Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
{{{So if the 2012 winner will be appointing SC judges, it matters somewhat. But talk about damned if you do damned if you don't there,,,,,,,,,,}}}
Only three issues I see as a distinction are: 1) SC Justices, 2) How we deal with Iran and Middle East, and 3) Health Care reform
without sounding smug, how much does the average american voter know (or even care?) about any of those three items, save for what the noise makers blabber about health care?
I know i don't want bama picking SC justices, but that doesn't mean i would vote for Rmoney to appoint his pickings instead.
I think most peoples biggest issue would be which candidate offers a better scenario for an affordable cost of living moving forward. So their intentions for the housing market should be at the forefront. I'm not certain how either of the two differentiate in that approach, but again, the devil we know obama obviously has no solution. Alternatively, what would Rmoney do differntly?
"Government has made it harder for the banks to do it. The Dodd-Frank
(Wall Street) legislation has scared particularly community banks in
such a way that they're just paralyzed. They're not taking action to
help people get their mortgages renegotiated and let people either stay
in their home or have the home ultimately go back in the hands of new
investors that will turn it around and ultimately bring home values back
up.looks like more of the same from what obama admin has been doing. That the desired outcome is to make housing less affordable. And he seems to be cheerleading the current approach of turning the housing market over to large scale investors so that they can corner the market and force up rents. more of the same
The most important issue for me is ending the war on drugs, and both of these candidates would just as soon keep terrorizing the fuck out of all the people adversely effected by this failed policy
click - mitts a flip flopper, imagine that. so is obama, to an extent, however he is quietly directing change of the usfedgov approach in the right direction.click
The presidential request for the FY13 budget deals a mortal blow to the
helicopter-powered marijuana eradication umbrella. It does so by cutting
in half the funding for the U.S. National Guard Counterdrug program,
the Defense Department’s contribution to the marijuan-eradication effort
that has, for the past 20 years, limited the size of domestic marijuana
patches and increased the demand for “blood pot” imported by
ultraviolent Mexican drug cartels—while doing nothing to stem the supply
to anyone who wants to get high.
Until now, the DEA and state law
enforcement could count on the National Guard to fly hundreds of
helicopter hours over national forests and other public land, where
growers became active following the passage of property-seizure laws in
the Reagan years—but the FY13 budget changes that.
The
50-percent cut is not being apportioned evenly across the states—it’s a
two-thirds cut in Oregon and a 70-percent cut in Kentucky, while the
Southern border states are receiving less severe reductions in funding.
It’s essentially a diversion of Defense Department assets away from the
interior American marijuana fields to where the national-security risk
is greatest: along our Southern border.
Obama admin smart policy
Or is he just speaking out of both sides of his mouth?
click