Ron Paul owns Newt

[reppingfor20]

Newt sounds like he wants a police state, Paul let's him have it  Ron Paul 2012 if not Obama my 1st choice as always !!

Not only does Newt want the Patriot Act long term, but also wants to make it broader!  Wow watch out, we will have Minority Report coming to a house near you 

[howardroark]

How can you support Obama and Ron Paul? 

They're on the opposite ends of every single issue.

[Coach is Back!]

Don't pay attention to him, he's a troll. He will be gone from here soon I guaranty it.

[reppingfor20]

How can you support Obama and Ron Paul? 

They're on the opposite ends of every single issue.

I'm for change, change we can believe in, Obama if he wins, and the house goes Democrat and the Senate stays the same we get great social change and social justice, if Ron Paul win's we get a whole new America to look forward to.

[reppingfor20]

Don't pay attention to him, he's a troll. He will be gone from here soon I guaranty it.

go to college please coach, I hope your drunk or something when you posted this LOL!

[Coach is Back!]

Yes...because it worked so well before right you little fucking troll? BTW, that's not what I heard about that debate. Fuck off. I give you a week at best.

[reppingfor20]

Yes...because it worked so well before right you little fucking troll? BTW, that's not what I heard about that debate. Fuck off. I give you a week at best.

BWHWHHAWHHAHWAHWHAHWAWHW HAHWHAHA, so you didn't watch it, you heard about it, did you even listen to what Newt said?  He wants to strengthen it, yes make the patriot act bigger!

[howardroark]

I'm for change, change we can believe in, Obama if he wins, and the house goes Democrat and the Senate stays the same we get great social change and social justice, if Ron Paul win's we get a whole new America to look forward to.

Social change and social justice? What is that even supposed to mean? Bailing out Wall Street, raising taxes and redistributing it to his owners (green lobby groups, unions, banks, etc.), and creating a more permanent underclass of the poor and unemployed?

[reppingfor20]

Social change and social justice? What is that even supposed to mean? Bailing out Wall Street, raising taxes and redistributing it to his owners (green lobby groups, unions, banks, etc.), and creating a more permanent underclass of the poor and unemployed?

He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class.  Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.

[howardroark]

He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class.  Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.

Just that he can't accomplish ANY of that. If lobbying is eliminated, then you can damn well expect wasteful spending to go on as Congressmen try to get money into their districts. If taxes are raised on the rich, you can damn well expect investment to fall and the economy to slow growing, which will leave the poor poorer. If he increases handouts, you can damn well expect to create a permanent underclass of the poor and unemployed.

[reppingfor20]

Just that he can't accomplish ANY of that. If lobbying is eliminated, then you can damn well expect wasteful spending to go on as Congressmen try to get money into their districts. If taxes are raised on the rich, you can damn well expect investment to fall and the economy to slow growing, which will leave the poor poorer. If he increases handouts, you can damn well expect to create a permanent underclass of the poor and unemployed.

Look at the Clinton years when tax rates where higher, investment did not fall, we had great boom years when Clinton was in office and taxes on the rich were slightly higher.  The economy did great under Clinton, you are just trying to use scare tactics like another popular one is raising taxes will kill jobs, not true.  Never said to increase handouts, increase their wages, you think the poor don't work and just take handouts LOL!  The poor do WORK, the poor WORK, how many times do I have to repeat this, they are underpaid and exploited by evil corporations. 

[Soul Crusher]

He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class.  Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.

WTF!   Do you really believe that nonsense? 

[The Showstoppa]

go to college please coach, I hope your drunk or something when you posted this LOL!

Oh, the irony...

[Shockwave]

He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class.  Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.

Obama just shot you down... He basically let the big Pharma companies make the decisions on his healthcare reform...
HAHAHAHAHA!

Looks like you were wrong, Obama is just as owned by big business as anyone.

Ill wait while you come up with some defense.

[avxo]

The fact is that Paul is the only candidate on that stage that's principled and for that he really should be applauded. He's right on the issues too -- or most of them, anyways; I don't quite agree with on everything. It's a real pity and a loss that he almost certainly won't be nominated because he doesn't have that suave polished look that Americans expect and demand from their politicians.

[The Showstoppa]

The fact is that Paul is the only candidate on that stage that's principled and for that he really should be applauded. He's right on the issues too -- or most of them, anyways; I don't quite agree with on everything. It's a real pity and a loss that he almost certainly won't be nominated because he doesn't have that suave polished look that Americans expect and demand from their politicians.

it has nothing to do with his looks.  Bush wasn't exactly James Bondesque in the suave department.  Much of it is because it's so different than what people have been spoon fed that they won't give it a chance.  And the media dislikes him immensly, so the coverage is always slighted.  I don't agree with him on a lot of his defense/military thoughts/policies, but the rest of his platform more than makes up for it.  Can't have everything.

