neat, thanks
horrraayy!! obama won⌠my superstar won 
I found it from the person that posted it but I am sure its the same as yunnys
Okay, Iâll overnight your new president to Indonesia, enjoy
Well, time to start practicing my German so I can become a citizen there. Shame itâs nearly impossible for me to have German-US dual citizenship⌠Oh well, I liked it better in Germany anyways.
Yeah, Iâve been toying with the idea of leaving myself. Havenât decided where I would go yet though.
Think republicans will move to a more liberal view on social issues? Or a more socialistic view on the economy?
Donât know.
How many times does it take to beat into somebodyâs head that we donât have the money.
Spend, spend, spend, with no end in sight. Nobody wants to be that guy that actually cuts something, because then he looks like a jerk, and that puts his job on the line.
Even if they increase taxes a lot, and assuming it didnât ruin the economy, it still wouldnât pay down the debt. The only way out of this mess is to cut, and there will be a lot of upset people.
Canât pay for social programs without money.
The GOP doesnât need to throw out its social principles to woo libertarians and steal voters from the Democrats, we agree with about 2/3 of the GOPâs principles.
Instead, they need to make it clear that while they may believe whatever about social issues, itâs NOT the job of the federal government to make people act a certain way. The Constitution doesnât grant the Federal government power over these issues. Wrap that in a shroud of Christianity if youâd like - God gave every person a Free Will, and in order for individuals to build a relationship with Jesus Christ, they must be free to turn to Him; not merely forced to act as Christians through the coercion of government. Are you really a moral, Christian person if the government forces you to be moral? In my opinion the REAL Christians are the ones that have the freedom to do whatever they like (so long as it doesnât hurt other individuals) and chose not to. And itâs not like everybody was a nasty heathen prior to these laws. America did rather well without these unconstitutional regulations for about 130 years. Also Iâd argue that banning things makes people want them even more. When I was in high school, I noticed it was easier kids to get marijuana than it was for them to get alcohol, which is pretty ironic given how much money and resources the government is throwing at the War on Drugs. I think it is safe to say, that the war on drugs has been a dismal failure, not to mention the COUNTLESS people that are dying because of the gang violence that is associated with the criminalization of drugs. The same kind of violence that arose during the prohibition era, and then swiftly declined when the Constitution was amended to nullify the previous amendment banning alcohol. (Notice how back then they actually took the time to amend the constitution before they made a new law, unlike the drug laws)
The GOP should not be telling people how to act anymore at a Federal Level. DROP IT.
I never have and never will do drugs or get drunk. Marijuana is an issue that doesnât mean much to me personally, but is important to a huge number of people. The Democrats have pot heads as part of their base because they talk a good game - meanwhile, Obama is aggressively prosecuting dispensaries and people who are legally (from a state level) using the drug. RUB THAT CRAP IN HIS FACE. Show people the numbers. Run videos of raids on dopey hippies by DEA agents in black outfits pointing MP5âs at their heads.
That issue, alone, would have handily won the election for Romney. How is saying âthis is a state issueâ anti-conservative? Same goes for issues like gay marriage.
Iâm a Strong Christian by the way, however I will be the first to admit I am FAR from perfect. I used to be a social conservative, then I âwoke upâ. I realized that trying to legislate morality doesnât work and that we SHOULD NOT have religion in government, and that actually bodes well with my faith. Look at the UK. They have a state religion, they legislated morality. Now 45% of people in the UK are atheists. Obviously there was some blow-back. There is a reason the founders wanted separation of church and state and freedom of religion. However, I see no legal grounds on the occasions when judges are cracking down on kids at school for wearing Christian themed shirts etc. Public places like schools donât have to be VOID of Christianity and other religions, that goes against the 1st amendment, but thatâs an entirely different subject.
