It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I am unfortunately left with two candidates I'm not ecstatic over. This is why I seriously don't know who's going to win! Feels like literally half of America likes one, and half likes the other!
I understand the numbers-don't-match-up game. Cut taxes, cut spending and how do we expect to balance the budget???? If you look at it as pure numbers, you're right, it doesn't add up. I get it. What the factor at play is, Romney hopes to give business a cushion which will "incentivize" them to spend more money in jobs/capital/whatever. More money spent is more money taxed. Thus, reducing taxes can (and has) actually generated more revenue even though the gov't will be getting less money for each dollar earned. It's kinda the Walmart theory, if you will. That's what Romney is hoping to do, whether you believe in it or not.
On balanced budgets: Obama could easily have made a balanced budget (as he had promised) when the Democrats had the legislature. That right there really erks me. He is pushing to end the wars, which I am happy about (Lord knows, we need to invest here and not there), I'll give you that.
I work in the transportation field, and I've had to deal with plenty of federally funded projects. Let me tell you, if you knew what the Recovery Act was really paying for, perhaps you'd be as upset as I am about all the spending that has taken place.
Lastly, I really believe in state's rights. I think it is something that has been lost in the jumble of everything. If we put most issues like education (get rid of no child left behind), marriage rights, health care, even transportation, etc. back on the state platforms, really, those red states can do what they want and the blue states can do what they want. Why impose things on a federal level to the 50 percent? If a state tanks due to it's policies, it will have other states to model after making what's best for that state. Each individual vote would actually carry more weight. Who doesn't want that!?!? I really think this is the way to diffuse the partisan-ness of today's politics.
One thing I learned from Bond is that short-sightedness + narcissism will enable me neutralize you easier. ;)
If Obama wins, the USA loses a bit; If Romney wins, the WORLD loses a bit more... =;
Joking aside, what makes you think Romney is only going to cater to the rich? If he wants a second term, he'll have to cater to a lot more people than just them...I mean, 1% of the vote won't be doing him much good, would it?
Joking aside, you have to look to the soul of the man. This is it, he's getting older, and he WILL have what he can TAKE. Most of them (politicians) have no God, no one love in their life, no allegiance to any but themselves. Maybe a feel for what to leave their children...
It's a big chess game to them, a bloated version of controlling (or over-controlling) your workplace if you're a manager.
Bond is about disrupting the chain for the better, in small increments.
Truth is squashed in the pursuit of ill-gotten gain otherwise.
Go ahead, vote Romney. If he screws the world over I'll thank him for it! I-)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/04/Romney-Gains-3-to-Tie-Obama-in-CNN-s-D-11-Poll
It's just the color of crap that will be determined. Did we eat corn? Beans? All questions answered tomorrow.
See, big is better for industry.
Bin Laden got taken out in a smallish way & it didn't make anyone any DOUGH.
Iran under a Romney Presidency however will be large, and Halliburton, Blackwater or whatever their current holding monikers are will still swell to gigantic proportions monetarily.
War is good business, and Romney is first & foremost a good businessman.
Quite a few people on here are adamantly defending Romney, saying that he can fix every wrong that Obama brought us in his first four years. These are clearly stupid people who thought that Obama could fix in 24 hours what Bush did over the course of eight years.
Our economy is a problem, but I feel that this would have even happened had McCain taken office four years ago, because of the hole that Bush dug us into. Obama is doing the best he can with the piss poor hand that Bush dealt him, but are we blaming Bush? No.
I'm certain that Romney would steer us in the wrong direction. Am I wrong? We don't know yet. Am I right? We don't know yet. What'll happen if Obama gets a second term? We don't know yet.
The last question - What'll happen if Obama gets a second term? - we'll find out the answer to in January. The first two questions will be answered in four years time.
I put forward a question to the Romney lovers: You keep telling us what evil Obama will do if he's re-elected, but what good with Romney do if he's elected? From what I've read, he wants to send our jobs overseas (like all his money), but to you, this is clearly okay. It's tough enough to get an American job in America, but you believe all our problems will be solved by trying to get an American job in China? How does that help?
In the third Presidential Debate (I didn't see the other two), Romney kept bringing up things he'd "pledged" to do, which Obama was countering with Romney's exact words. Why, exactly, do we need a president who can't even keep his own statements straight? Obama has been concise, he's been clear, and he's tried to keep his word at every turn. But, a guy who wants to rob from the poor and give to the rich should be in office, right?
