Romney......

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]His governing in Massachusetts and past decisions is what Obama is trying to do at the federal level. So yes they are.airshocker

No, they aren't. Romney doesn't support stimulus. Unemployment went down in MA during Romney's stint in office. Romney doesn't want to regulate everything under the sun.

I fail to see where the two are similar.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]But Obamas and Romneys fiscal views are nearly identical in the grand scheme of thingsairshocker

No they aren't. It's a cute thing to say during an election, when the same thing is said nearly every cycle, but it's not really accurate.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]But Obamas and Romneys fiscal views are nearly identical in the grand scheme of thingskraychik

No they aren't. It's a cute thing to say during an election, when the same thing is said nearly every cycle, but it's not really accurate.

>leftists like me

>im an Obama supporter

lol

Romney raised fees and taxes to balance the budget, same with what Obama is doing. Romeny was also in favor of the stimulus BEFORE obama took the election in '08. > Regulation If Obama was a supposed staunch regulator like I've been hearing, he would of nationalized the banks years ago. Obama is more of a neocon and pre-Bush2 republican than anything else.DroidPhysX

He was a Republican governor in Massachussetts, unfortunately that job requires compromise. The difference is Obama is trying to raise taxes in a struggling economy, Romney did no such thing. Romney isn't in favor of stimulus right now, that's all that matters.

I doubt it. One can still regulate without nationalizing anything. And we already have a nationalized bank. ObamaCare had tons of regulations attached to it, and he's done nothing to remove onerous and useless regulations that are plaguing our books.

:lol: Yes, sure. He's a republican now.

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

No they aren't. It's a cute thing to say during an election, when the same thing is said nearly every cycle, but it's not really accurate.

DroidPhysX

>leftists like me

>im an Obama supporter

lol

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Romney raised fees and taxes to balance the budget, same with what Obama is doing. Romeny was also in favor of the stimulus BEFORE obama took the election in '08. > Regulation If Obama was a supposed staunch regulator like I've been hearing, he would of nationalized the banks years ago. Obama is more of a neocon and pre-Bush2 republican than anything else.airshocker

He was a Republican governor in Massachussetts, unfortunately that job requires compromise. The difference is Obama is trying to raise taxes in a struggling economy, Romney did no such thing. Romney isn't in favor of stimulus right now, that's all that matters.

I doubt it. One can still regulate without nationalizing anything. And we already have a nationalized bank. ObamaCare had tons of regulations attached to it, he's done nothing to remove onerous and useless regulations that are plaguing our books.

:lol: Yes, sure. He's a republican now.

And yet, he still hasnt regulated the banks. Something a regulator like obama would do right?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"] This is a lie parroted by people like DroidPhysX simply in order to deflect from Obama's failed economic policies. It essentially boils down to them attempting to define the parameters of the election to non-issues like gay rights", and "women's rights". Leftists like DroidPhysX don't want to talk about soaring unemployment and public debt, so they try to sell us this lie about the current circumstances being inevitable (i.e. Romney would've done all the same things Obama has done). kraychik

>leftists like me

>im an Obama supporter

lol

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

>leftists like me

>im an Obama supporter

lol

DroidPhysX

Hence why I said pre bush2 republican. Republican party of today are the extreme far right shell of its former self.

And yet, he still hasnt regulated the banks. Something a regulator like obama would do right?

DroidPhysX

I don't really know how you can say that with a straight face. Just because someone has shifted to the center doesn't make them conservative, or a Republican. He's still a liberal and a democrat.

Dodd-Frank

What else should he regulate? Should banks no longer be able to take any risks when investing their money?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Hence why I said pre bush2 republican. Republican party of today are the extreme far right shell of its former self.

And yet, he still hasnt regulated the banks. Something a regulator like obama would do right?

airshocker

I don't really know how you can say that with a straight face. Just because someone has shifted to the center doesn't make them conservative, or a Republican. He's still a liberal and a democrat.

Dodd-Frank

What else should he regulate? Should banks no longer be able to take any risks when investing their money?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Hence why I said pre bush2 republican. Republican party of today are the extreme far right shell of its former self.

And yet, he still hasnt regulated the banks. Something a regulator like obama would do right?

airshocker

I don't really know how you can say that with a straight face. Just because someone has shifted to the center doesn't make them conservative, or a Republican. He's still a liberal and a democrat.

