Furry election 2012.
- Thread starter I Am That Is
- Start date
Sharpguard
You are tearing me apart Lisa!
I'm voting Jill Stein. I'd vote "Nobody" but I don't think that's an option.
CannonFodder
Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Well dayum, Romney's chances of winning has gone below ten percent. Romney is in for a world of pain tomorrow.
CodArk2
Annoyed dragon
Addressing the other two briefly: I dont see socialsm as "The Big Bad". it is to me, a largely discredited economic theory. Capitalism has flaws, but they can be fixed. In communism you usually had a dictator and bureaoucracy that were resistant to change, and would likely shoot you if you suggested it.Some government regulation of businesses is needed, but taking them over is a step too far, since governments tend to be inefficient.
Communismt *as a theory* is great, but Communism *in practice* has been terrible for humanity. I don't find many who consider dictatorship and mass death to be good things
But not all conservatives are religious. I certainly am not. Both sides have things one can point at and call them hypocrites about. The "holy rollers" are a prime target on the left. The rich liberals are a prime target on the right. But I know I ahve not talked of religion on FAF. if i did, i am agnostic, so I don't see that causing an argument. Usually my arguemnts are with fundamentalist Christians trying to convert me or fundamentalist atheists trying to do pretty much the same, and not understand agnostic means I dont give a fuck about whether there is a god or not. So it is unlikely.
Actually I was thinking of anothers arugemnet earier in this thread..or it might have been somewhere else, was a while ago. One of their main reasons to vote against romney was that he wanted to ban all abortions "even those for rape or incest!". You attack some right wing positions and viewpoints that I do not share, this is likely the same. It might be a strawman in your specific case, but not in mine. I have run into democrats saying romney wants to ban all abortions, or that romnet hates women or blacks or other things like thatThose arent straw men, but examples of things i have seen in other places. More than a few of the attacks on republicans here though are strawmwen, and no one can really point out who said such things.
There are concerns abotu the tax thing, on both sides. Neither have really given specifics about what they would to help out the middle class. Obama has said training teachers and some tax tweaks. Both promise change but are light on specifics. You attack conservatives in genral at times, and i dont take offense, so dont take anything i say when talking about the wider liberal base or democrats as being at you specifically. Just because I am responding to your post does not mean I am only citing your behavior or words. I know I ahve used fallacies, but I am not debating. I know no one will change their opinion because of me, though my opinion wont change much either. I was just pointing out that many of the clims of what republicans want to do or are , on here, are straw men. Both candidates have things that don't add up, in terms of taxes, both seem to ignore they have to pas any tax changes through congress.
Neither offers a clear plan on it. I certainly dont trust Obama on it. he has run 1 trillion dollar deficits all 4 years he has been in office.Polticians dont get too specific on things they woudl cut, because here is what happens "Romeny said he woudl cut this thing, but lok at this poor innocent family it would hurt, he is a monster for supporting this!" and everyone here would agree in lockstep. He is going to cut government spending. As for defense, its more complex than just"he wants to raise it 2 trillion": http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/ . It seems to me that rhater than "adding" 2 trillion, he just will cut defense spending less than obama. of course it kinda bils down to what we cut. Cut the military, or entitlements.
QUOTE=Lastdirewolf;3077181]
Romney on jobs though, is somewhat laughable, due to his personal investments in companies that outsource jobs and investing in foreign companies. Romney has stated that he wants to create 12 million jobs, which is partially assuming what you're talking about, but that has already been rated as null and void. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/fact-check-romneys-12-million-jobs/ because 12 million jobs are estimated to be created by 2016 anyways, with or without him. He hasn't promised jobs on top of that, so if all he wants is 12 million - That's likely what we're going to get, regardless. [/QUOTE]
The real question is which party one thinks is better for business. Because businesses are the ones that create jobs, not presidents. and republicans are usually better for businesses than democrats are. Of course then others will point out the recession and act like thats all one parties fault which is oversimplifying complex issues to soundbites. The economy actually did well under bush, but most only seem to remember 2008, ven though that was caused by the hosing market collapse which many were responsible for, not tax cuts or the war in iraq or any other policy democrats love to hate.