I've been reading a bunch of talk about the Bible, about religion and about gay marriage. I think it was @00Beast who mentioned that the Founding Fathers basing this country on what was in the Bible. I put forward a question to people who believe we should abide by what the Fathers thought: What gay man is trying to marry you? Do you really hate homosexuals that much that the very thought of their existence somewhere in the country makes you punch out a wall?
I'm a semi-religious man, and you know what I think the Bible is? A G**damn book. It has words, between covers, and those words tell a story. Is it a true story? I don't think so (true stories don't change over time, as the Bible has). In fact, the Talking Sheep told me it was crap ( :) ).
As far as gay marriage, abortions and all that other stuff goes, if it doesn't involve you, why do you give a sh*t? Is a gay man coming on to you everywhere you go? If not, shut up. Were you somehow pressured into an abortion? If not, shut up. Gays are people, too, they have the same human rights you do.
Human rights. A lot of people fail to remember what those words mean. When you're born, you have human rights. Not God-given rights, not American rights. Human rights. The right to live your way, make your decisions, love who you choose to. If a woman chooses to have an abortion after she's been raped, that's her choice. Yes, she's snuffing out the potential Messiah that child could be, but what about the pain and the horror that brought that child to us? You people who say "it's something God intended" (and I live in the state that stupid b*stard is running for) clearly think that rape is okay as long as it produces a baby.
I want you to tell me right now where in the Bible it says that a Christian has the right to decide for everyone else? If it says so in there, I'd love to see it. Gimme what I need to know to find it. Gospel, book, psalm, I'll look it up, believe me. You know what you're saying? You're saying that everything in the Bible is to be adhered to, except those ten little things called commandments.
Oh, yeah, the Fathers also decided that home owning, slave owning, rich, white men were the only people who have the right to decide anything? Was that right, too? I mean, after all, they believed in that as much as they did the Bible.
I'm not going to tell you to vote for Obama, or to not vote for Romney. You have that right to decided who to vote for. I'm voting for Obama, because that's my personal choice. You can pick Romney for all I care, it's your decision and I'd be going against what I said if I told you who to vote for. Go vote tomorrow, make your choice, and make your voice heard for whoever you want.
This post was brought to you by PBS and Big Bird, you Romney-loving idiots.
I applaud you sir! =D> =D> =D> **==
@chrisisall I wish I did know each of the candidate's "soul." The hard part is, none of us will ever know the "soul" of any presidential candidate. We only get the persona that they give us. What I think you may be trying to get at is core beliefs. One way to look at it is, is it the federal government's role to manage social issues (ie. healthcare)? I take it you would say yes, and I no. I feel this is the underlying story at play.
And yes, it's about time Big Bird foots his own bill. We should not be borrowing money from China/elsewhere to fund TV shows. PBS will probably do much better in the open market, my opinion of course.
Don't worry man, the right people will keep their jobs :) **==
@Agent brought up some good points about Romney's personal views, and like I stated previously, he's not a good pick from the Republican party. The problem is, I don't want the same from the last four years, and I know Johnson has no chance.
I honestly think Ron Paul is the perfect candidate for America, but our two party system prevents him from getting anywhere. American politics are doomed.. how is it Democracy when I'm given only two choices.
And @JWESTBROOK , I am right there with you. Ron Paul would've been my pick. It would've been interesting to see him go one-on-one versus Obama.
You're so misguided. You obviously have no idea what communism and socialism are, and what Obama's ideology is.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13328725-mitt-romney-faces-ethics-charges-for-auto-bailout-profiteering
If you read the connected article here: http://www.thenation.com/print/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza
You'll see that Romney held stock in a friends company. That company then was bailed out in 2009, was then worth more, and sold its stock for more than Romney originally paid, thus Romney made a profit.
I don't know about you, but I don't see anything criminal about that.
Exactly what I was just about to write. And Murdock, when you reread the story you'll also find that Romney hasn't been charged with anything (unlike what you've implied)....just that an investigation is taking place.
I do appreciate the addition of "expected to be" in your post (even though I doubt he will be charged of anything). My apologies for being so nit-picky, but if I am inaccurate about something, I'd rather have you call me out on it than not. Cheers.