Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Funny you mention Romney's tax plan because if I am not mistaken, sources (maybe even CNN disregarding how bias they may be) claim that Obama's plan will not even work. And the reason Romney has not given the specifics is because he claims he wants to work with congress to achieve a mutual agreement on the tax plan.

I hope you realize that's bullshit. And what sources are you referring to? Everything I've read have said the same thing about Romney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/mitt-romney-tax-pla n_n_1975554.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

At 10/22/12 11:52 PM, naronic wrote:

Funny you mention Romney's tax plan because if I am not mistaken, sources (maybe even CNN disregarding how bias they may be) claim that Obama's plan will not even work. And the reason Romney has not given the specifics is because he claims he wants to work with congress to achieve a mutual agreement on the tax plan.

I hope you realize that's bullshit. And what sources are you referring to? Everything I've read have said the same thing about Romney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/mitt-romney-tax-pla n_n_1975554.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Likewise, I hope you realize that the Tax Policy Center bases a lot of its information on "assumptions". The truth of the matter is, it is hard to analyze Romney's plan based on the information we have. Without those specifics, you end up having speculation.

See:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/12/news/economy/romney-tax-plan /index.html?iid=EL
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/16/news/economy/romney-tax-plan /index.html

For Obama's tax plan compared to Romney's, please see:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/14/obama -vs-romney-which-tax-plan-works-for/
"Both candidates offer the American electorate only general outlines of their major tax proposals." - Kay Bell

Before attacking Romney's plan, have a look at Obama's and try to figure out the specifics. Thanks.

Governor Romney looked like shit tonight, he agreed with President Obama on everything with his foreign policy. But since this Election is more about our Economy, Romney is still in the race.

At 10/23/12 12:08 AM, DarkSoldier wrote:

At 10/22/12 11:52 PM, naronic wrote:

Likewise, I hope you realize that the Tax Policy Center bases a lot of its information on "assumptions". The truth of the matter is, it is hard to analyze Romney's plan based on the information we have. Without those specifics, you end up having speculation.

Obama's tax plan isn't perfect but at least he can explain it which is better than nothing.
Also Fox? You have to do better.

Romney is probably better for our Economy, while President Obama is probably better on Foreign policies. So, which one is more important to Americans? Jobs or Foreign Policy?

At 10/22/12 11:39 PM, DarkSoldier wrote: He ordered the operation, I agree. However, they NEEDED his permission to carry out the order. Otherwise, this would have looked pretty ugly if something went wrong and would have been a huge mess. So they needed the president on board. Intelligence sources had been looking into capturing Bin Laden for years prior to the Obama Administration.

Actually, the CIA had pretty much gone cold on capturing Bin Laden until Oabam came into office and reinvigorated the search. Shortly after Obama's Presidency began he made it a priority in teh CIA to catch Bin Laden. The CIA shortly thereafter added numerous agents on to the case. The sattelite tracking and eventual finding of Al-Kuwaiti was a direct result of this extra emphasis and man power the CIA put into the search at Obama's behest.

Sorry. Obama gets credit for the tracking and killing of Bin Laden, both of which were a result of his Presidential leadership.

>Still fighting over whether Obama is "responsible" for killing Osama bin Laden

Face it, even Republican political analysts and party advisors have admitted Romney doesn't win on foreign policy, hence sticking to the message of jobs and the economy. If you can't accept the basic foundations of political analysis and positioning, you really ought not be engaging in political punditry, even on a shitty forum like this.

Proper political analysis requires the ability to admit when the guy you like fucked up, or else you're never going to have any credibility.

Those overflowing feels when Wikipedia generally holds up about 80-87% of the time depending on topic.

I liked tonight's debate. I thought Romney did a good of talking about how America's policy should be run in a way that corrected what I saw was wrong with Obama's policy while taking some of Obama's good points, too.

Yeah, I'm probably biased but I thought this debate was either a tie or a Romney victory. I'm still not seeing the supposed Obama victory that some people are saying happened. Guess we'll find out on election day...

Also, political memes for the win:

The current presidential debates are full of half-truths and lies being spat out by Romney and Obama. Who is telling the truth? Obama misrepresented Romney's policies and vice versa.

