View Full Version : Countdown to President Romney's Inauguration
...
How do you entice them? Convince them to listen to Rush Limbaugh for 6 weeks. Get them to read Ann Coulter's columns from archive. Have them watch FOX news for a month or two.
Many of those poor, unfortunate souls are too malleable, and are controlled by pressure from their peers, e.g. the Hollywood syndrome.
Some will actually pay attention.
And yeah, I know Limbaugh, Coulter and FOX are slightly right-of-center. ;)
...
Add to that list Sean Hannity, and Mark "Let me educate you pal" Levin. I just love it when he says that!
Obama has pledged to cut the deficit in half, saying: “And that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”
Mr. President...ya better move pretty fast...
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?month=11&day=06&year=2012&hour=0000&min=00&sec=00&p0=263
Obama has pledged to cut the deficit in half, saying: “And that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”
Mr. President...ya better move pretty fast...
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?month=11&day=06&year=2012&hour=0000&min=00&sec=00&p0=263
lol This guy's ludicrosity knows no bounds. The majority is waking up, finally, and asking themselves what I've asked myself for nearly four years..."How did this guy get this job?!"
Inflexible Six
08-16-2012, 19:12
lol This guy's ludicrosity knows no bounds. The majority is waking up, finally, and asking themselves what I've asked myself for nearly four years..."How did this guy get this job?!"
You'd have to work at it pretty hard to be a worse President than Carter or Clinton, but he's managed it pretty well. How did he get the job? The MSM was the kingmaker here, he is a media creation, and just like the MSM, he's all image, no substance.
Artur Davis comments on an administration that he once supported.
"Four years ago, Davis was onstage at the Democratic convention: a fast-rising congressman from Alabama, so close to Obama that he provided the official “second” for Obama’s nomination."
This keeps up...watch for a wag-the-dog scenario.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgXcrfFiKJE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Artur Davis comments on an administration that he once supported.
"Four years ago, Davis was onstage at the Democratic convention: a fast-rising congressman from Alabama, so close to Obama that he provided the official “second” for Obama’s nomination."
This keeps up...watch for a wag-the-dog scenario.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgXcrfFiKJE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Some of us have been anticipating a "wag the dog" for quite a while-as well as rioting in the event of an Obama loss.
He'll have a hard row to hoe in a fair election, from the way it looks, now.
Aww! :rolleyes:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/24/hollywood-bailing-on-president-obama-and-democratic-national-convention/?intcmp=trending
President Obama recently praised Hollywood superstar George Clooney, calling him a “wonderful guy” and good friend. But even in the wake of the headline-grabbing compliments, a rep for the Oscar-winning actor confirmed he will not be attending the forthcoming Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Charlotte, North Carolina.
And it seems the majority of Clooney's high-powered Hollywood counterparts are also passing on the 2012 convention – a far cry from 2008’s showdown in Denver, Colorado which attracted dozens of A-listers including Oprah Winfrey, Sarah Silverman, Fallout Boy, John Legend, Cyndi Lauper, Ashanti, Fran Drescher, Ashley Judd, Rage Against the Machine, Aisha Tyler, Anne Hathaway, Susan Sarandon, Jon Hamm, Cash Warren, Jessica Alba, Fergie, Will.i.am, Kanye West, Matthew Modine, Kerry Washington, Stevie Wonder, Rosario Dawson, Jennifer Hudson, Shawn Johnson, Forest Whitaker, Star Jones, Wilmer Valderama, Daniel Dae Kim, Kelly Hu, Jamie Foxx, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Chevy Chase, Richard Dreyfuss, Melissa Etheridge and Pharrell Williams.
Just to name a few.
We reached out to reps for all of the above in an attempt to find out if these stars would be attending the DNC again this year. A majority did not respond, but of those who did, few will be making a return trip.
