ago. Everything about the guy gives me the impression of someone who's a financial crook. Regardless of anything I may have read, I've always thought there was just something shady about the guy, i'm not sure what it is, but i'm pretty sure I don't like it.
Platapus
08-01-12, 05:05 PM
So how many people here really and truly believe that Romney is the best candidate for President or is it a case of "anyone but Obama"?
My company is full o' conservatives and we talk politics often. I have not met anyone at work who really and truly prefers Romney. But almost all of them will vote for Romney as a way of unseating Obama.
Ducimus
08-01-12, 05:23 PM
Romney in the white house, is like wall street in the white house. The bankers will directly have their man in charge, instead of having someone on the take. Should Romney win, it will be interesting watching things go from worse to horrific. As for Obama, I'm not sure what I think of him, aside from perhaps being the lesser evil. Either way though, special interests will have their way, the difference will be in a matter of degree.
Skybird
08-01-12, 05:45 PM
Anthrax or Ebola - pick you poison. Go voting, die proud!
Anthrax or Ebola - pick you poison. Go voting, die proud!
No we won't die. We'll survive either Obama or Romney. You can bet on it. :yep:
Ducimus
08-01-12, 06:39 PM
Anthrax or Ebola - pick you poison. Go voting, die proud!
That being the case, stepping into the voting booth is like stepping into a gas chamber. To that I say, No thanks, been there, done that. I'll pass. It's irritating, and your never happy with the result.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b-9LDv1fHf8/TgmOANXLH8I/AAAAAAAAAIs/Hpe7AFp0HHw/s1600/2-3-08a.jpg
Armistead
08-01-12, 07:58 PM
Everything ive read, leads me to believe he's the upper class spokesman. The representative of the "upper 1%", with only their interests at heart. One article in particular that i read on CNN put me off to him. If i could remember it i'd link it but it was a few weeks ago. Everything about the guy gives me the impression of someone who's a financial crook. Regardless of anything I may have read, I've always thought there was just something shady about the guy, i'm not sure what it is, but i'm pretty sure I don't like it.
If your hair is over your ears and you pay $400 for a haircut, that tells me all I need to know about him.
kraznyi_oktjabr
08-01-12, 11:50 PM
If your hair is over your ears and you pay $400 for a haircut, that tells me all I need to know about him.:o What other services that "haircut" included? I paid worth of about $25 last time and that was not cheapest in town.
Onkel Neal
08-02-12, 12:43 AM
Romney in the white house, is like wall street in the white house. The bankers will directly have their man in charge, instead of having someone on the take. Should Romney win, it will be interesting watching things go from worse to horrific. As for Obama, I'm not sure what I think of him, aside from perhaps being the lesser evil. Either way though, special interests will have their way, the difference will be in a matter of degree.
I think the only thing this whole foreign trip showed is that Romney is really dumb and unable to communicate effectively without constantly offending people in the host countries. The only thing he can do is play up his position to the domestic audience, but IMO he's consistently been rude and divisive in all three of his destinations. I'm almost relieved that he's as much of an idiot when it comes to handling foreign relations diplomatically as I feared he was.
Sorry, but at least Barry H.O. knows how to speak without running his mouth at everything he doesn't understand, and getting most of everybody outside the continental US angry at him. In the globalized society that we live in, you really need a leader who can not only represent American interests, but also respect others' and be able to participate in talks in a way that's forthcoming and balanced. All Romney's even tried to do on this trip was to score points with his key electorate, pump up his own apparent good qualities (arrogance and inability to meaningfully compromise apparently among them), and shamelessly raise funds with powerful lobby groups. And the best he could do with actual political leaders whom he doesn't see eye-to-eye with is just bluff and fake his way through. Ugh. Bad show. I hope he pays for it with moderate votes that he doesn't get.
Lol, as long as the teleprompter doesn't shut down, Barry is a whiz. :haha:
Thanks for pushing me closer to the Romney camp :know:
I love Subsim. Democrat John Edwards was the one who paid $400 bucks for a haircut, not Romney. But lets not let that stand in the way of a good Republican slam during election year... :yep:
Onkel Neal
08-02-12, 09:11 AM
Ahem, you could have phrased that more accurately. "I love politcal discussions", for example. Subsim has nothing to do with ill-formed opinions, which can be found everywhere. :shifty:
:arrgh!:
Ahem, you could have phrased that more accurately. "I love politcal discussions", for example. Subsim has nothing to do with ill-formed opinions, which can be found everywhere. :shifty:
:arrgh!:
Sorry. All I meant was here is where I read them most often.
Penguin
08-02-12, 10:51 AM
But lets not let that stand in the way of a good Republican slam during election year... :yep:
Slamming Republicans shouldn't be restricted to election years. :D
Slamming Republicans shouldn't be restricted to election years. :D
True dat!
Ducimus
08-02-12, 11:04 AM
Slamming Republicans shouldn't be restricted to election years. :D
Ill be honest. I sort of route for the democrats, ONLY because when the democrats get their way, it pisses off the republicans, which results in them shoveling more hypocrisy, more rhetoric, and more emotionally charged dribble. They are both sad, and pathetic. Do i honestly believe in the democrats? Do I really want the democrats to win? No, i don't.
However, the republicans are so far gone, so far from reason, so bought out, so full of manure , its hard to feel anything for them except contempt. For me, its a case of "anyone but the republicans". The republican party this day and age is an utter joke. (EDIT: Obligatory related link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6jeNp9IagQ) ) It is not the same party I registered under many years ago.