Does this mean that America's status as a superpower is slowly being ceded to China? Will the real Romney stand up? will the real Obama stand up?

At 10/23/12 04:43 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Why do people still think that "give the rebels weapons and point them at the bad guys" is actually a good idea?

I agree 100% that this is a horrible idea, but when did Obama express support of this?

At 10/23/12 12:19 AM, naronic wrote:

At 10/23/12 12:08 AM, DarkSoldier wrote:

At 10/22/12 11:52 PM, naronic wrote:

Likewise, I hope you realize that the Tax Policy Center bases a lot of its information on "assumptions". The truth of the matter is, it is hard to analyze Romney's plan based on the information we have. Without those specifics, you end up having speculation.

Obama's tax plan isn't perfect but at least he can explain it which is better than nothing.
Also Fox? You have to do better.

Actually, Fox was perfectly correct in this remark. Romney's tax plan isn't perfect either but you did not mention that so I assume you figured his plan had to be *perfect* or it was not good enough for people. I cannot recall from which debate this was (maybe last week) but the CNN fact-checker guy even said Obama's tax plan is hard to figure out because we do not know the specifics. And Obama is better at talking about his tax plan? Funny because all he talks about is Romney's tax plan. lol.

Don't get your hopes up on Obama again. He screwed you for the past four years. What makes you think the next four are going to be better? :P

P.S. Instead of attacking Fox, if there is a problem with the journalist who wrote the article, point it out but do not give me that Fox BS.
Here is the biography of the author Kay Bell:
http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/about.html

At 10/23/12 12:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/22/12 11:39 PM, DarkSoldier wrote: He ordered the operation, I agree. However, they NEEDED his permission to carry out the order. Otherwise, this would have looked pretty ugly if something went wrong and would have been a huge mess. So they needed the president on board. Intelligence sources had been looking into capturing Bin Laden for years prior to the Obama Administration.

Actually, the CIA had pretty much gone cold on capturing Bin Laden until Oabam came into office and reinvigorated the search. Shortly after Obama's Presidency began he made it a priority in teh CIA to catch Bin Laden. The CIA shortly thereafter added numerous agents on to the case. The sattelite tracking and eventual finding of Al-Kuwaiti was a direct result of this extra emphasis and man power the CIA put into the search at Obama's behest.

Sorry. Obama gets credit for the tracking and killing of Bin Laden, both of which were a result of his Presidential leadership.

Can you provide a source?

I will provide you a source from Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense. This message was delivered May 2, 2011 (day Bin Laden was killed): https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statemen ts/press-release-2011/justice-done.html

"The raid was the culmination of intense and tireless effort on the part of many dedicated Agency officers over many years." Furthermore, he only thanks the president for "his willingness to make the courageous decision to proceed with the operation." Like I was saying, they needed Obama's authorization to go forward with the operation. If the US Secretary of Defense that was appointed by Obama says that they have been working at this for many years, I believe them.

I rest my case.

At 10/23/12 01:13 AM, Profanity wrote: You fundamentally misinterpret your teachers intentions. You need to be aware, discriminating, skeptical, and thorough about your sources. As Wikipedia is available to everyone, able to be edited freely, and doesn't pass through editors and scholarly peer review.

How did I misinterpret my teachers intentions? I don't know how you could have assumed anything about me on this. If anything, you should have assumed that my teachers dislike Wikipedia because that is correct. Why? Because not all the information is accurate and correct. People have a tendency to believe whatever they read, hear or see (see presidential debates for instance). As you said, "Wikipedia is available to everyone, able to be edited freely, and doesn't pass through editors and scholarly peer review."

I prefer books from major publishing houses and professional journalists, because they never contain inaccuracies.

At 10/23/12 09:19 AM, DarkSoldier wrote: Actually, Fox was perfectly correct in this remark. Romney's tax plan isn't perfect either but you did not mention that so I assume you figured his plan had to be *perfect* or it was not good enough for people.

I said he has to explain how it works, especially if it's going to cost the US 4.8 trillion dollars otherwise.