I strongly doubt his chances are THAT low. He is pretty much tied with the president nationally. It would be more accurate to say something like his chances of winning were 30 or 40 percent. If romney were down by huge (more than 20 percent margin) percent in polls maybe i coudl understand putting his chances that low, but as it stands, 10 percent or less is jsut too low based on the actual facts.
Communismt *as a theory* is great, but Communism *in practice* has been terrible for humanity. I don't find many who consider dictatorship and mass death to be good things
But not all conservatives are religious. I certainly am not. Both sides have things one can point at and call them hypocrites about. The "holy rollers" are a prime target on the left. The rich liberals are a prime target on the right. But I know I ahve not talked of religion on FAF. if i did, i am agnostic, so I don't see that causing an argument. Usually my arguemnts are with fundamentalist Christians trying to convert me or fundamentalist atheists trying to do pretty much the same, and not understand agnostic means I dont give a fuck about whether there is a god or not. So it is unlikely.
"Like arguing all republicans are against abortions" - That is a Strawman argument. You're putting words into my mouth, Strawmanning my argument, while claiming I'm making a Strawman argument..
Actually I was thinking of anothers arugemnet earier in this thread..or it might have been somewhere else, was a while ago. One of their main reasons to vote against romney was that he wanted to ban all abortions "even those for rape or incest!". You attack some right wing positions and viewpoints that I do not share, this is likely the same. It might be a strawman in your specific case, but not in mine. I have run into democrats saying romney wants to ban all abortions, or that romnet hates women or blacks or other things like thatThose arent straw men, but examples of things i have seen in other places. More than a few of the attacks on republicans here though are strawmwen, and no one can really point out who said such things.
There are concerns abotu the tax thing, on both sides. Neither have really given specifics about what they would to help out the middle class. Obama has said training teachers and some tax tweaks. Both promise change but are light on specifics. You attack conservatives in genral at times, and i dont take offense, so dont take anything i say when talking about the wider liberal base or democrats as being at you specifically. Just because I am responding to your post does not mean I am only citing your behavior or words. I know I ahve used fallacies, but I am not debating. I know no one will change their opinion because of me, though my opinion wont change much either. I was just pointing out that many of the clims of what republicans want to do or are , on here, are straw men. Both candidates have things that don't add up, in terms of taxes, both seem to ignore they have to pas any tax changes through congress.
Neither offers a clear plan on it. I certainly dont trust Obama on it. he has run 1 trillion dollar deficits all 4 years he has been in office.Polticians dont get too specific on things they woudl cut, because here is what happens "Romeny said he woudl cut this thing, but lok at this poor innocent family it would hurt, he is a monster for supporting this!" and everyone here would agree in lockstep. He is going to cut government spending. As for defense, its more complex than just"he wants to raise it 2 trillion": http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/ . It seems to me that rhater than "adding" 2 trillion, he just will cut defense spending less than obama. of course it kinda bils down to what we cut. Cut the military, or entitlements.
QUOTE=Lastdirewolf;3077181]
Romney on jobs though, is somewhat laughable, due to his personal investments in companies that outsource jobs and investing in foreign companies. Romney has stated that he wants to create 12 million jobs, which is partially assuming what you're talking about, but that has already been rated as null and void. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/fact-check-romneys-12-million-jobs/ because 12 million jobs are estimated to be created by 2016 anyways, with or without him. He hasn't promised jobs on top of that, so if all he wants is 12 million - That's likely what we're going to get, regardless. [/QUOTE]
The real question is which party one thinks is better for business. Because businesses are the ones that create jobs, not presidents. and republicans are usually better for businesses than democrats are. Of course then others will point out the recession and act like thats all one parties fault which is oversimplifying complex issues to soundbites. The economy actually did well under bush, but most only seem to remember 2008, ven though that was caused by the hosing market collapse which many were responsible for, not tax cuts or the war in iraq or any other policy democrats love to hate.
I strongly doubt his chances are THAT low. He is pretty much tied with the president nationally. It would be more accurate to say something like his chances of winning were 30 or 40 percent. If romney were down by huge (more than 20 percent margin) percent in polls maybe i coudl understand putting his chances that low, but as it stands, 10 percent or less is jsut too low based on the actual facts.