If I had my way, both parties would be disolved and people would get offices based on their own merit, and not what their party affliliation is. The way it is now, party comes before country when it's supposed to be the other way around.
If I had my way, both parties would be disolved and people would get offices based on their own merit, and not what their party affliliation is. The way it is now, party comes before country when it's supposed to be the other way around.
This. (Well with the added opinion of Planet and Humanity before country)
These days politics has just become a crappy sports event. (Well I consider all sports to be crappy) The media just rakes in the cash playing each side against each other and you get a bunch of annoying fanboys out of it all. Nothing ever gets done (Except what the big corporations pay to get done) and the sides get more and more polarized to the point of the parties rejecting even their own ideas if the other party says it.
Party: "I vote we raise taxes by 1% to help raise money!"
Other party: "NO YOUR PARTY IS BAD"
-later-
Other party: "I vote we raise money by increasing taxes by 1%!"
Party: "NO YOUR PARTY IS BAD"
OP: Romney's a socialist?
Answer: No.
But is he a Christian?
Let us start with the question of wealth. Far from emphasizing the importance of wealth-creation, Jesus repeatedly told his followers to forsake it; that it would get in the way of their relationship with God (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206:24&version=ASV). His advice to a wealthy would-be disciple? Sell all you have and give it to the poor (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2018:22&version=ASV). And give it to the poor! No sign here that he thought of the poor as being to blame for their own predicament, people to be frowned on, people who did not deserve to have their well-being taken into account. Suppose Jesus really were alive today. Would he despise the poor? Ignore their needs? Begrudge their miserable welfare hand-outs? Cheer at the idea of letting the uninsured die of disease (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/tea-party-audience-cheers-letting-the-uninsured-die/)?
When did the Jesus of the Gospels ever proclaim that the poor and sick and unfortunate do not deserve your compassion? That you are not your brother’s keeper (http://www.answers.com/topic/am-i-my-brother-s-keeper)? That paying tax is an abomination (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2012:13-17&version=ASV)?
The Gospels show us a man who shunned the respectable, reaching out instead to the poor and weak (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2018:10-14&version=ASV), seeking out society’s rejects (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%205:30&version=ASV) and publicly aligning himself with them. Would the Jesus who healed abundantly (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2012:15&version=ASV) have been outraged at the idea of “Obamacare”? At the suggestion that he should put his hand in his pocket to help ensure the poorest in the wealthiest nation on Earth did not have to live in fear of illness?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/how-would-jesus-vote/2012/08/03/4333312a-ddc2-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_blog.html
Maybe a 'christian', but not a follower of Jesus.
Catfish
08-05-12, 05:15 AM
Hehe i am sure America (well the northern part of it - no i do not mean Canada - lol how do i get out of that ?) will survive worse case scenarios than Romney, or Obama. The thing is during election all politicians often behave like idi*ts (also of course being depicted by right/left/whatever media as such), it really is no proof of their real capacity.
I do not think that Romney can put an end to that "crisis" though, because frankly politicians do not have much to do with it anyway, let alone having the power to stop it.
In hindsight you say "this and that politician changed this and that blahhistoryblah" but in the moment all is happening no one has an idea at all, apart from making isolated and more or less educated decisions, that may or may not change the course of history. "Life and history happens while you are trying to plan".
I think Roosevelt was the last one to have done that.
Also, a candidate can promise whatever he wants, at the point he is elected (if you call this system a democratic election at all ahem s.o. told me it is a constitutional republic and elected are only rich people), he will be briefed by millitary and government advisers themselves being in charge for decades and plannning (not only for the next 4 years), and they will tell him what he can and what he can't - i imagine that as very sobering.
I really think e.g. Obama wanted to do some good things, it just was a serious realization of what was really going on after his election, including strategical planning for the future, and then all those nice plans silently folded.
No doubt same will happen with the next president, regardless what the candidate says or maybe really intends, now.
Regarding banks and big business nothing will change anyway, because if you look close republicans and dems are not that far apart. Like in "Life of Brian" it is the "Judaic people's front" versus the "People's front Judea". No one is more of an enemy to each other than nearly similar "parties".
I still say, we should all elect our big business bosses as nation leaders directly.
Nothing will change, but then no one will howl because of bankers gone wild and weapon's contractors spendings any more, and we can eventually spare politicians and lobbies.
@ Fish: I like your post and link, even if you stole my name long ago :03::salute:
Greetings,
Catfish
@ Fish: I like your post and link, even if you stole my name long ago :03::salute:
Greetings,
Catfish
Looking at the Join Date: Sep 2001, we must be one and (almost) the same. :hmmm:
Greetings,
Fish. :salute:
Catfish
08-05-12, 04:43 PM
I was already a member earlier, by the name of "Fish". But at some point Neal had a reorganisation or provider change in 2001 or so, and then we all head to re-register. When i came back to register again the site software told me my name was already taken - :huh:
Imagine my desparation ! 11 years now with a wrong name !! :D:03:
Greetings,
Catfish
I was already a member earlier, by the name of "Fish". But at some point Neal had a reorganisation or provider change in 2001 or so, and then we all head to re-register. When i came back to register again the site software told me my name was already taken - :huh:
Imagine my desparation ! 11 years now with a wrong name !! :D:03:
Greetings,
Catfish
I too was a earlier member bij the name of Capt Fish, go's back tot the nineties, late 98 to be precise.
Those good old days of 688 Hunter Killer, and the Seawolves, with over thousand active members then.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.