Why Exactly Does Romney Want Fewer Firefighters, Police and Teachers?

I would just like to point out something that the people claiming to be "conservatives" have yet to learn on this board.

This debate should have been about whether or not it is a good idea to cut federal spending on cops, firemen, and teachers. Instead, you planted your flags on a false premise and made complete asses of yourselves.

I see this time and time and time again. Granted, "conservatives" are not the only ones who do that, but in my younger days we conservatives were always the smartest people in the room. Nowadays, you are looking as stupid as the liberals. And just because I continually point that out does not mean I am a liberal. Liberals aren't as smart as me. :lol:

Wise up. Wake up. Stop drinking the bongwater being poured out for you by demagogues.


meh


Dopes like g500 are the new Disney.


In 2012, politics is the same as it ever was: two choices, "suck" and "suckier". I choose the former at this time. Many libertarians are even more nutty than the k00k liberals. One day, they may well be relevant, but not in 2012.
 
Romney is right, he should be talking about the ECONOMY, the high gas prices, the sky high food prices and not all these distractions the media and the left would like
 
Ok being a liberal you have to understand relativity, correct?
You realize that not everyone can be rich?
You also realize some jobs are worth more than others, correct?
So why this fallacy that a union line worker deserves as much as an engineer or an architect?
As for jobs going to China, yeah they do it cheaper and that's what "poor" people need and can afford, cheap things.
So what sells, Cheaper products. So blame poor people for not buying expensive, union produced crap.

I understand "relativity" just fine.

I know that back in 1980, CEO's only made 44 times what a line worker made. Today they make 475 times what a line worker makes. I know that CEO wages have increased 600% in the last 30 years adjusted for inflation while line worker wages have remained flat.

The notion that we are really saving that much by making shit in China is a fallacy. It's just as much about breaking the middle class as it is making a profit. Too bad you are too dumb to see that or go along with it.

Finally, someone who can describe Romney's economic policy. This is what the Republican base is fighting for. Pointing out 475 times must mean you're envious. That's how they explain it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdj_7P2Do5M]Mitt Romney on Wall Street and inequality - YouTube[/ame]

Shhhhh, "quiet rooms" please.
 
Romney is right, he should be talking about the ECONOMY, the high gas prices, the sky high food prices and not all these distractions the media and the left would like

Yea, talk about what Republicans did and why they work to block fixing it. I agree. Finally, we have something we can agree on.
 
Every election the Democrats throw out about how we are going to CUT police, firefighters, teachers, blaa blaa blaaa

It's their number one fear mongering in their playbook
 
Bob Cesca: Why Exactly Does Romney Want Fewer Firefighters, Police and Teachers?


This is the Republican leadership agenda. Bleed the government to death, "drown it in the bathtub" and hand everything over to KBR, Monsanto and Walmart.

Meanwhile, Republican voters don't even really understand what their leaders are up to. While they crap on the notion of "socialism," most Republican voters like the idea of a reliable police force and firefighters -- we all simply expect these services to be free and available, even self-identified anti-government conservatives.


226969895_lemming_logic_answer_5_xlarge.jpeg
 
Bob Cesca: Why Exactly Does Romney Want Fewer Firefighters, Police and Teachers?


This is the Republican leadership agenda. Bleed the government to death, "drown it in the bathtub" and hand everything over to KBR, Monsanto and Walmart.

Meanwhile, Republican voters don't even really understand what their leaders are up to. While they crap on the notion of "socialism," most Republican voters like the idea of a reliable police force and firefighters -- we all simply expect these services to be free and available, even self-identified anti-government conservatives.


226969895_lemming_logic_answer_5_xlarge.jpeg

He doesn't.
 
It's part and parcel with the "Norquist Doctrine".

"I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Grover Norquist

He's part of the Saudi/FOX cabal trying to undermine the Constitution and install the very rich and clerics as government.
 
Not dramatic enough, dickhead.

Us conservatives also wanted to kill old people and starve children.

I would appreciate you getting your fucking facts together.

emot-colbert.gif
 
Perhaps he is just looking to decrease the number of alcoholics and juvenile sex offenders around the country..................Or maybe it has something to do with the exorbitant costs........
 
Romney did indeed call for cuts to firefighters, cops, and teachers. Then when he was called on it, he said the federal government doesn't pay for firefighters, cops, and teachers.

So...is he saying he was making a moot argument when he called for those cuts? He's really digging a hole for himself.

And he's wrong. The federal government provides billions of dollars a year in grant money to pay for the hiring, training, and equipping of firefighters, cops, and teachers.

So before you make a fool of yourself and plant your flag on a false premise like so many others have done these past few days, know the facts.


Debate the actual issue instead of denying it even exists.

Should we, or should we not, cut the federal funding of firefighers, cops, and teachers?

Before you answer, you should know that the great conservative hero, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, does not believe we should. He disagrees with Romney on this point.

Carry on!
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top