I cannot recall from which debate this was (maybe last week) but the CNN fact-checker guy even said Obama's tax plan is hard to figure out because we do not know the specifics.

Sources on this?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/10/mi tt-romney-taxes

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-obamas-corporate-tax-pl an-a-good-idea

At 10/23/12 09:19 AM, DarkSoldier wrote: Can you provide a source?

Yeah it was on teh History Channel show "Targeting Bin Laden."

"The raid was the culmination of intense and tireless effort on the part of many dedicated Agency officers over many years."

3 can easily be referred to as "many", even then, h could be referring to the search before it was reinvigorated. This says nothing.

Furthermore, he only thanks the president for "his willingness to make the courageous decision to proceed with the operation."

Again, says nothing. Proceed with the operation. Which one? The one of finding Osama tht Obama put new life into or just the decision to move forward with Neptune's Spear.

I rest my case.

Your honor, I move for judgement as a matter of law as opposing party has failed to prove any part of their claim.

GRANTED.

I think you guys are playing coy to a fault here on how American politics assigns credit and blame. We don't say, "The soldiers won World War II," even though it's plainly obvious that yes, the men fighting overseas won that battle for us, while Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman (among many others in the War Department and in Allied governments) provided the overarching strategy in collaboration with commanding officers. But for the purpose of not getting bogged down in an endless recursive cycle of hair-splitting, we just say "FDR won World War II," even though he was technically dead by the final conclusion.

It's the same when we raise up "George Washington," when by any account it was the Continental Congress that enabled almost all of Washington's victories through the necessary bureaucracy that funds and enables warfare. It's the reason we say "Johnson lost Vietnam," or "George W. Bush got Saddam Hussein," or any number of linguistic shortcuts. I'd point to the number of conservative articles highlighting Bush for capturing Hussein, and I never once faulted them for doing so, as one of the advantages of the presidency is the ability to take credit (or bear fault, as Bush also did) for events that occur during your presidency.

So no, it's not technically true that "Obama got Bin Laden." He didn't fly to Pakistan and pull him out of bed himself. But when someone says "Obama got Bin Laden," do we understand what they mean? Do we understand that Osama bin Laden was captured and killed under the order and administration of President Obama? Yes? Then stop being so goddamned coy about assigning credit just because it's a man you disagree with politically. It doesn't advance the debate, and frankly it's a lazy way to avoid acknowledging a political reality.

At 10/23/12 06:17 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/23/12 04:43 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Why do people still think that "give the rebels weapons and point them at the bad guys" is actually a good idea?

I agree 100% that this is a horrible idea, but when did Obama express support of this?

I only watched the first 30 mins or so, but he totally did

At 10/23/12 05:54 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 10/23/12 09:26 AM, DarkSoldier wrote: How did I misinterpret my teachers intentions?

You didn't cite any sources.

Obama 82
Romney 18

100% accurate.

At 10/23/12 10:58 AM, naronic wrote: I said he has to explain how it works, especially if it's going to cost the US 4.8 trillion dollars otherwise.

I like the link you sent me from the Economist. I think it became abundantly clear the political views of that author. And you come out here trashing Fox, shame on you.

He needs to explain how it works? I don't know if you are lazy or just wasting my time. I suspect it is the latter. A simple search of Romney's tax plan would have yielded sources concerning how it works. If you are going to tell me "Oh, but we don't know the specifics", well, guess what, I am going to throw it right back at you regarding Obama's plan and I already provided a link to that.

Here is Romney discussing his tax plan during one of the debates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSc8xsdJrKA

If you are going to claim that Romney's plan is not transparent enough, you are going to get a kick out of this one:
http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/10/23/democrat-website-joke s-on-romney-tax-plan-ignores-obamas-own-lack-of-transparency /

Sources on this?

I am trying to find if CNN posted the clip on their website. It does not seem like they did because I cannot find any clips regarding debate fact checks. In case you ask, I saw it on TV after one of the debates.

However, you can read this article on why Obama's tax plan would be bad:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/19/study-shows-obama-tax-
plan-bad-news-for-the-economy-especially-in-blue-states/

In regards to that article you gave me by USNews, 4 out of the 7 debaters said Obama's plan was bad...lol.