As far as economic views, in my opinion, the Republicans have held too many socialistic views on the economy. I think it is safe to say that George Bush, McCain and Romney werenât exactly champions of the free market⌠for a long time Republicans have been complicit in the growing of government. Bush and his accomplices in congress grew the debt by 5 TRILLION. He created lots of new bureaucracies, entitlements and federal programs. Some of the govt policies that he signed off on are directly responsible for the Real Estate crash and the ensuing financial meltdown. And then when everything hit the fan Bush had the gall to say âWe have to abandon the free market to save itâ⌠No, the problem was we abandoned the free market and grew the bureaucracies DECADES prior to the fiasco and he contributed to the growth of govt and the govtâs involvement in the economy, especially the govtâs involvement in the housing market. Tax payer funded down payments for low income buyers, govt mandated lax lending standards, accusing banks of discrimination for not giving out mortgages to people who clearly didnât have the means of paying them back, govt ensured mortgages, low interest rates, easy credit. COME ON.
Republicans need to start looking at how the Fed is responsible for a lot of our monetary problems and do some soul searching on if it is enabling congressâs spending problems, because the govt definitely was not running up trillion dollar deficits when it didnât have a central bank printing up the money to fund the govt spending spree. Back when the govt actually had to raise taxes to fund spending projects, people felt the pain, so they were less inclined to support new govt programs. Now the Fed just runs some money off a printing press and the people donât feel the pain until later.
The GOP needs to accept the fact that the Government needs to shrink, we need cuts in everything (including the military)! I heard no substantial cuts in ANYTHING from Romney. Sorry, but cutting PBS alone will not balance the budget, and you canât lower taxes without spending cuts to accommodate them. As wigglez alluded to, obviously itâs going to be harder to win telling people that they have to exercise and eat healthy to lose weight. Itâs far easier to embrace the Keynesian economic philosophy that says you can eat and sit your way out of obesity. People will obviously take free stuff over working hard and postponing immediate consumption for more future consumption.
You know, a lot of Americans would be wealthier if they didnât get off from their job (if they even have one) listening to Johnny Paycheck after buying a 6 pack of beer and a bunch of other things they donât need EVERY NIGHT. If people made small cuts in consumption and actually invested money, they could live a higher quality lifestyle in the near future. $6 invested today is $30 down the road. It all adds up. However saving is made even harder with the Fedâs inflationary policies. There is little incentive to save now because you lose money leaving it in the bank. Not to mention that it is much harder to save when the price of everything is going up and your wages canât outpace inflation. So instead everybody just consumes and goes deeper in debt. But the savings were necessary to provide for capital formation and future innovation. We are financing current consumption at the expensive of future consumption. We are selling the cows to buy milk and this will hurt us in the long run.
Itâs like the government breaks the legs of Americans by destroying their jobs with fiscal policies, monetary policies and regulations that force businesses to outsource or close down. Then when the people go on unemployment and get welfare, they feel like the government is doing them a good deed. NO. If it wasnât for the government we wouldnât be in this mess and we would have more money.
But there are too many underlying economic and monetary problems to address. I concede that, even if the Republicans started supporting free markets again, they would probably not garnish themselves with additional votes. We wonât preempt the problem. But it is going to be necessary to have people in Washington who understand the problem, predicted the outcome and have the solution so we can restore our economy after it hits the fan. If we donât, we will make the same mistakes we made in 2001 and 2008. We might end up even getting a tyrant who âdoesnât let a good crisis go to wasteâ. We have to prevent Washington from having an even larger power grab during the next crisis.
All I can hope for is that the GOP will move back to the support of free markets, start thinking about the consequences of an expansive foreign policy and start listening to the constitution in regards to social issues.
Rant Complete. 
Please by all means, if any of you donât like the direction the United States has taken please move to another country.
You canât make money anywhere else, this is the only country that lets you get away with schemes like Romney has gotten away with, not even Europe would let businesses exploit their citizens like America does, and they are first world countries just like the United States.
So you guys want to start a business in the Middle East? Please go ahead, they donât like gay marriage there or womenâs rights for abortions, Republicans will fit right in.
There are plenty of rich people like George Soros and Warren Buffet who do want to pay for the unproductive, so that everyone could have a socialist utopia like the Europeans do, and please donât reference Greece there are many MORE European countries other than Greece.
So best of luck to you and by the way, United States regulations on the finance industry are being adopted all over the world to prevent another worldwide recession.
You wonât be able to escape the lower leverage limits to 10:1 on the FOREX market for too long if you move.
Who said anything about moving to the middle east?
I like the u.s. for what its supposed to be, if anybody should be moving, its people like you.