Dodd-Frank

What else should he regulate? Should banks no longer be able to take any risks when investing their money?

It's a watered down version of the original piece of legislation. If thats regulation to you, you must think what the FDR did to the banks was outright communism. Investment banks can combine with lending banks and can still get the FDIC to cover their loses.Banks can still get bailouts from the government. What exactly are banks risking when they know they can just get the government to cover their loses?

>Obama a liberal

Engaging in neoconservative policies such as warrantless wiretapping, drone killings in the middle east makes someone a liberal now? Also, liberal =/= democrat

Dodd-Frank was written by the banks. :?

It's a watered down version of the original piece of legislation. If thats regulation to you, you must think what the FDR did to the banks was outright communism. Investment banks can combine with lending banks and can still get the FDIC to cover their loses.Banks can still get bailouts from the government. What exactly are banks risking when they know they can just get the government to cover their loses?

>Obama a liberal

Engaging in neoconservative policies such as warrantless wiretapping, drone killings in the middle east makes someone a liberal now? Also, liberal =/= democrat

DroidPhysX

That's his own fault, then.

JP Morgan Chase risked two billion dollars and lost it. I don't see the federal government rushing in to cover those losses. In fact, I don't think it'll happen at all.

The fact that I support gay marriage doesn't make me any less of a conservative. The same goes for Obama, though I wouldn't really call those actions conservative. I would call them good tactics.

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

:question:

Obama's for long and expensive land wars,big government and showering dictators with foreign aid.

airshocker

And a vote for RP takes away a vote for Romney. You would be, essentially, voting for Obama.

and vice versa with taking a vote away from Obama,so you would be technically taking a vote away from both of them

and vice versa with taking a vote away from Obama,so you would be technically taking a vote away from both of them

sexyweapons

Not really. Ron Paul has no chance at winning. The votes he takes away will only hurt the challenger. See what happened to George HW Bush's re-election campaign.

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

>leftists like me

>im an Obama supporter

lol

DroidPhysX

What's funny is that you think you aren't.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]His governing in Massachusetts and past decisions is what Obama is trying to do at the federal level. So yes they are.DroidPhysX

No, they aren't. Romney doesn't support stimulus. Unemployment went down in MA during Romney's stint in office. Romney doesn't want to regulate everything under the sun.

I fail to see where the two are similar.

I like how Gamespot is running(or is allowing to be run) anti Romney ads based on his ECONOMIC record! O btw hows Obama doing with his ECONOMIC record? Just sayin......

StealthUS1

OP is f*****

Necrifer

RON PAUL 2012SteverXIII

[QUOTE="StealthUS1"]

I like how Gamespot is running(or is allowing to be run) anti Romney ads based on his ECONOMIC record! O btw hows Obama doing with his ECONOMIC record? Just sayin......

outworld222

[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="StealthUS1"]

I like how Gamespot is running(or is allowing to be run) anti Romney ads based on his ECONOMIC record! O btw hows Obama doing with his ECONOMIC record? Just sayin......

jshaas

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="kraychik"] What's funny is that leftists like you often don't even realize you're leftists. You view yourself as apolitical and objective, when you'r'e anything but. At least conservatives recognize and don't hide our worldviews. Everything you say in this forum is left-wing, yet somehow you give us some fake "lols" when you get accurately described as a leftist? Storm_Marine

What's funny is that you think you aren't.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] What's funny is that you think I'm a leftist. kraychik

What's funny is that you think you aren't.

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="jshaas"] Can we stop kick this dead horse already?!?!? Everything that's wrong is not Bush's fault!!! He certainly did his share of adding to the problem, but by no means is it entirely his fault. This mess was started decades ago. Barry has done nothing to improve our situation. chaoscougar1

At last, someone in this thread knows that ;)

We are doomed.

[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="StealthUS1"]

I like how Gamespot is running(or is allowing to be run) anti Romney ads based on his ECONOMIC record! O btw hows Obama doing with his ECONOMIC record? Just sayin......

jshaas

Mitt Romeny is a great man

lo_Pine

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

No, they aren't. Romney doesn't support stimulus. Unemployment went down in MA during Romney's stint in office. Romney doesn't want to regulate everything under the sun.