Fergie and Cyndi Lauper will not be attending, and neither will Chevy Chase due to "Community" filming commitments. A rep for Fran Drescher said her schedule remained unconfirmed. According to political publication The Hill, reps for Susan Sarandon and Jon Hamm confirmed that their clients too would not be returning to the convention.
Not only will there be fewer famous faces, but fewer lavish affairs too. For one, Vanity Fair, which co-hosted a hotly-ticketed to-do in 2008, is not holding an event this year.
"No place is more fickle than Hollywood. Obama over promised and under delivered with regard to ‘Hope & Change’ and he is experiencing the consequences with the lack of celebrity support at this year’s DNC," political expert and humorist Rob Taub told FOX411's Pop Tarts column. "Many celebrities are still making large financial contributions to the campaign, but they’re concerned about public displays of affection to a candidate with waning popularity. At best, expect B-list stars at the convention."
Snip
Aww! :rolleyes:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/24/hollywood-bailing-on-president-obama-and-democratic-national-convention/?intcmp=trending
President Obama recently praised Hollywood superstar George Clooney, calling him a “wonderful guy” and good friend. But even in the wake of the headline-grabbing compliments, a rep for the Oscar-winning actor confirmed he will not be attending the forthcoming Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Charlotte, North Carolina.
"No place is more fickle than Hollywood. Obama over promised and under delivered with regard to ‘Hope & Change’ and he is experiencing the consequences with the lack of celebrity support at this year’s DNC," political expert and humorist Rob Taub told FOX411's Pop Tarts column. "Many celebrities are still making large financial contributions to the campaign, but they’re concerned about public displays of affection to a candidate with waning popularity. At best, expect B-list stars at the convention."
Snip
Just like rats fleeing a burning barn, the bloom is off the rose, the honeymoon's over etc. etc. etc. Lest folks start feeling sorry for O he will have some supporters at the convention.
By R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. The Washington Times
"Let us come to the point. Mr. Obama is reaching out to his very own special constituency. It is composed of those who believe that the Republicans would put up as their candidate for the presidency a person who in his business life would engage in fraud, tax evasion and even murder. Mr. Obama is casting his net for the moron vote. I do not believe there are enough morons out there to re-elect him."
Read more: TYRRELL: Obama's looking for the moron vote - Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/obamas-looking-for-the-moron-vote/
Afterburner with Bill Whittle:
A Great Way to Win and Lose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3778luxnpI0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
My jaw dropped when I read this. The liberal bastion of Time Magazine has a pretty fair article on Ann Romney. Pretty good read.
http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/28/the-ascent-of-ann-romney/
Liberal Chickens
Virtually every left-wing attack on Bush can legitimately be turned against Obama.
Victor Davis Hanson
NRO
AUGUST 29, 2012 4:00 A.M.
It could not last — the attendee of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church sermonizing on tolerance; the practitioner of Chicago politics lecturing on civility; the most partisan voting record in the Senate as proof of a new promised bipartisanship; earlier books and speeches calling for hard-core progressivism as evidence of a no-more-red-state-blue-state conciliation. And in fact the disconnect did not last, and Barack Obama finds himself dealing with assorted chickens coming home to roost.
In the summer of 2004, Michael Moore released a crude propaganda film,*Fahrenheit 9/11, full of distortions and half-truths, and yet passed off as a documentary — all designed to help swing the election to Democratic challenger John Kerry. Hollywood, the media, and the Left in general did not worry about the film’s inaccuracies or the mythology that the infomercial was a disinterested documentary. Instead, liberals deified Moore. Indeed, he was an honored guest at the Democratic Convention, and liberal luminaries paid him obeisance at various showings of the film.
The goddess Nemesis took note, and this year Dinesh D’Souza and John Sullivan followed Moore’s model. The result is a blockbuster “documentary,”*2016: Obama’sAmerica, that does more to Barack Obama than Michael Moore once did to George W. Bush. The Left is perturbed, unappreciative that its own methods and objectives have been turned against itself, and in a more sophisticated and far more effective manner than Moore’s buffoonery.
