- This topic has 9 voices and 378 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am not quite ready to give up on America yet. I don't think decline is inevitable but it gets closer all the time.The thing that struck me as i saw the video is that people like this woman can vote. These type of things convince me more and more that there needs to be some type of basic, say ten question, civics test to qualify to vote. Lets call it a poll test instead of a poll tax. The idea that morons with no idea of how their county is even governed or the government is constituted have a say in determining my future scares me. Maybe we need to bring back a property qualification for voting along the lines of what Britain had in the early 19th century.
Bring back only landowners and responsible tax payers can vote. These freeloaders are the ones who are ruining the country (and the Democrats who court their votes as well)
I wouldn't mind seeing that only people with an effective tax rate above 0% can vote. At least those are people that have a personal stake in how their tax dollars are spent.
There are several things alarming to me about it. First, the woman is identifying Obama as the “giver” of phones. No, he didn't really “give” it; it was the American taxpayer who gave it to you. Second, like many good things, this is a program which sounds good in its low stages and then balloons later on:"In 2008, the program was expanded to support cell phones which quickly escalated the cost of the program. In 2008 the program cost $772 million, but by 2011 it cost $1.6 billion."http://washingtonexaminer.com/where-do-obama-phones-come-from/article/2509203#.UGW-E1H5Py8How in the world does a program more than double in cost in less than three years? Most people would not be bothered by the prospect of a government program which provided phone lines to poor people's houses, since phone communication is a basic necessity in the modern world. So the plan probably came into effect that way (in the 1980s according to the article). Then, as technology changes, it's no longer basic communication which is essential, but now a cell phone, at a much higher cost. The problem is that while phone communication is essential today, cell phones are not. They are a convenience. Most Americans would not be able to recognize the difference, though, which is why taxpayers have to pay for it.
One of the articles I read about Lifeline said there is also a reduced cost broadband internet access program along with it. I find the whole notion of government cell phones ridiculous.That begs the question of why the Romney campaign is not making a bigger deal out of the way the current administration has aggressively marketed entitlement programs. If that is not buying votes with the dimes of others what is?
Along with that, I think that Romney needs to get something clear – he has to go for the low-hanging fruit and point out the obvious. He needs to hammer the narrative down so there is no mistake about it. Obama promised big four years ago and has failed in turning our economy around. For Obama, the “prosperity” is always around the corner. Romney needs to point out that Obama's promises are hollow.Meanwhile, when Obama tries to paint Romney as wealthy/out of touch, Romney needs to say "yeah, I am wealthy, and I got this way because I am a smart businessman. Who would you rather have lead the economy - someone who know the business world in and out, or someone who has no business experience and has proven himself to be a failure in trying to fix the economy?" To me, this seems like one of the most obvious strengths of Romney: you don't get rich by accident. Even people who don't like Romney have to agree that business people are good at business issues. However, I have not heard Romney take this route in explaining his superiority over Obama.
I think Romney's pluses outweigh his negatives by a large margin but he is running a weak campaign for some reason. I want him to be just as cutthroat as Obama and start talking home truths. That is the onlyw ay he is going to reach people and I don't see him doing that.
Michelle's school “nutrition” program. Why is Mitt or Ryan not saying anything? It's so easy too. All they have to do is make a comparison between an active 6'1, 215 lb linebacker who has to eat the same calories as the non-athletic 5'1, 105 band nerd. The Romney campaign has so many points that can be stated easily enough even braindead Leftists can understand. Since most of the people only care about what happens the week or day before the election, maybe he's waiting. (wishful thinking?) Let's face it, Obama's bungling and outright lying about the dead ambassador in Libya will be all but forgotten by November. And I really believe people don't care about Obama's many faults anyway. I mean Obama is just so cool and all. All we can hope for is that a lot of people are reading Drudge, American Thinker, Free Republic, and other right-leaning sites since in many cases they are the only ones reporting the actual news.
Yes, I think that the line about people being appeased by “bread and circuses” (see my new signature line) can be replaced by “cell phones and talk shows”. That's what Obama gives the people, and they like it.
Obama does not want to be president, he wants to be a Rock Star and that is what he is getting. Silly things like actually governing just get in the way of spreading his message. You know, one almost gets the impression from what he says and the libs adore him that he and they think he is the Second Coming.
I got my ballot in the mail today but I have not yet filed it out. It usually takes about 10 days for the mail to get to Texas from Germany so I am going to take some time and mull my decision before I actually sit down and decide how to vote. One thing is certain, I will not vote for Obama. I may cast my presidential vote for a 3rd party candidate but probably not. I probably will vote 3rd party on some of the other races, I normally do.Donnie, this is you last chance to convince me that voting for the Romney/Ryan ticket is somehow the wrong decison
I'm locking this thread as it is too long. I have started a new thread for continued discussions, which will nicely encapsulate what is going on in the month until election day.
With the election a month away and all the debates still ahead of us, I think that Romney could possibly be positioned well. He is the underdog at this point, but if he can build momentum through the debates he could peak around the time of the vote.
Well I was in the middle of a post when Phid locked this and I lost my post. Anyway Scout vote your conscience and all will be well. I won't be voting for Romney because of religious reasons. Gary Johnson would be a safe vote if you value the constitution and the second amendment. There really is no great choice this year. We've had mediocre candidates foisted on us and that is our lot.
- The topic ‘Election 2012 – The discussion’ is closed to new replies.