I fail to see where the two are similar.

jshaas

And conservatives support a liberal governor in massachusetts

Either they intentionally choose to forget Romney pushed for the MA mandate among other things or they really are indeed a shell of past conservatives. Never heard of a presidential candidate governing with liberal ideologies, both socially and fiscally, be so revered by the supposed conservative electorate.

>Banks being choked out of existence

bahahahaha. If anything, they're becoming stronger and stronger. In the last 15 years, huge amount of regulations have been repealed on the banks. (Glass Steegal being the biggest). Also, the Feds have chairmans who work or who have worked for the banks. Essentially, the banks are bailing out the banks.

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Romney raised fees and taxes to balance the budget, same with what Obama is doing. Romeny was also in favor of the stimulus BEFORE obama took the election in '08. > Regulation If Obama was a supposed staunch regulator like I've been hearing, he would of nationalized the banks years ago. Obama is more of a neocon and pre-Bush2 republican than anything else.DroidPhysX

And conservatives support a liberal governor in massachusetts

Either they intentionally choose to forget Romney pushed for the MA mandate among other things or they really are indeed a shell of past conservatives. Never heard of a presidential candidate governing with liberal ideologies, both socially and fiscally, be so revered by the supposed conservative electorate.

>Banks being choked out of existence

bahahahaha. If anything, they're becoming stronger and stronger. In the last 15 years, huge amount of regulations have been repealed on the banks. (Glass Steegal being the biggest). Also, the Feds have chairmans who work or who have worked for the banks. Essentially, the banks are bailing out the banks.

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Romney raised fees and taxes to balance the budget, same with what Obama is doing. Romeny was also in favor of the stimulus BEFORE obama took the election in '08. > Regulation If Obama was a supposed staunch regulator like I've been hearing, he would of nationalized the banks years ago. Obama is more of a neocon and pre-Bush2 republican than anything else.DroidPhysX

And conservatives support a liberal governor in massachusetts

Either they intentionally choose to forget Romney pushed for the MA mandate among other things or they really are indeed a shell of past conservatives. Never heard of a presidential candidate governing with liberal ideologies, both socially and fiscally, be so revered by the supposed conservative electorate.

>Banks being choked out of existence

bahahahaha. If anything, they're becoming stronger and stronger. In the last 15 years, huge amount of regulations have been repealed on the banks. (Glass Steegal being the biggest). Also, the Feds have chairmans who work or who have worked for the banks. Essentially, the banks are bailing out the banks.

[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="StealthUS1"]

I like how Gamespot is running(or is allowing to be run) anti Romney ads based on his ECONOMIC record! O btw hows Obama doing with his ECONOMIC record? Just sayin......

jshaas

yep, romney can do for america what he did for his clients at bain capitol.

inflate the alleged value, borrow money against the total assets then break it apart and sell off bits of it for profit and declare bankruptcy against what is left.

yep, romney can do for america what he did for his clients at bain capitol.

inflate the alleged value, borrow money against the total assets then break it apart and sell off bits of it for profit and declare bankruptcy against what is left.

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Obama added five trillion dollars to the national debt in three years while Bush added three trillion over eight years, and the wars were largely drawing down in Bush's last year. In terms of sheer numbers, Obama hasn't been irrelevant, he's been destructive. In other words, you telling us that Obama "hasn't done anything to improve the situation" is patently false - Obama has made the situation much, much, much worse (and let's not even get into unemployment and the portion of Americans dependent on social aid).kraychik

Fake?
Fake?
FAKE?!

nvm

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] You know Obama couldn't stop the GFC right?chaoscougar1

Fake?
Fake?
FAKE?!

nvm

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="jshaas"] Can we stop kick this dead horse already?!?!? Everything that's wrong is not Bush's fault!!! He certainly did his share of adding to the problem, but by no means is it entirely his fault. This mess was started decades ago. Barry has done nothing to improve our situation. jshaas

I remember when conservatives made all these doomsday predictions if gay marriage were legalized.

Good times, good times.

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="Serraph105"] So we are allowed to bash the current president, but not the guy who came before him? I love it, this could help us put another republican back in power!DroidPhysX

I remember when conservatives made all these doomsday predictions if gay marriage were legalized.

Good times, good times.

Im guessing Gamespot is liberal as hell. It's an entertainment website... Of course they would endorse Obama over Romney. As they should.

Keynesian economics. Does it work? Or is it bad theory that will lead us to doom? What kind of system does Germany run? Their austerity seems to work for them.