Last edited:
CannonFodder
Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Again, popular vote doesn't matter. Electoral vote is the one that matters.
CrazyLee
Biggest buttplug ever
Socialism =/= communism =/= fascism. Stalin Russia =/= Social Democratic Europe, or even the social programs of the US. Perhaps we need to stop throwing around random words.
Also, you may believe that Romney wanted to reduce spending and fix the budget, but he's already made clear he wants to spend MORE on the US military budget. Right now the military is around 1/5th to 1/4th of the entire US budget and is pretty much the largest thing spent on by US taxpayer money. Any discussion on balancing the budget has to include how to shrink that massive figure.
Shà nwà ng
Lavender Scented
This is pretty much how I expect the elections to go tomorrow:
[yt]uAI_R624HHY[/yt]
[yt]uAI_R624HHY[/yt]
Mayfurr
Mostly Harmless
Like the flaws that brought on the 2008 financial crash? And the 1930s depression?
Yeah, that's why capitalist countries like Chile under Pinochet and Argentina under military juntas had no death squads and were paragons of freedom of expression... oh, wait. No they weren't.
That'll be why the US private healthcare system spends less and covers more people than "socialist" public health care systems in Europe and Australasia... oh, wait. No it doesn't.
And light-handed government regulation of things like mining safety and letting coal mine owners self-regulate because they'd NEVER cut corners on the safety of their workers because they'd go bust if they did, because the unfettered free market will keep everything fine and dandy... oh, wait. No it doesn't.
Where have you been in the last ten years?
Fernin
6150 rpm and spinning.
"Want a good reason to vote for Obama?
Look at the people telling you not to..."
I think we may for once be in agreement about something? Given this fact and that we're about to have a two term black president, I do indeed believe it's getting quite chilly in hell lately. XD
Captain Howdy
Member
Again, I've never said all conservatives are religious. Are you going to keep up this tirade?
Obama has given specifics. He's had four fucking years, do you not know his policies by now? Again, ignorance.
What I was attacking in bold, was your not complete reading of the link you sent me, or at least, not referencing the part that actually balances your position - Rather than spreading the blame like you have been in your last several posts.
Romney has vehemently dodged questions regarding specifics - That is not normal. He has leaked a bit of information here and there, but he's making huge claims, bold assertions, and then not backing up most of it with facts or numbers.
As for military spending, that website didn't counter my point. It agreed that adding 2 trillion was the goal, they are just unsure of the specifics, because that is how Romney runs his campaign. Even if you forget that number and go from the "cutting defense spending less", that's still worse, because we're meant to be pulled out through 2014. So why the hell would you keep up or increase military spending when we're not going to be using it?
Republicans are in the pocket of big businesses, yes, or may own stock themselves in some. The economy didn't go well under Bush, the economy was in the calm before the storm under Bush, due to his policies or lack thereof. If you clicked that link from the Buereau of Statistics, you'd see that the storm hit in 2008 - That is why it's such a huge deal. Multiple things went wrong that Bush could've at least tried to stop or fix. This is how it broke down in 2008 by month:
| 2008 | (J)5.0 | (F)4.9 | (M)5.1 | (A)5.0 | (M)5.4 | (J)5.6 | (J)5.8 | (A)6.1 | (S)6.1 | (O)6.5 | (N)6.8 | (D)7.3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | (J)7.8. |
See how in one year, unemployment jumped 2.8%? It doesn't just suddenly stop growing at a rate like that. They can blame Bush for a lot of this, as well as the war in middle East, because it was either his choosing to do these things, or his choosing to ignore these things. You seem to quick to pull the blame off of Bush, when it seemed he did very little to stop it. Under Obama, the worst it got nationally was an increase of 2.2% from Bush's left over 7.8% (which was a total increase of 2.8% in 2008, or an overall increasing of 2.1% since 2002), and under Obama, it was brought back down to that number and will continue to slide down. Obama wasn't given a relatively healthy economy, it was on the brink of collapse when he came into power.
