Who you voting for and why?

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,887
697
113
50
TX
or are you not voting?

I am voting for Romney because I think he can turn this country around in 8 years if he gets a second term in 2016, the man is smart and made multi millions before getting into politics, he seems to be a fiscal conservative and moderate socially which suits me perfect...

thoughts? opinions? I do not want mud slinging, just some reasons your voting for the person you are voting for? Lets hear it...
 
Last edited:

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
or are you not voting?

I am voting for Romney because I think he can turn this country around in 8 years if he gets a second term in 2016, the man is smart and made multi millions before getting into politics, he seems to be a fiscal conservative and moderate socially which suits me perfect...

thoughts? opinions? I do not want mud slinging, just some reasons your voting for the person you are voting for? Lets hear it...

My problem with him is I don't think any Republicans have the courage to be truly fiscally conservative anymore. So I'll probably pass on Romney.
 

theGibber1

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 27, 2001
8,615
64
0
Dallas TX
voting for the whiteguy, the reason you know why:0074

pathetic and sad but I would imagine Obama captured the black vote mostly due to the color of his skin... So yeah i bet there are more votes out there soley based on race than we know
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Ignoring some of the stupid-ass posts above, I can only say that I am not sure who I am voting for at this point. I can't imagine that I would vote for Romney for a few reasons and part of his support base theology, but I am also not happy with much of what Obama has NOT done, and his demeanor at times about where the country is at this point. I am very concerned with economics and what is in store for our world in the coming years, and I don't know that I feel comfortable with Romney or Obama being the leader in many respects. I would have been interested in one or two of the other republican candidates that seemed to be saying some different things and make a lot of sense in many regards, but I am not a Romney fan by any stretch of the imagination. I think his mindset and connections would change things quite a bit - which might help in the short run but do some damage in the long run for the individual.
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
21,221
496
83
Jefferson City, Missouri
Obama admitted he was born in Kenya, but people would still vote for an ILLEGAL ALIEN.



Obama-Closeup-2.png



NUFF SAID
 

RAYMOND

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2000
45,790
1,196
113
usa
pathetic and sad but I would imagine Obama captured the black vote mostly due to the color of his skin... So yeah i bet there are more votes out there soley based on race than we know

skin color does not play a role in my choice
he the worst president in the world:sadwave:

i would vote for doctor rice in a new york min:0074
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
pathetic and sad but I would imagine Obama captured the black vote mostly due to the color of his skin... So yeah i bet there are more votes out there soley based on race than we know

You can't blame blacks, you know since they've never had one nominated before. So it is just a little different to compare. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,553
305
83
Victory Lane
5cd3174f-2377-4f9b-bf5e-e492acf7dd39.jpg


A super-stealthy warship that could underpin the U.S. Navy's China strategy will be able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns" right out of a sci-fi movie.

But at more than $3 billion a pop, critics say the new DDG-1000 destroyer sucks away funds that could be better used to bolster a thinly stretched conventional fleet. One outspoken admiral in China has scoffed that all it would take to sink the high-tech American ship is an armada of explosive-laden fishing boats.

With the first of the new ships set to be delivered in 2014, the stealth destroyer is being heavily promoted by the Pentagon as the most advanced destroyer in history _ a silver bullet of stealth. It has been called a perfect fit for what Washington now considers the most strategically important region in the world _ Asia and the Pacific.

Though it could come in handy elsewhere, like in the Gulf region, its ability to carry out missions both on the high seas and in shallows closer to shore is especially important in Asia because of the region's many island nations and China's long Pacific coast.

"With its stealth, incredibly capable sonar system, strike capability and lower manning requirements _ this is our future," Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, said in April after visiting the shipyard in Maine where they are being built.

On a visit to a major regional security conference in Singapore that ended Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Navy will be deploying 60 percent of its fleet worldwide to the Pacific by 2020, and though he didn't cite the stealth destroyers he said new high-tech ships will be a big part of its shift.

The DDG-1000 and other stealth destroyers of the Zumwalt class feature a wave-piercing hull that leaves almost no wake, electric drive propulsion and advanced sonar and missiles. They are longer and heavier than existing destroyers _ but will have half the crew because of automated systems and appear to be little more than a small fishing boat on enemy radar.

Down the road, the ship is to be equipped with an electromagnetic railgun, which uses a magnetic field and electric current to fire a projectile at several times the speed of sound.

But cost overruns and technical delays have left many defense experts wondering if the whole endeavor was too focused on futuristic technologies for its own good.

They point to the problem-ridden F-22 stealth jet fighter, which was hailed as the most advanced fighter ever built but was cut short because of prohibitive costs. Its successor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has swelled up into the most expensive procurement program in Defense Department history.

"Whether the Navy can afford to buy many DDG-1000s must be balanced against the need for over 300 surface ships to fulfill the various missions that confront it," said Dean Cheng, a China expert with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research institute in Washington. "Buying hyperexpensive ships hurts that ability, but buying ships that can't do the job, or worse can't survive in the face of the enemy, is even more irresponsible."

The Navy says it's money well spent. The rise of China has been cited as the best reason for keeping the revolutionary ship afloat, although the specifics of where it will be deployed have yet to be announced. Navy officials also say the technologies developed for the ship will inevitably be used in other vessels in the decades ahead.

But the destroyers' $3.1 billion price tag, which is about twice the cost of the current destroyers and balloons to $7 billion each when research and development is added in, nearly sank it in Congress. Though the Navy originally wanted 32 of them, that was cut to 24, then seven.

Now, just three are in the works.

"Costs spiraled _ surprise, surprise _ and the program basically fell in on itself," said Richard Bitzinger, a security expert at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. "The DDG-1000 was a nice idea for a new modernistic surface combatant, but it contained too many unproven, disruptive technologies."

The U.S. Defense Department is concerned that China is modernizing its navy with a near-term goal of stopping or delaying U.S. intervention in conflicts over disputed territory in the South China Sea or involving Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province.

China is now working on building up a credible aircraft carrier capability and developing missiles and submarines that could deny American ships access to crucial sea lanes.
............................................................

Who do you vote for. Does it make any differance ?

How can we as Americans allow 3 billion dollars be spent on a ship like this when we are broke.

It will be deployed in 2014 so whoever the President is will sign off on more.

Fiscally conservative. Give me a fawking break

and for what

China. China ..........They are a threat to do what to us that we have to have a 3 billion dollar ship that will skirt their shores.

Its the military machine plain and simple

Its too many bases around the world and too much money spent on military.

When will America wake up and put stop to this deplorable crap.

They cut it from 24 to 7

thats still easily 39 billion dollars once all is said and done.

:00hour

I say again. Does it really matter who is President.
 
Last edited:

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,887
697
113
50
TX
It makes no difference what color anyone is, if they are worthy they get my vote...Obama is too liberal for me, that's all...
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top