Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
I'll just say this, don't attempt to discuss what you know little to nothing about.

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
I'll just say this, don't attempt to discuss what you know little to nothing about.

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
I'll just say this, don't attempt to discuss what you know little to nothing about.

---

Quote:

---

still beLIEve said:
im ready for shit to get wild, and priorities to get shifted.

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
Typical liberal response. Create a strawman instead of addressing the issues with logic.

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
Only to laugh at the absurdity of its existence.

Do you think 51% of people have the right to take the property of the other 49% without their consent?

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
I'll just say this:

---

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
If the government cuts social programs, that is a tax on the poor.

Well, I'm not arguing that if we take the democratic way, we won't be fucked economically. We may very well be. However, we're most likely fucked economically either way, so I'd rather stimulate the economy by building on medical care and infrastructure than by siphoning money off to the Republican campaign contributors through more war in the middle east and defense / prison spending.

---

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
It matters, bro.

---

Quote:

---

mellowparty said:

The future is fucked and that cannot be changed.

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
You're characterization of Ron Paul is common, but incorrect.

The established republican party doesn't want Ron Paul as their nominee because he challenges their corporatist positions, he is a threat to every US politician.

The only reason he has got as far as he has is because people are waking up and demanding an alternative choice.

Ron Paul's positions in no way reflect anything the GOP (republican party) has stood for, ever.

Edit: He is only running as a Republican because our electoral system is so fucked a third party can rarely get on the ballot. Dr Paul is essentially a right-libertarian.

---

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
He's pro-life. That doesn't sound libertarian, that sounds republican. What's his stance on medicare, social security, and infrastructure development? Do you know?

---

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
The fact of the matter is that people who would normally hold democratic values are supporting him in large numbers. It's taking away much needed votes from the democratic party and it is supporting the falsehood that the Republican Party still has an ounce of legitimacy left in it.
Ron Paul will not be president, but his candidacy does wonders for the Republican Party.

---

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
See, if the government cuts spending right now, a whole bunch of people are going to lose their jobs. Not McJobs either, but real jobs that pay well enough to support a family - and a mortgage. And then those people are going to default on their mortgages and we know what happens then. Tent cities, bitches!

---

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
There would be less money in the hands of the American consumer and as a result, businesses would suffer too, and the gov would get less taxes, and it would cycle.

---

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
Right now you're saying "but inflation!" - exactly. The government needs more in certain areas to spend more to put people to work, to provide social programs that people need (since they have no jobs), and to rebuild our tattered infrastructure - but it also needs to deal with its deficit. That's where taxing the rich and cutting waste (like defense spending) comes in. We end wars and close loopholes, return to the pre-bush rates, and suddenly we can actually afford to rebuild and keep this economy afloat.

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
He's pro-life. That doesn't sound libertarian, that sounds republican. What's his stance on medicare, social security, and infrastructure development? Do you know?

---

He delivers babies for a living, I can see why he would be pro-life, being said he doesn't believe he should have the authority to decide what you do with your own body, so its a moot point.

He would be in favor allowing individual states the ability to decide if they want to supply those services or allow privatization.

Why should women in some states have control over their bodies, but not in others?

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
The fact of the matter is that people who would normally hold democratic values are supporting him in large numbers. It's taking away much needed votes from the democratic party and it is supporting the falsehood that the Republican Party still has an ounce of legitimacy left in it.
Ron Paul will not be president, but his candidacy does wonders for the Republican Party.

---

The democratic party doesn't "need" the votes, you do realize our congress is meant to represent the will of the people, correct? The people will vote for who they believe best represents them, or much more likely who the news media tells them they should think represents them.

It's simply false to say the GOP wants Paul as candidate, they overwhelmingly want Romney.

I didn't say they wanted Paul. He helps by taking votes from the Democrats. He's not a real candidate for president.

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
See, if the government cuts spending right now, a whole bunch of people are going to lose their jobs. Not McJobs either, but real jobs that pay well enough to support a family - and a mortgage. And then those people are going to default on their mortgages and we know what happens then. Tent cities, bitches!

---

Or they can rent. The reason we have such crazy deficits is precisely because government spending has been treated as a jobs program.
"Let them eat cake" How are they going to rent without jobs and a social safety net?

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
There would be less money in the hands of the American consumer and as a result, businesses would suffer too, and the gov would get less taxes, and it would cycle.

---

Unless you lowered taxes and deregulated which would spur investment at home instead overseas. More taxes on corporations to pay for jobs that wouldn't exist without the government propping them up is only going to send legitimate jobs away from home.

McJobs don't do much to spur the economy. Even with lower taxes, it's hard to beat China where you can pay college educated workers $200 a month. The taxes on corporations are on net profits, not individual workers.
Deregulation would spur investment? How about rebuilding a middle class that can afford not to shop and work at Walmart?

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
Right now you're saying "but inflation!" - exactly. The government needs more in certain areas to spend more to put people to work, to provide social programs that people need (since they have no jobs), and to rebuild our tattered infrastructure - but it also needs to deal with its deficit. That's where taxing the rich and cutting waste (like defense spending) comes in. We end wars and close loopholes, return to the pre-bush rates, and suddenly we can actually afford to rebuild and keep this economy afloat.

---

Ah, but you are the champion of saving jobs correct? Do you have any idea how many jobs would be lost with drastic cuts in defense spending? Wouldn't we be seeing your hypothetical tent cities in either case?

The amount of money that private military contractors made away with is massive, and most of it does NOT get paid to soldiers. We could better use that money to build infrastructure, educate people to become doctors, and then hire them to provide medical care to ALL AMERICANS.

The rest of your post is just boot-licking. Obama is no saint, he is liar and hypocrite who will do and say whatever will get him elected, the same as GW Bush. Politics in the US are a joke, and from the sounds of it you are rendered stupefied by the political theater and what they want you to believe is best for "everyone."

---

Quote:

---

HippoSex said:
Yeah. The real problems are athiests/muslims/liberals/socialists/minorities/spending/birth control/abortions/public healthcare/social security/food stamps/corporate taxes/corporate regulations/minimum wage/obama's birth certificate, etc.

---

Quote:

---

anarchy is better than fascism.

---

Quote:

---

DungenessDank said:
Obama will find a way to put a partisan spin on it, despite the fact the fucking over of our country has been a non-partisan effort since WWII.

---