CodArk2
Annoyed dragon
They aren't the same, but communism and facism are both butal dictatorial regimes that have killed millions.. Communism is based ion a socialist economic model as well. Socialism itself is not evil, though communism is. If you think fascism is evil but communism isn't its essentially hypocrisy.
Also, Romney does not ant to spend more on the military, he just wants to cut it less than obama does. EROmney will cut it by 2 trillion less than obama would. Personally i think the military budet should be cut to a point, but so should entitlements
Yes like those. I know its hard to grasp, but capitalism is basically a cycle of boom and bust. No where does capitalism state that the boom will go on forever. I think there should be some government regulation of businesses that are lynhpins of the economy, but government takeover of them will not (and never has) solved anything.
There were death squads, but did they kill because they were socialists, but because the dictator beleived they were a threat to his power.Chile also wasn't a democracy.
Again, i never said that there should be no regulation of businesses. SOME government regulation is needed. But government takeover of businesses is not though. It rarely benefits the economy at all.
Outr healtchare system needs reforms, but i dont think taking it over by the government is the solution either.
As for where I ahve been the last 10 years, that would be the United States, the country having the election and thus one aware of the problems it has
I know of obamas policies, and i disagree with them. Not every single one of them, but more than a few. Romney has not said every single thing he would cut or tweak, because if he does, you get idiotic sideshows like the "big bird" thing because he said he would cut PBS. Both romney and obama have given broad outlines of what they woudl cut, but neither has said what they would cut exactly, what programs, what department. Candidates dont do that because then peoples eyes glaze over.
Well you keep using the Obama line that Romney will "raise" defense spending by 2 trillion, when he plans to not cut it by that amount. he corrected him on that several times in the debates. You seem to expect Romney to itemize and go line by line for things he would cut, on national TV, which is pretty unrealistic.obama has not really said what he would specifically cut either. what parts of the military is he cutting? Why is it being cut? would it reduce our ability to project power or defend ourselves? You seem to think no crisis requiring military means will spring up during the next four years, which is a bad bet to place. Saying we arent going to use it implies the world will go according to plan, history shows it almost never does and things can go wrong.
Owning stock does not mean the business owns you, it means you own a part of a business, through shares. The economcy did do ok under bush. the years 2001-2007 saw a high amount of economic growth. But everyone focuses on 2008. First off 2008 was not caused solely by bush. The housing market collapsed, which caused issues with the banks because of bad debt in the housing market. The banks started collapsing because of the debt which eld to problems in most of the economy.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/ shows both sides. But I am much like the article, thinking (wait for it) both sides messed up. Blaming only bush is just wrong, since much of what caused the economic collapse was not in the presidents hands in the first place.
So unemployment went up in a recession. Shocking. See previous area, bush does not deserve all, or even most of the blame. It was caused by the housing market collapse causing other issues in the economy. The war in the middle east WAS bushes fault. Iraq was a war he *chose* to get into, but the iraq war did not cause the 2008 financial collapse. And many seem to forget what Bush did to keep the economy from going over the edge. he actually did a lot. for example, TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was passed under Bush, not Obama. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program ) The bank bailouts were also done under bush, not obama. And another thing that many democrats ignore, even the Auto Bailout, of GM, chrysler, and Fored, was done under Bush. Of course Obama is taking credit for it, but he didn't sign the bill. ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html )
So why is Obama takiing credit for the auto bailout when he didnt even sign it? Many people seem to be ignorant of the Bush ears, partly because many were so blinded by hatred they went into hate-seizures every time his name is mentioned. Most of the economic bills that actually saved the economy were passed under Bush, not Obama. Bush was not a great president, but pretending it was obama saving the economy ignores a lot of things Bush did. The 2008 recession ended in June 2009, after Obama was in office just 6 months. Obama did pass the stimulus biill in February of 2009, but that did not end the recession. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...35341e-e176-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html ) Most of the heavy lifting, saving the banks and GM, was done by Bush, the pull out from iraq by 2011 was also negotiated in advance by Bush. ( http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/27/memo-to-media-bush-set-a-timetable-for-withdraw/166835 )
Of course most of these things are forgotten by democrats, because they were too high off obama winning to really notice. Many of these things came down in late 2008, before Bush left office on january 20th, 2009. The president doesnt pack his bags and leave on the day after election day. Bush was the president until jan. 20th, so everything that happened between elction day and jan. 20th is Bush, not Obama.