[avxo]

Look at the Clinton years when tax rates where higher, investment did not fall, we had great boom years when Clinton was in office and taxes on the rich were slightly higher.  The economy did great under Clinton, you are just trying to use scare tactics like another popular one is raising taxes will kill jobs, not true.  Never said to increase handouts, increase their wages, you think the poor don't work and just take handouts LOL!  The poor do WORK, the poor WORK, how many times do I have to repeat this, they are underpaid and exploited by evil corporations. 

You can't just say "increase wages." A particular job has a certain value for a company (big or small; evil or good). A restaurant can get away with paying waitresses next to nothing because the job doesn't really require any real qualifications, the supply of jobs saturates the demand, and the margins for every restaurant (except the super-high end places) are razor thin.

You say "increase their wages." How? If a restaurant needs to pay more money to the wait staff, consider that the price for food at that restaurant will probably go up which might make people less likely to eat at that restaurant, or in restaurants altogether. Or that the restaurant may simply not be able to afford the higher wages, and has to lay one member of the wait staff off to pay the others this new increased wage. There's other scenarios too. But the point is that when you say "increase their wages" you aren't really thinking things through; you're throwing around platitudes.

It's certainly true that many Americans at the low end of the income spectrum work incredibly hard but still can't quite make ends meet. It's unfortunate -- perhaps even unfair -- and we should be concerned that it happens. But the solution isn't to say "increase their wages."

[akers1021]

He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class.  Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.

Ok "college boy"  let me explain something to you about something called the FREE MARKET, you might remember one of your liberal teachers bash it some, their all IDIOTS btw (liberal teachers).  How do you think the RICH business owners got rich?  I will explain to you why they SHOULD be the highest paid people in a way i hope you can figure out.  1)  BECAUSE THEY RUN/OWN THE DAMN BUSINESS...   2)  They TOOK THE FUCKING RISK INVESTING IN THE BUSINESS AND OPENING IT.   It's called fucking america for a reason dude, these risk takers DESERVE to be the highest paid.   You tax these so called 250k (and YES these are independent SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS) a year people more guess what happens DUMB ASS, they CLOSE their business down due to the tax hike because the can't expand and hire more of your "people" as you call it which is very stupid on your part...the "poor" as you referenced that work for these "rich" guys.  I just don't understand why you dipshits with all these stupid socialism and womans studies degree's keep complaining about.  ITs your OWN fault you listened to that stupid ass liberal nutjub that was giving educational advice on the "next big thing" was gonna be in the workforce.  Now all you idiots don't know how to survive in the REAL world because you have no damn clue how it works and have been entitled your ENTIRE lives about "your special" .

THe problem in america with your generation is that you have been told your special and everybody is a winner, everybody gets a trophy even if they lose. Guess what NO YOU DONT WIN, there are winners and losers's in soccer and everything...  These dumb asses up there complaining about all this "stuff" they should GET, PLEASE you dumb asses havent done anything but go to college and play on your ipads, iphones, wear all these exp damn clothes with your student loan leftover money...

Obama is'nt gonna change a damn thing, and neither will Ron Paul, socialism had its chance and FAILED

My advice to you is go back to college and take some basic economics course so you understand supply/demand. Oh and and get a degree in something that you can USE....

[avxo]

it has nothing to do with his looks.  Bush wasn't exactly James Bondesque in the suave department.  Much of it is because it's so different than what people have been spoon fed that they won't give it a chance.  And the media dislikes him immensly, so the coverage is always slighted.  I don't agree with him on a lot of his defense/military thoughts/policies, but the rest of his platform more than makes up for it.  Can't have everything.

I don't necessarily use "suave" to mean "James Bond" although I can see how that could be confusing. I meant that Americans evaluate politicians on 30 second soundbites and criteria like "would I want to have a beer with this guy?"; that's why campaigns hire body-language experts, why media obsesses for hours over ties and haircuts and why events are staged down to the smallest detail to portray the candidate as a humble, honest, good, Joe Everyman.

You bring up Bush. While he may not have been "suave" and smooth in the same way as Romney or Clinton or JFK, you have to consider that (a) he was running against an even more uncharismatic man in the general election, (b) he had the name recognition and great organization in the primaries and (c) he was folksy enough to put people at ease (see the "beer factor" above).

At least that's my take.

[akers1021]

Look at the Clinton years when tax rates where higher, investment did not fall, we had great boom years when Clinton was in office and taxes on the rich were slightly higher.  The economy did great under Clinton, you are just trying to use scare tactics like another popular one is raising taxes will kill jobs, not true.  Never said to increase handouts, increase their wages, you think the poor don't work and just take handouts LOL!  The poor do WORK, the poor WORK, how many times do I have to repeat this, they are underpaid and exploited by evil corporations. 

How exactly are they "exploited"?  Can you explain this to me??  you do REALIZE that EVERYBODY starts a job at the bottom and have to prove themselves to advnace right???  Oh yeah i forgot your entitled to make 100k a year because your degree in basketweaving cost 200k....

[The Showstoppa]

I don't necessarily use "suave" to mean "James Bond" although I can see how that could be confusing. I meant that Americans evaluate politicians on 30 second soundbites and criteria like "would I want to have a beer with this guy?"; that's why campaigns hire body-language experts, why media obsesses for hours over ties and haircuts and why events are staged down to the smallest detail to portray the candidate as a humble, honest, good, Joe Everyman.

