Dell-Joey-Riot
 

I thought, this is what I was gonna see when I clicked on the link:

If Romney wins I'm all good.

If Obama wins I'll stay around to watch the car wreck. Besides I can't wait to see what sell-out promise the idiot in chief made to Putin. If America wants Obama then I'm willing to stay on board and go down with the ship.

Either way, Breeders Cup is in California next year. For people here who never heard of Breeders Cup, it's two days of horse racing.

LOL - I'd pick Australia, due to the strong Thoroughbred horse business there. And fun.

No worries, mate - Obama by at least 307 electoral votes. Dems gain the Senate and hold, and gain in the House.

Healthcare for all, 12 million jobs in the next 4 years doing nothing additional, deficit cut when the Dems refuse to cave to GOP lame duck session screaming about Bush tax cuts (we're goin' off the cliff to let them expire, then we'll reinstate for middle class in January), fiscal spending continuing to go down, technology and energy jobs growing, manufacturing growing - it's all good.

Me and about 60 million other Romney supporters will stick around and make sure this president gets his attitude adjustment. If he wants to govern and needs any help from us, we have to be made happy too.

So he has some interesting decisions to make. There is no mandate with a 50-50 split in the electorate.

The electorate wasn't split 50-50 ;) Obama is currently ahead by over 2.5% of the vote, and increasing as the last votes are counted.

You are certainly seemingly a bit confident in the influence of the current GOP. They've lost more seats in the Senate, Reid will adjust the filibuster so they can no longer obstruct, and they've lost the extremists and seats in the House.

If the Dems governed like the GOP, they could literally walk all over and do virtually whatever they wanted now, by simply picking up 30 reasonable GOP for every House vote needed. That will be easy to do.

They don't even need the GOP in the senate any more.

And your offer of compromise and cooperation is funny, given the complete obstruction and deliberate sabotage of the past 4 years. Boehner is already capitulating to the new reality, Mitch McConnell has doubled down on being stupid. We'll see. The door has always been open, but the Republicans have deliberately refused to cooperate at all for 4 years. If they decide to suddenly do it now, the Dems would welcome them, finally, I'm sure.

:zz: Next stop JoeyWorld 1954, the twilight zone. You personally having any ability whatsoever to affect change is about as good as you taking a piss and hitting the ocean from the Boardwalk in Seaside Heights 29-Oct at 7:00 PM.

Make yourself useful and demand your tea-baggers don't act like spoiled 2 year old. Put them on notice that government is compromise. Put them on notice that the strategy of trying to make the president fail is down right treasonous and won't be tolerated. Put them on notice that he is OUR Quarterback and they should not allow and take joy in his getting sacked becuase the TEAM loses when that happens. You will have a chance to get a new QB in 4 years.

Government is a compromise between the guy getting pickpocketed and the thief -right?

A compromise between the guy providing the "free" stuff and the other guy consuming the free stuff.

Sounds great.

We are the loyal opposition, just as your side would be and has been in the reverse circumstance. We're not going along.

Since I voted straight Republican with the exception of the President I Demand my fuking side quits acting like a baby and works with the other side for the good of the country. I demand my side QUITS simply trying to make the other side fail so more of them can get elected. If things don't work out BOTH sides are failures not just the president.

:tro:


that's the way to encourage discussion, compromise, etc!!
always seems funny to me when one side (generally the losing one) asks for compromise, yet will concede nothing. and then they wonder why nothing happens.

it would be nice if this president would try to work with the otherside one fcking time too.........

When your definition of "Work with the otherside" is to give them completely what they want without any changes don't be suprised if you receive resistance. Joey is a perfect example of the faction that is destroying the Republican party.

We All lose without this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise

The makers should compromise with the takers? What, at (figurative) gunpoint?

No. I believe the dems in this instance should stand firm and cut defense spending. Our repubs have been TAKING and lining the pockets of their buddies in the defense industry far too long which is the number 1 cause of why we are were we are financially.

:tro:

Defense is the ONLY thing liberals ever want to cut. Give surrender a chance... :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, there is common ground. I'm a conservative and I support national defense, and more is better to a point (emphasis intended).

However, besides getting out of Afghanistan, I'd be the first to point out that we never should have went into Iraq under George W. Bush. How did Colin Powell make that presentation to the U.N. that showed evidence for "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Somebody really screwed up.

But even aside from that - how long is too long to maintain an American "tripwire" force on the 38th parallel? I think 60 years is plenty, don't you guys? What did deployment, support, hardware, supplies, etc. cost over 60 years? Or, since Korea was "U.N. Police Action", let's bill the U.N. (a.k.a other countries) for the costs including a profit for us. This at the same time as we reduce our payments to the U.N. from 22% of their operating capital down to the lowest contributing large nations of around 1.6% for Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding

more is better? are you seriously advocating spending more on defense than we do now?

if we were to have a smaller military, not going into iraq would be a reality. but hey, we have all these soldiers, sailors and airmen, so we use them.

have you actually looked to see just how much we spend each year on defense? what portion of the federal budget goes to defense? how our spending matches up to the next nine largest militaries? most of the next nine are our allies. two of the nine are china and russia. russia's spending is equal to france. or to england.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

i've posted the above before.


note this graph:

Attachment 2072


that's our spending compared to the next four largest militaries.

Cut it to 300 and it still is more then double. But then Dell will say if you do that you will get invaded :zz:

If you fight smarter by using drones which are much cheaper then boots on the ground or bombing from a mile up and some innocent civilian gets killed then damn you because an innocent civilian was killed. When you counter with how many innocent civilians get killed in a ground war or bombing from a mile up you get crickets. I would say logic dictates that many more innocent civilians are killed by conventional warefare.

certainly was true in ww 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

22,426,600 to 25,487,500 military deaths

37,585,300 to 54,594,000 civilian deaths.

and no one will invade us. that would be suicide. yeah, we could cut defense in half, and still outspend the next four countries, two of which are allies.

also, when you look at our navy alone, which a power would have to go thru....it would be impossible.

we have about a dozen carriers, as well as who knows how many other ships that could also be used as small carriers for our harrier jets.
china will continue to flex it's muscles, but it doesn't even have one operational carrier, or any pilots that know how to land on one sitting still, let alone one that's out at sea.

some say entitlements are the third rail, i think it's defense. it's obscene what we spend in that one area.