At 10/23/12 05:54 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 10/23/12 09:26 AM, DarkSoldier wrote: How did I misinterpret my teachers intentions?

You didn't cite any sources.

By saying "Wikipedia...my teachers would smack you.", you therefore came to the conclusion that *I* misinterpreted my teachers intentions. What? Where do *I* come into this? Not citing any sources does not even correspond to my Wikipedia-teacher statement, it is irrelevant. In case you missed the point of my statement, my teachers dislike Wikipedia for not being "scholarly enough" (if that is such a term) to be a good credible source. So how you came to the rest is beyond my understanding.

At 10/23/12 01:46 PM, JMHX wrote: So no, it's not technically true that "Obama got Bin Laden." He didn't fly to Pakistan and pull him out of bed himself. But when someone says "Obama got Bin Laden," do we understand what they mean? Do we understand that Osama bin Laden was captured and killed under the order and administration of President Obama? Yes? Then stop being so goddamned coy about assigning credit just because it's a man you disagree with politically. It doesn't advance the debate, and frankly it's a lazy way to avoid acknowledging a political reality.

Good, you seem to understand the point I was trying to make about this whole Obama-Osama issue. I think if I were in the intelligence community and worked hard to locate Osama only to have Obama take all the credit for it, I would be pretty darn pissed. And the same can be said about many issues (for every Presidents probably). While Obama deserves the credit for approving the operation to capture Osama, I do not find it fair for him to take most of the credit for Osama's capture/death. It reminds me of the Benghazi attack, the intelligence community was blamed and thrown down the stairs for it. They were credited with that but Osama's killing...not quite (or at least not in the manner one would one hope to be acknowledged).

Give credit where it is due. Just because the President of the United States does not do it, does not mean it is correct to follow his way. That is my opinion on the subject.

At 10/23/12 11:28 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yeah it was on teh History Channel show "Targeting Bin Laden."

A link to the clip with the time that proves your point would be appreciated please.

3 can easily be referred to as "many", even then, h could be referring to the search before it was reinvigorated. This says nothing.

Wrong. It says a lot. Anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows that 2.5 years does not equal many. Let us not debunk common sense here. I think it is also common sense that when it became clear who was behind 9/11, efforts were made to locate and capture Bin Laden well before Obama took office.

Again, says nothing. Proceed with the operation. Which one? The one of finding Osama tht Obama put new life into or just the decision to move forward with Neptune's Spear.

It was pretty clear he was referring to the operation Neptune's Spear. That is the only "courageous" operation that comes to mind while reading his message. Unless you are saying that locating Bin Laden was more courageous than Navy Seals risking their lives. Is that what you are saying? If not, then I come back to my point that it is a reference to Neptune's Spear.

Your honor, I move for judgement as a matter of law as opposing party has failed to prove any part of their claim.

I should hold you in contempt for wasting my time having to debunk your nonsense (I joke of course - always happy to share my knowledge on issues). ;-)

At 10/23/12 08:14 PM, DarkSoldier wrote:
Good, you seem to understand the point I was trying to make about this whole Obama-Osama issue. I think if I were in the intelligence community and worked hard to locate Osama only to have Obama take all the credit for it, I would be pretty darn pissed. And the same can be said about many issues (for every Presidents probably). While Obama deserves the credit for approving the operation to capture Osama, I do not find it fair for him to take most of the credit for Osama's capture/death. It reminds me of the Benghazi attack, the intelligence community was blamed and thrown down the stairs for it. They were credited with that but Osama's killing...not quite (or at least not in the manner one would one hope to be acknowledged).

And you seem to misunderstand my English language skills. Individuals in the intelligence community aren't in it for the fucking glory, so let's get off that high horse right now. What you do or don't find fair is irrelevant to how we as a country have decided to understand things like wars, political failures, etc. The guy at the top gets the credit or the shit, (read: "Mr. Madison's War," "Johnson's Vietnam," "Nixon's Watergate," "Roosevelt's Canal"). If I were a ditch digger in fucking Panama, I'd be pissed they gave Roosevelt the victory for the canal when it was my ass that dug the thing. But so it goes.

