Gary Johnson.

you're right

Thinking of writing in Ron Paul.

Who are we kidding,in the real world, people will vote for the canidate who will most line
their pockets. :hihi:

Vote for Dom.
You know you want to. :hihi:

maybe he got the memo:)

"There's really no way to make the conspiracy about President Obama's birth certificate completely go away, so we might as well laugh at it -- and make sure as many people as possible are in on the joke."

https://store.barackobama.com/madein..._BUTTONS_MERCH

not exactly....


"The 2012 platform adopted the identical pro-life language that has been in the platform since the late Rep. Henry Hyde inserted it in 1984 in Dallas."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...form-best-yet/


"The platform sections on immigration are examples of how closely social and fiscal issues and costs are intertwined. It is in favor of the rule of law, against any kind of amnesty, and supports requiring employers to use e-Verify to make sure their employees are legally in the United States. It also takes a strong stand for approving photo IDs before allowing someone to vote."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...discrimination
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...t_work_permits
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._control_first
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...mmigration_law


"the platform calls for repealing Obamacare"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law\

"Most voters still support repeal of President Obama’s national health care law "


what was he "exactly right" about Spence?
what and where "exacty" is this "radical shift" and/or "hard right stance" in the GOP Platform ?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...same_of_romney
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...or_wrong_track

I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.

The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...

It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?

This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.

If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.

-spence

Yup, and NAFTA helped that become eben easier.

If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.

I'll certainly agree that those in positions of public authority should be held to a high standard. Congress has the ability to legislate away potential conflicts of interest which doesn't have any real value for their constituents.

But again the real issue here isn't privacy but policy. Interesting new Pew poll on American's opinions.

-spence

As far as policy being "the" issue, Congress has much power over policy, so should not be exempt from the same scrutiny as presidential candidates. But policy is not only the purview of all our governments from local to federal including all the branches of those governments, even their judiciarys, it also requires the participation of The People in and their influence on those governments. That participation and influence was originally intended to be more direct on, and closer to, those governments. It has progressively become more distant and indirect, almost to the point of subservience. We seem to lack the will, desire, or "time" to devote to the more constant participation that is demanded to preserve the power that once was bequeathed to us. We are hearded into polls structured to elicit responses which can be used as evidence to support "policies" concocted by distant, unelected bureaucrats--quite as Woodrow Wilson, one of the fathers of progressivism, said must be done to influence us in the direction of the will of the administrative state.

The Pew poll that you link doesn't impress me with a rational meaning to exist. What is the purpose of a poll of the opinions of a basically uninformed, uninvolved (except for personal gain) selection of people. You asked previously in this thread in a response to Sea Dangles "So we should run the U.S.A. on the basis of share holder value?" One might ask, in response to your linked poll "So, should we run the U.S.A. on the basis of polls?"

Was a poll like this done in 1800, or 1840, or 1875, 0r 1900, or 1932, or 1960? Would average American opinions of the rich been appreciably different in the past?

If it has any meaning, it is a blue print for waging class warfare. If polls show a "majority", or "most" Americans believe that the wealthy or Republicans "favor" or "will benefit" the wealthy if elected, then government by polls demands that we never elect a rich person or a Republican. And, after purging the rich and Republicans from government, we find that politicians still get wealthy and there is still disparity in income and wealth among the people, even though the income gap would have narrowed due to policies of middle class and poor politicians who favor the middle class and poor and which would have dwindled the rich class and its creation of wealth, there would obviously be more work to be done. The middle class, having more opportunity for education, employment and wealth (decreased as it might be) would by dint of greater intelligence and wealth than the poor, have more access to the seats of government, and by downsizing the economic scale due to the suppression of wealth, there would be less opportunity for the poor to rise out of poverty, so the income gap would again grow and the public opinion polls of the now greater numbers of poor would begin to resemble your poll, with the middle class now being the wealthy who could not be trusted as much as the poor, and who would be seen as greedy, and who would be viewed as favoring the middle class over the poor. So, by public opinion poll, the middle class would have to be purged from the functions of government, and the poor would rule, becoming more plentiful as wealth and greed, and dishonesty were removed from the seats of power, and what wealth remained, would be distributed to the poor, by poor politicians who favered and benefitted the poor. And the poor would multiply so that virtually all would be poor . . . and equal . . . so class warfare would no longer be necessary.

So, Spence,how should we run the U.S.A.? Might it be better to run it by a system of individual freedom to pursue individual dreams garanteed by immutable laws and inalienable rights? Or by the opinions of shifting majorities discerned by polls and an administrative system that directs the opinions to respond to such prefabricated polls?

Communism has been tried and been found very wanting. Socialism seems to work better for a longer period of time but then degrades in the direction of communism. Neither system satisfies the human potential and desires of disparate natures, of those with different inherent capabilities and the ensuing dreams of realizing those capabilities.

I know you've professed a desire for "fairness" and "responsibility" in government, but haven't stated how those would be achieved, nor even what they mean. So, Spence, how should we run the U.S.A.?

[QUOTE=detbuch;956049]The Pew poll that you link doesn't impress me with a rational meaning to exist. If it has any meaning, it is a blue print for waging class warfare. QUOTE]

:uhuh:

Quote:
The poll found that many Americans believe skinny people to be intelligent and hardworking but also greedy and less honest than the average American. Nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, say the skinny don’t eat enough, while 26 percent believe the skinny eat their fair share and 8 percent say they eat too much.

He was trying to deliver shareholder value. The point being that the type of leadership that requires might not be what the country needs, yet that's what he's selling...
The stat was state debt per capita. As I've noted this in the other thread there are many reasons for this, but if the current US debt is owned by Obama I'd think Romney would own MA at that time, and it wasn't that good.

There's abuse all around. For every welfare cheat or public employee with a fat pension you have corporate abuse of the same system.

Then what was it?

I'd like to see more leadership, but the proposed changes from the GOP I don't see as offering an attractive alternative. There's significant risk of making things even worse.

-spence