The Left in the era of Barack Obama established other ends-justify-the-means precedents. In 2008, Obama surmised that no one else would ever raise the sorts of gigantic sums that he was then amassing (in toto nearly $800 million, more than twice the amount raised by John McCain), and so was the first candidate to renounce public financing of a presidential campaign in the general election since the law was passed. But, of course, Obama never imagined that four years later his approval ratings would be less than 50 percent, or that he would be running against a financier who**
could match his efforts dollar for dollar.
Nor did Obama think that a mesmerized Wall Street, from which he raised more cash than any prior candidate, would object all that much to his populist boilerplate against “1 percenters,” “fat-cat bankers,” and owners of “corporate jets.” So now what exactly will he do? Appeal to Romney to abide by public-financing rules? Blast Romney for raising too much money? Damn Romney for courting Wall Street?
Beneath the folksy veneer and the serial calls for “civility,” Obama proved vicious in his denunciations of George Bush, at one point calling him “unpatriotic” for adding $4 trillion to the national debt over eight years. Obama offered two general arguments: that the chief executive is solely responsible for economic hard times, and that four years is easily long enough to right the ship. Obama scoffed at the Bush defense that politically driven interventions by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — hand in glove with congressional overseers — had distorted the real-estate market and contributed to the subprime-mortgage collapse, which destroyed an otherwise strong economy.
Obama boasted further that he would cut the deficit by half during his first term, and asserted that he would rather be a successful president than a two-term one. And he added that he should not be reelected if the economy was not restored to health. Apparently Obama assumed that after every recession (this one ended in June 2009) there is a natural recovery, the latter all the more robust when the former is severe. For all the right-wing scare talk about Obamacare, federal takeovers, more taxes, and too many regulations, Obama also took for granted that the cry-wolf private sector would bounce back — no matter how much his policies threatened it — and would almost magically continue to make so much money that an ever-growing government could redistribute ever more of it.
Yet now Romney is echoing Obama’s exact arguments: Yes, the chief executive is responsible for things like 43 months of 8 percent–plus unemployment, $5 trillion in new debt, and anemic GDP growth; and, yes, if things do not improve after four years, then it is time to change the president.
Obama established a wink-and-nod type of negative attack. As he called in sonorous tones for hope and change and a new civility, he negatively stereotyped a stunning cross-section of Americans: The white working class became “clingers,” the police “stereotype” minorities and act “stupidly,” small-business owners “didn’t build” their own businesses, doctors lop off limbs and yank out tonsils, bankers are “fat cats” — apparently on the premise that such groups would never take all this invective seriously. At various times Mitt Romney has been reduced to a dastardly financial pirate, a killer of innocent cancer victims, a veritable racist, and now a misogynist. After the class-warfare card and the race card, we await only Obama’s use of the Mormon card. Yet the polls remain roughly even, and Obama is about to be the target of a no-holds-barred assault fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars. Ethically speaking, what possible Romney sin might Obama object to? That super-PAC ads are unfair? That Romney has gone negative? That Romney stereotypes entire groups? That Romney’s inner staff are ethically compromised? This, after Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, was paid $100,000 for two speeches in Nigeria in December 2010, to a company that was eager for influence and whose affiliates did business with an embargoed Iran; Plouffe made the trip to Nigeria about a month before he joined the administration as a senior adviser. Just this month, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter on national television asserted something demonstrably false — that she did not know the facts about the woman Mitt Romney supposedly caused to die of cancer.
During the Bush administration, the Left established another caricature: the gaffe-prone, golf-playing elitist George Bush. Did they ever imagine that they were ensuring like caricature for the leftist academic Barack Obama, who quite unexpectedly would play golf four times more often in four years than Bush did in eight years? Or that for every Bushism there would be a “corpse-man”? Or that the small ranch house in Crawford, Texas, would be trumped by First Family jaunts to Martha’s Vineyard, Costa del Sol, and Aspen? I would like to think a slip like “57 states” is just a slip, or that golf is valuable presidential relaxation, but I was taught by the Left that such garbled speech is a window into a confused mind, and that presidential golf is elite recreation that betrays class privilege.