Bush did a lot before he got out of office, he was the one that established the framework for pulling otu fo Iraq. he was the one that signed the bailouts and TARP., so likely saved the economy. As soon as april, economists were saying the US was out of recession, much of that was due to Bushes policies, not Obamas (who had been in office for less than 6 months). You give obama too much credit, and Bush too little.
DragonTalon
Unicorn and Rainbow Collector
There are many reasons to vote for Obama, but a lot more not to vote for Romney.
1. The lies. Both him and his campaign have BLATANTLY lied and misrepresented facts. I don't want a President in the White House I can't trust. From the very start with the lies about Obama saying "If we talk about the economy we'll loose" to the end where he lied about Jeep moving their production to China, he has been dishonest. Not to mention changing his position depending on who he talks to.
2. The secrecy. He won't show his taxes like every other Presidential candidate Refuses to give details on what tax deductions he will eliminate. Hasn't given an interview or answered a question from a reporter in a month. Avoids talking about his Religion. Refused to participate in the Youth Debate.
3. His economic 'plan'. He wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone. But that's a relative cut, so the highest 35% would go to 28%, a 7% cut, and the lowest at 10% would go to 8%, a 2% cut. Then he wants to eliminate both the inheritance tax and taxes on capital gains. This is a huge amount of money, and he won't say how it will be paid for. Studies show it can't be paid for even if you remove ALL deductions, so he has been saying it will be paid for partly by economic growth. Great, that's growth that could have been spent reducing the deficit that will now be given as a gift to the rich.
4. Military. We don't need 2 billion dollars worth of more battleships and bayonets. The US Navy is weak? Our Navy is bigger than the rest of the planets put together! 50% of the military ships on the seas are owned by the US. Next biggest is Russia with 10%. We have FIVE TIMES as many ships as our 'biggest geopolitical threat'. Show me one Navy admiral who would trade an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine for two battleships. This isn't the 18th century anymore.
5. Income inequity. It's the worst it's ever been, and accelerating. Even back in the robber barron days it wasn't this bad. For the past 30 years middle class and worker wages have stagnated while the super rich have seen theirs grow 500%. ALL of the economic growth and productivity gains have gone to the super rich and none of it to working families. The top 1% owns a third of the wealth in the country. That number has been growing for decades, and is accelerating. Romney will give the biggest tax cuts to the rich, eliminate estate taxes (which favor the rush as they don't cut in until you have more than $5 million to pass on), and get rid of capital gains which is where almost all of the top earners get their income, and the bottom 99% have virtually none of. How anyone can think the path we are on is a good thing is crazy. How much should the 1% own before it's a problem? 50 percent? 75 percent? 100 percent?
This isn't just a fairness thing. This is a survival thing. Economies work by moving money. Money has to flow. It flows through spending, which the middle class and poor do the most of. MOney does teh economy NO good sitting in a bank in the Cayman Islands. The rich are not job creators. Demand is, and small businesses that form to handle demand.
That's my rant. Now I'm going to vote.
1. The lies. Both him and his campaign have BLATANTLY lied and misrepresented facts. I don't want a President in the White House I can't trust. From the very start with the lies about Obama saying "If we talk about the economy we'll loose" to the end where he lied about Jeep moving their production to China, he has been dishonest. Not to mention changing his position depending on who he talks to.
2. The secrecy. He won't show his taxes like every other Presidential candidate Refuses to give details on what tax deductions he will eliminate. Hasn't given an interview or answered a question from a reporter in a month. Avoids talking about his Religion. Refused to participate in the Youth Debate.
3. His economic 'plan'. He wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone. But that's a relative cut, so the highest 35% would go to 28%, a 7% cut, and the lowest at 10% would go to 8%, a 2% cut. Then he wants to eliminate both the inheritance tax and taxes on capital gains. This is a huge amount of money, and he won't say how it will be paid for. Studies show it can't be paid for even if you remove ALL deductions, so he has been saying it will be paid for partly by economic growth. Great, that's growth that could have been spent reducing the deficit that will now be given as a gift to the rich.
