They did in Louisiana.
They did in Louisiana.
i dont care about anti abortion or anti guns or anti gay or any of that. i dont think that should be part of ones views on voting. "well im gonna vote this guy because he doesnt like guns" its retarded. it has nothing to do whats wrong with this country. if you vote PLEASE research. just because the guy is a "R" doesnt mean he is for guns.
word.
So at the end of 2016, the national debt will be around $30T and 84.24% of GDP? That's based on Reagan's debt performance.
I was in the military on the ground day two of Katrina. I wouldn't call what happened down there "turning" on Americans.
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally, I don't want an "average Joe" who knows what it's like to be you or I running the country. I think it would be asinine, ignorant, and foolish for folks to think that would be a necessary qualification to be President.
I want someone in the Oval Office who has proven that they can be successful at executive leadership, be that in the business world, the political world, or the military world.
I don't care that their income might be orders of magnitude higher than mine, or that they might not know exactly what my personal strife feels like because of their economic position in life.
I want them to be able to handle the extremely complex nature of being our country's leader, and be skilled at the many different facets of leadership and management that such a position requires. An "average Joe" knows enough about his little slice of the world to take care of that relatively simple problem, but has absolutely no idea how to deal with, or adapt to, all the other complex pieces of the puzzle like macroeconomics, international diplomacy, domestic policy in a free society, or military strategy -- things that people could study at high academic levels for a lifetime and still only scratch the surface of. Average Joe knows just enough to drive the train to the wreck on those topics, but that's about it.
I don't care what Romney or Obama (or insert candidate name here) make now, or made in the past...unless it's an indicator that their knowledge, wisdom, and experience will make them excellent leaders of our country. Personal wealth, in and of itself, just isn't a single factor, or even an indicator of other factors, of excellence in those areas.
I suggest you read up a little in US code to see where exactly foreign treaties fall in the order of precedence in US laws.
There is simply no way that the UN Arms Treaty, in and of itself, and without significant other action by Congress (and which at a minimum requires a 2/3 majority), can ever approach and "end run" around the Constitution.
This UN Arms Treaty fear-mongering is just ignorant at best. As responsible Americans we should be smarter than that.
Kind of difficult when most people's only news sources are talk radio and TV. Watching those sources is like watching a pissing contest between the left and the right on who can be the most dishonest with their audience.
Not baseing it on just debt performane, rather on the rhetoric of the times. The debt and spending under Reagan during the 80s was similar and the rhetoric and mood was almost as bad as it is today.
Under Reagan, everyone would say theyre grandchildren would bear the burden of the enormous nat'l debt. They claimed we would never balance the budget. And they said Japan owned us. During the Reagan years Japan was our China of today.
So in a sense, we can call Obama/Reagan, China/Japan, war on terror/the cold war and the gridlock of today/the gridlock of the 80s.
