Originally posted by metaglypto How have I displayed narrow political parameters?
More like a narrow band of tolerance.. but fair enough please do define your "broad" political parameters..
But to me you do seem to have narrow political parameters .. and do not really care to define them..
i'll start.. Bush/Cheney are war criminals
Romney is a flip flopping out of touch rich white guy who's business experience actually disqualify him from being a president (US is NOT nor for the sake of citizens should EVER be run as such)
Obama is a centrist and too pragmatic for my taste..Romney (and most of the current rep. party) are just to much in favor of a plutocracy.and are selling snake oil to the masses (i.e tea party)
70% of our economy is based on consumer spending and neither "gets it" though Romny/Ryan policies will make it worse..
Prejudice plays into the current election.
Based on a reading or the Mormon "prophecies" and it's basic tenants I do not trust him.. and neither does one of his own.. Mr. Reid (which definitely transcends pure party affiliation and is therefore more "scarey"). Theocracy is NOT a founding principal of this country..
Gov. doesn't need to tax to spend, there is no bankruptcy, QE targeted the wrong segment of the problem.
Medicare/soc sec can never actually go broke... any more than can the military spending (5 trillion and not one cent paid for in over 10 years tells ME something)
Romneys "moral directive" is for the 30's not the 2030's..
The current trouble and polarization is due to the fact both parties are half wrong.. yet one must choose which is more likely to cause the least amount of pain
On foreign policy Romney exhibits the "ugly American syndrome" and is therefore unqualified for the most important part of a presidents job.
He was gov. of Mass. and they will not vote for him in the majority.. He was born in MI and most likely the same thing there.. Says something to me..
I could go on expanding my "narrow parameters" but I believe it is your turn.............
current silly idea......
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/mitt-romney-in-2011-we-c...relief/264206/
Mitt Romney said America shouldn't be in the business of providing federal disaster relief and that it would be better for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's functions to be handled by individual states or even the private sector.
Quote: Queried directly on the topic by CNN's John King during the June 13, 2011 Republican presidential primary debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, Romney said the federal government "cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids."
IF the Fed.. with it's money printing machine can't afford it HOW are states and priv. going to solve this? Charge per rescue.. Check credit histories before "helping" rely on the Mormon "storehouses"?.. THIS is INSANITY....in my narrow parameter of thinking.........