4. Military. We don't need 2 billion dollars worth of more battleships and bayonets. The US Navy is weak? Our Navy is bigger than the rest of the planets put together! 50% of the military ships on the seas are owned by the US. Next biggest is Russia with 10%. We have FIVE TIMES as many ships as our 'biggest geopolitical threat'. Show me one Navy admiral who would trade an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine for two battleships. This isn't the 18th century anymore.
5. Income inequity. It's the worst it's ever been, and accelerating. Even back in the robber barron days it wasn't this bad. For the past 30 years middle class and worker wages have stagnated while the super rich have seen theirs grow 500%. ALL of the economic growth and productivity gains have gone to the super rich and none of it to working families. The top 1% owns a third of the wealth in the country. That number has been growing for decades, and is accelerating. Romney will give the biggest tax cuts to the rich, eliminate estate taxes (which favor the rush as they don't cut in until you have more than $5 million to pass on), and get rid of capital gains which is where almost all of the top earners get their income, and the bottom 99% have virtually none of. How anyone can think the path we are on is a good thing is crazy. How much should the 1% own before it's a problem? 50 percent? 75 percent? 100 percent?
This isn't just a fairness thing. This is a survival thing. Economies work by moving money. Money has to flow. It flows through spending, which the middle class and poor do the most of. MOney does teh economy NO good sitting in a bank in the Cayman Islands. The rich are not job creators. Demand is, and small businesses that form to handle demand.
That's my rant. Now I'm going to vote.
CannonFodder
Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
I just finished voting. Kinda nice to live right next to the voting center.
Kit H. Ruppell
Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
Christian terrorists, trailer trash, and the Cult of the Smoking Tapir ?"Want a good reason to vote for Obama?
Look at the people telling you not to..."
I don't need any convincing.
zachhart12
Mew
I voted Obama too. LOL I just talked to a guy in the local furry group here. He's gay and voted for Romney...LOL
Last edited:
DragonTalon
Unicorn and Rainbow Collector
Just voted as well. Gay and voting for Romney? Well, maybe he is a submissive masochist and hopes Romney will punish him with more anti-gay laws. Or hope he will follow that crazy Pastor's advice and round up all the gays into an internment camp he imagines would be like some sort of 24/7 bdsm club. That would be one heck of a first executive order.
Jashwa
Member
Stopped reading here. You may find this interesting: http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
The DoD has only been spending ~$600 billion (I say only in comparison to $2 trillion, not only in comparison to other countries) per year. Over 10 years it would have a total of $6 trillion. Obama wants to cut that 10 year total by ~$500 billion. By your math (which isn't correct, as Romney wants to increase the budget to 4% of the GDP as opposed to the 3.2% to 3.5% it is now), that would STILL lead to increasing the budget by an average of $150 billion per year or $1.5 trillion total.
To make it even more hilarious is that the military leaders are in agreement with Obama's plan and believe that it isn't necessary to throw more money at the military.
This is a prime example of how you don't do your research and how ignorant you are. I don't have the time to fact check all of your statements, though.
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/
CodArk2
Annoyed dragon
I think you just wanted to call me ignorant and that I did no research. First, in the debates, Obama and Biden *repeatedly* stated ROmney wanted to "increase defense spending by 2 trillion dollars". that was their number, bit romneys, and not something i pulled out of my butt.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/
Somehow I don't see you telling Obama and Biden they didn't do research. They were the ones who made the claim. I pointed out that Romney said he didnt want to make massive cuts in defense spending and most of what obama said was him rasing funding was actually just romney not cutting it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...1f11a5a-1992-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_blog.html
Also, the military officers answer to the president, they are basically his employees, so theya re not unbiased. I think the budget needs o be cut, but saying Romney wants to raise it, when he said he just wants to cut it less (which is over several years, not in one years spending. I guess I have to clarify that point. The US has never spent 2 trillion a year on the military under any president. I know that.).