Stop living in an alternate world where the strike team that took him out got no credit for the raid, everyone in America knows what SEAL Team 6 is, they're getting two movies, multiple books, one of their leaders has already been made rich consulting for projects related to the raid itself. Believe me, no one is under the mistaken idea that President Obama single-handedly beat the shit out of Osama bin Laden.

At 10/23/12 08:14 PM, DarkSoldier wrote:

At 10/23/12 10:58 AM, naronic wrote:

Here is Romney discussing his tax plan during one of the debates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSc8xsdJrKA

You seem to not understand, everything Romney said has been proven not to close the 4.8 trillion dollar gap by mathematics. And he can't explain why it would even after 3 debates.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded that Mitt Romney's tax plan would cost 4.8 trillion dollars over ten years.

more links
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/romney-tax-plan_n_1 970672.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/romney-tax-plan_n_1 974984.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-pawlenty-mitt-romney-tax-
plan-vague-lacks-details-2012-6

I am trying to find if CNN posted the clip on their website. It does not seem like they did because I cannot find any clips regarding debate fact checks. In case you ask, I saw it on TV after one of the debates.

http://www.politifact.com/

At 10/23/12 05:02 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I only watched the first 30 mins or so, but he totally did

I could've sworn it was Romney who said that. He was the one who was going on about a foreign policy that consisted of pouring money into these developing Democracies which I actually think is a good idea. You might as well give money to people who are trying to make a just government. But then again he also cited the election of a Muslim Brotherhood President as a failure of Obama's foreign policy, so maybe not then.

At 10/23/12 08:14 PM, DarkSoldier wrote: A link to the clip with the time that proves your point would be appreciated please.

Tried to find it before, and all I could find was a 2 minute clip from later in the 2 hour show. It was made pretty recently, so it may be a while befor emuch gets online. If you're able to watch the show, the relevant info is near the beginning of the program, in the first 15 minutes if my memory is right.

It was pretty clear he was referring to the operation Neptune's Spear. That is the only "courageous" operation that comes to mind while reading his message. Unless you are saying that locating Bin Laden was more courageous than Navy Seals risking their lives. Is that what you are saying? If not, then I come back to my point that it is a reference to Neptune's Spear.

The CIA agents had to live in Pakistan and blend in when the penalty of being caught would be likely worse than what the SEALs would have faced. They faced being caputred and tortured by both Pakistan and Al Qaeda. Also, whereas the SEALs were in harms way for an hour or two, the CIA agents were in the risk of harm for months. So, they were at least as courageous as the SEALs.

At 10/23/12 10:29 PM, Warforger wrote: I could've sworn it was Romney who said that. He was the one who was going on about a foreign policy that consisted of pouring money into these developing Democracies which I actually think is a good idea. You might as well give money to people who are trying to make a just government. But then again he also cited the election of a Muslim Brotherhood President as a failure of Obama's foreign policy, so maybe not then.

They're both a wreck on foreign policy in my book. The difference is, Romney's idea, while far from perfect, does not result in dead soldiers. Sure, money in the toilet, but not dead US troops and foreign civilians.

At 10/25/12 12:31 AM, Travis wrote: I'm sorry, but if anyone has paid attention at all to anything Romney has said over the past two years... hell in the past weeks.

He completely flipped on foreign policy.

as do many, many politicians. This is really nothing new.

In other news, I'm getting more annoyed with idiot inbreds on Facebook acting like they know shit about politics, so I decided to come here to bathe myself in people who I may not agree with, but do know a few facts about politics and try to keep up with it... to try and negate the stupid.

I know the feeling, I'm about to delete about half my facebook friends over them spamming blatantly stupid shit about both parties.

Just thought I'd mention Obama hates this nation and wants to destroy it from the inside, by any means necessary. Want proof? Support Darrel Issa's motion to expose Obama's most violent scandal, Fast and Furious.

You know Obama's a crook of Nixonian proportions, and so is his top lawman Eric Holder. The BHO platform of transparency and accountability is as bereft as his love for American prosperity.

GUYS I HAVE RUN OUT OF TINFOIL FROM ALL OF THESE HATS.