If you think Europe is so great then why donât you move there?
Maybe you havenât noticed, but with the recent election this country is going to take a direction that you will not like, so you have more of a reason to want to leave, as the other republican suggested he will be doing.
Some rich have expatriated themselves, and for the republicans who donât like gay marriage neither does the middle east, so maybe they might want to start a business there since its coming to America state by state.
You do realize that if the u.s. is what it was supposed to be, gay marriage would be allowedâŚ
If people like you, republicans and democrats alike, werenât here, this would be a non issue
There ARE more countries in Europe than Greece. Italy, Spain an Portugal come to mindâŚ
So you have lost your life savings on Forex, you are broke and yet you still have the time to incessantly bother all of us with your meaningless drivel?
One can only assume you are on welfare.
I think your time would be better served if you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and actually tried to make something of your life instead of leaching off the productive class and whining about how your life is going to be better when the government fleeces us and plunges the economy into an economic toilet.
You validate a lot of arguments against welfare. It enables people, like yourself, to waste time and maintain a lifestyle just good enough to keep them in a perpetual state of dependency and disdain for the producers.
In an economy void of welfare to the leach class, you would have been SOL after you gambled away your life savings. You would have been faced with an ultimatum. Starve or get a job. Now, there would have been charities eager to help you get yourself off the ground, but upon noticing your selfish attitude, they would have weaned you off of their assistance and you would once again have had a strong, economic, spur in the rear motivating yourself to get a job. At that point, it would be up to you to determine whether you starve or live.
By the way, if you are a troll, thumbs up! I imagine you have persuaded most people on this forum to desire a smaller government.
Sman I can not agree with youâŚ
There is just one problem with this? If we all leave there will be no one to support you. See when we leave all the money will leave with us. When we leave all the jobs would come with us (not that you would be willing to work anyway).
That wonât help you. Youâll still lose money, and youâll still blame leverage.
As for the rest of your post, Iâve seen more lucid thoughts come out of my catâs sandbox.
You are completely clueless about the world around you.
this is the last place for freedom on planet earth! Where is there to go??? You commies are taking over the world!! Soon, there will be no escape from somebody telling us they know better about how we should live our lives than we do!!!
I wasnât aware of that, but I do agree that is messed up.
Gay marriage in itself is not important for most people. But being traders, you can say that its an indicator signalling greater social freedom in the future. Anyway, inter-racial marriage was once banned, and approx 10% of the general population is gay, so I think it is important enough to support. I donât agree 100% with Obama, but itâs alot more than the other nominee + party. Libetarian or liberal makes little difference to me, I am personally more libertarian but I value social freedom more than lower taxes.
Yeah.
Obama is a warmonger. He has innocent blood on his hands. Not saying Romney wouldnât be the same way, but if we actually had people here who held the president accountable for his actions and campaign promises. We wouldnât have a 2nd term president. Probably ever, until they straightened up.
Gay marriage, does not trump, the blood of innocent people.
It would depend on how much lower the taxes were.
If you were in a position where money was tight, like a lot of lower-middle income families around here, and could only choose between the two, would you vote for gay marriage or to help make sure you can feed your family?
Maybe Iâm a bit cold, but as much debt as weâre in and the more you have to squeeze a dollar. Social issues like gay marriage takes a back seat. Iâm sorry if anyone here thinks less of me for it, itâs what I feel.
Iâm a libertarian and believe government has no business being in marriage at all. This wouldnât even be an issue had we adhered to our constitution and our right to individual liberty. Being a Libertarian is all about social freedom. Democracy is horrible. Itâs not right that 90% of the people tell that 10% what they can and canât do.
Hereâs something I find amusing about what the liberals are doing.
A vast majority of the mexican population is catholic. The Catholic church is quite big in Mexico. If liberals get there way and the illegal immigrants get their citizenship, thatâs going to set back the gay marriage issue even farther. Haha
I guess they would have to line up gay marriage before citizenship.
A similar situation exists in Australia, and I suppose Europe, with refugees streaming from the Middle East and Afghanistan. Most of these people are conservative. The majority of the world is conservative, although that is incrementally changing.
I donât disagree with the rest of what youâve said.