You bring up Bush. While he may not have been "suave" and smooth in the same way as Romney or Clinton or JFK, you have to consider that (a) he was running against an even more uncharismatic man in the general election, (b) he had the name recognition and great organization in the primaries and (c) he was folksy enough to put people at ease (see the "beer factor" above).

At least that's my take.

I agree with you on all points.  Bush won because "the common man" thought they could relate to him a bit.  That's why using the word "suave" threw me, as he was the polar opposite of suave in most every way.

[dr.chimps]

I agree with you on all points.  Bush won because "the common man" thought they could relate to him a bit.  That's why using the word "suave" threw me, as he was the polar opposite of suave in most every way.

[Necrosis]

Ok "college boy"  let me explain something to you about something called the FREE MARKET, you might remember one of your liberal teachers bash it some, their all IDIOTS btw (liberal teachers).  How do you think the RICH business owners got rich?  I will explain to you why they SHOULD be the highest paid people in a way i hope you can figure out.  1)  BECAUSE THEY RUN/OWN THE DAMN BUSINESS...   2)  They TOOK THE FUCKING RISK INVESTING IN THE BUSINESS AND OPENING IT.   It's called fucking america for a reason dude, these risk takers DESERVE to be the highest paid.   You tax these so called 250k (and YES these are independent SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS) a year people more guess what happens DUMB ASS, they CLOSE their business down due to the tax hike because the can't expand and hire more of your "people" as you call it which is very stupid on your part...the "poor" as you referenced that work for these "rich" guys.  I just don't understand why you dipshits with all these stupid socialism and womans studies degree's keep complaining about.  ITs your OWN fault you listened to that stupid ass liberal nutjub that was giving educational advice on the "next big thing" was gonna be in the workforce.  Now all you idiots don't know how to survive in the REAL world because you have no damn clue how it works and have been entitled your ENTIRE lives about "your special" .

THe problem in america with your generation is that you have been told your special and everybody is a winner, everybody gets a trophy even if they lose. Guess what NO YOU DONT WIN, there are winners and losers's in soccer and everything...  These dumb asses up there complaining about all this "stuff" they should GET, PLEASE you dumb asses havent done anything but go to college and play on your ipads, iphones, wear all these exp damn clothes with your student loan leftover money...

Obama is'nt gonna change a damn thing, and neither will Ron Paul, socialism had its chance and FAILED

My advice to you is go back to college and take some basic economics course so you understand supply/demand. Oh and and get a degree in something that you can USE....

what are you talking about? no where has this been shown to be true, in fact the exact opposite has been demonstrated over and over. Trickle down economics, or horse and sparrow economics does not work, companies horde money, thats a fact. I live in canada a more socialist country then yours and we are in better conditions then you, USA is far from socialist, that seems to be the scare word along with communism. Instead you have socialism for the elite and shit for the middle and poor. These fuckers benefit from infrastructure paid by the american people yet they contribute nothing in taxes. Why do they deserve this? they don't, hiring people isn't an out, these people have to work and in turn generate more money for the people in charge. It's almost as if you think or many think that corporate owners create jobs when demand isn't there. Improve the middle class and the problems are solved, simple as that. Put money in the hands of those that have to spend it and you will stimulate the economy. Look at the 13 billion dollar companies that paid no taxes, do you know how much increase they say in job creation? zero, in fact it has gone down in spite of them making record profits, its a fact, how can you argue that this is not right?

[avxo]

I live in canada a more socialist country then yours and we are in better conditions then you

That Canada is a more socialist country than the U.S. is a fact. As to whether Canadians live in better conditions than Americans, that's debatable and the answer would center largely around one's own definition of "better." Not an objective metric by any stretch of the imagination.

[reppingfor20]

You can't just say "increase wages." A particular job has a certain value for a company (big or small; evil or good). A restaurant can get away with paying waitresses next to nothing because the job doesn't really require any real qualifications, the supply of jobs saturates the demand, and the margins for every restaurant (except the super-high end places) are razor thin.

You say "increase their wages." How? If a restaurant needs to pay more money to the wait staff, consider that the price for food at that restaurant will probably go up which might make people less likely to eat at that restaurant, or in restaurants altogether. Or that the restaurant may simply not be able to afford the higher wages, and has to lay one member of the wait staff off to pay the others this new increased wage. There's other scenarios too. But the point is that when you say "increase their wages" you aren't really thinking things through; you're throwing around platitudes.

It's certainly true that many Americans at the low end of the income spectrum work incredibly hard but still can't quite make ends meet. It's unfortunate -- perhaps even unfair -- and we should be concerned that it happens. But the solution isn't to say "increase their wages."

no companies corporations are making way too much profit and paying their ceo's way too much money, it needs to be more evenly divided, and revenue positive needs to go back to employees paychecks after it get's past a certain amount they earn in positive income.