In 2008, there was a lot of sloganeering on energy policy. Obama assured us that we could “not drill” our way out of a spike in gas prices. “Millions of new green jobs” was heard at almost every rally, along with shouts about wind and solar this and that. In less guarded moments, Obama assured us that he would pass cap-and-trade legislation, “bankrupt” coal companies, and allow coal-based energy prices to “skyrocket.” These were the heady days of “peak oil” and the liberal attack against “oil men in the White House” — on the eve of the Chevy Volt and breakthrough new companies with names like Solyndra.
At the very time when well-connected crony capitalists were squandering hundreds of millions of dollars in federal wind and solar subsidies, a quiet private-sector revolution in horizontal drilling and fracking vastly expanded America’s gas and oil reserves — despite, not because of, Obama’s energy policies. The paradox finally become so absurd that Obama was reduced to bragging that the United States was producing more gas and oil under his watch than ever before, apparently on the logic that oil men were so adept that they could find vast amounts of new sources of energy on private lands without worrying about the Obama administration’s efforts to virtually cut off all new leasing on federal lands. The result is that our first green president is facing $4-a-gallon gas while he brags that what he tried to stop proved unstoppable.
Nemesis, remember, is not just karma, but payback with an absurd twist.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315161/liberal-chickens-victor-davis-hanson
—*NRO*contributor*Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the*Hoover Institutionand the author, most recently, of*The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.
Look for Obama to legalize reefer Thursday night.
That'll set him up for another run, for sure. :munchin
(I'm serious.)
"And if you will renew the president's contract, you will feel it - you will feel it."
BJ Clinton on Obama at the DNC in Charlotte, NC
09/05/2012
I believe it, I believe it...BOHICA.
Badger52
09-06-2012, 10:16
Look for Obama to legalize reefer Thursday night.
That'll set him up for another run, for sure. :munchin
(I'm serious.)"No stems, no seeds that you don't neeeeeeed...."
He'd have to try that with an EO. Do you think Ron Paul would applaud, or chastise him for trying to rule by executive penstroke... again?
It's enough to give a guy the :munchin.
"No stems, no seeds that you don't neeeeeeed...."
He'd have to try that with an EO. Do you think Ron Paul would applaud, or chastise him for trying to rule by executive penstroke... again?
It's enough to give a guy the :munchin.
It would make the election interesting again. ;)
Right now the only intrigue regarding the outcome is the line on how bad Glorious Leader is gonna lose.
Rassmussen still has it 47% Romney 44% POTUS, with polling being done during the first day of the DNC. SHould be interesting to see what tomorrow's numbers are after Slick Willies big night.
Funny that the DNC has focused so much on women's issues, but they have a tribute to Teddy Kennedy who allowed a young woman to drown, and Slick Willie who has been accused of rape how many times???
Some simple and timely observations by an intelligent commentator - as our president continues to lead from behind. Roll on November.
1980 Redux
By Victor Davis Hanson
NRO
September 19, 2012 10:38 A.M.
When young Phaethon takes over Helios’s chariot, lots get scorched: China and Japan in a war of words over more territorial disputes as Asia watches unsure of the U.S. position; more unrest against the U.S. in the Middle East; a new cartoon uproar in France as it evacuates embassies; Americans cannot patrol any longer with the Afghan troops they are supposed to train; Iraq slipping out of the U.S. orbit; Israel and the U.S. at a historic divide; Iran full-speed ahead on nuclear-weapons proliferation; “lead from behind”/ Cairo-speech strategy going up in the smoke of the Arab Spring; Syria — who knows what?; EU warnings on U.S. debt, borrowing, and printing, as weak U.S. growth, unemployment, and energy prices hit the public — and in reaction we get presidential summits with Letterman, Beyoncé, and Jay-Z as the media goes ballistic over a video in which Romney warns that nearly half the population is becoming dependent on government.
Some simple and timely observations by an intelligent commentator - as our president continues to lead from behind. Roll on November.
1980 Redux
By Victor Davis Hanson
NRO
September 19, 2012 10:38 A.M.
When young Phaethon takes over Helios’s chariot, lots get scorched: China and Japan in a war of words over more territorial disputes as Asia watches unsure of the U.S. position; more unrest against the U.S. in the Middle East; a new cartoon uproar in France as it evacuates embassies; Americans cannot patrol any longer with the Afghan troops they are supposed to train; Iraq slipping out of the U.S. orbit; Israel and the U.S. at a historic divide; Iran full-speed ahead on nuclear-weapons proliferation; “lead from behind”/ Cairo-speech strategy going up in the smoke of the Arab Spring; Syria — who knows what?; EU warnings on U.S. debt, borrowing, and printing, as weak U.S. growth, unemployment, and energy prices hit the public — and in reaction we get presidential summits with Letterman, Beyoncé, and Jay-Z as the media goes ballistic over a video in which Romney warns that nearly half the population is becoming dependent on government.
Fiddling as Rome burns...
Something interesting from Romney's 47% discussing the other day....
Audience member: The debates are gonna be coming, and I hope at the right moment you can turn to President Obama, look at the American people, and say, "If you vote to reelect President Obama, you're voting to bankrupt the United States." I hope you keep that in your quiver because that's what gonna happen. And I think it's going to be very effective. Just wanted to give you that.
Romney: Yeah, it's interesting…the former head of Goldman Sachs, John Whitehead, was also the former head of the New York Federal Reserve. And I met with him, and he said as soon as the Fed stops buying all the debt that we're issuing—which they've been doing, the Fed's buying like three-quarters of the debt that America issues. He said, once that's over, he said we're going to have a failed Treasury auction, interest rates are going to have to go up. We're living in this borrowed fantasy world, where the government keeps on borrowing money. You know, we borrow this extra trillion a year, we wonder who's loaning us the trillion? The Chinese aren't loaning us anymore. The Russians aren't loaning it to us anymore. So who's giving us the trillion? And the answer is we're just making it up. The Federal Reserve is just taking it and saying, "Here, we're giving it.' It's just made up money, and this does not augur well for our economic future.
You know, some of these things are complex enough it's not easy for people to understand, but your point of saying, bankruptcy usually concentrates the mind.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-mitt-romney-also-said-glimpse-endgame
In the full transcript HERE (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video).
Romney goes on to discuss:
I did the calculation for folks today, and USA Today publishes this every year. It's a front-page story: the headline once a year, it somehow escapes people's attention, and that is, if you take the total national debt and the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, the amount of debt plus unfunded liabilities per household in America is $520,000. Per household.
Audience member: It's like 12 times their income, right?
Romney: At least. 10, 12 times their income. Even though we're not going to be writing the check for that amount per household, they're going to be paying the interest on that. You'll be paying the interest on that. [Audience laughs.]
So is a vote for Obama actually a vote to bankrupt the United States? Sounds to me like Romney already knows that die has been cast.
The video is better than the transcript...someone, somewhere, may take offense, though...hope there won't be riots over this.
Santelli On Romney Tape: "We Have A Dependency Society," The "Media Overblows Everything"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/18/santelli_on_romney_tape_we_have_a_dependency_socie ty_the_media_overblows_everything.html
RICK SANTELLI: I’m not going to agree or disagree with Trump, I’ll tell you what my opinion is. My opinion is he stated basic facts, not in an elegant fashion. And sometimes the facts aren't easy to swallow. The issue here isn't about that sound bite. The issue here is about the media. We are $16 trillion in debt. We have a jobs program, or many jobs programs that haven't worked. We have a Federal Reserve who is ultimately going to print whatever size of their balance sheet we get. We have had an attack on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. Is this what's in the news? No, we're debating about facts that may politically harm Romney. I don't see that what he said is incorrect.
[…]
SANTELLI: We have a dependency society. We do. It's a fact. I’m not saying there aren't subsets of people, whether they're retired or can't work or whether they're too old to work, but when I look at the labor force participation rate, and I see that out of the eligible pool of workers, we're bringing forth the fewest to actually have a job, there is a problem here. Maybe the media ought to quit hiding under tables and look at some of the bigger damn issues.*
[…]
SANTELLI: He wasn't giving a speech. He was talking to a bunch of people just like you and I talk a bunch of people. He wasn't giving us the benefit of how he can change for the better. He was telling us that you have so many ways to try to affect the election and keeping taxes low for the people that have to work…
[…]
SANTELLI: You know, this wasn't -- exactly. This wasn't like the private conversation the president had with Putin where he's talking about a world leader. Don't worry about it, we'll get to the real stuff after the election. This was a man talking to some people about some issues. It wasn't a speech. It wasn't part of a debate. the media over blows everything. I want to know what happened last week on 9/11. I want to know what's going on with China and Japan. Where is it?
LOL...Pelosi Galore, again...
Apologies in advance for her video message...no riots please from those who disagree...more like this and there may be calls by Obama to censor her. ;)
Excerpts:
"If Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives after the November elections, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said her party would “amend the [U.S.] Constitution” on the “very first day” to overturn the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision.
“We would pass a DISCLOSE Act. ‘I’m Nancy Pelosi, I approve this message’ — but Mr. Big Bucks who put hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to get tax breaks for their industry or their heirs, they don’t have to disclose their names. So DISCLOSE: Amend the Constitution to overturn ‘Citizens United.’”
Pelosi said Democrats would “reform the whole [of] money in politics” and change the system to require “public financing of campaigns.”
She added that such a new system would result in the election of reformers."
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/20/pelosi-democrats-will-amend-constitution-to-overturn-citizens-united-if-they-control-house-video/
"I think you will see a tightening in the national polls going forward," he said. "What I care way more about it Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in the battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That's why the national polls aren't relevant to this campaign."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/messina-forget-the-tied-national-polls-were-win
Some interesting comments from those polled and what the pollsters polled.
“People run with the numbers without really paying attention to what’s behind them,” said Dilip Namjoshi, 66, of Abington, a Philadelphia suburb. “Somebody says, ‘I created 2 million jobs.’ Well, yes, but 600,000 of them are in China.”
“Three in four (undecided voters) say the country’s going in the wrong direction,” Lee said. If they believe that, they’re unlikely to back the incumbent, he said. “They’re either staying home or they’re voting for Romney.”
Read more: http://triblive.com/home/2641005-74/obama-percent-romney-poll-voters-pennsylvania-leads-lee-margin-points#ixzz27NywztMY
Sowell nails it again with Obama 1 rhetoric versus Obama 2 record.
Obama Versus Obama
Thomas Sowell
Townhall.com
9/25/12
Many voters will be comparing Mitt Romney with Barack Obama between now and election day. But what might be even more revealing would be comparing Obama with Obama. There is a big contrast between Obama based on his rhetoric ("Obama 1") and Obama based on his record ("Obama 2").
For example, during the 2008 election campaign, Obama 1 spoke of "opening up and creating more transparency in government," so that government spending plans would be posted on the Internet for days before they passed into legislation. After he was elected president, Obama said, "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."
This Obama 1 sounds like a very good fellow. No wonder so many people voted for him.
But then there is Obama 2. He passed a mammoth ObamaCare bill so fast that even members of Congress didn't have time to read it, much less the general public. It was by no means posted on the Internet for days before the vote, as promised.
The Constitution of the United States requires transparency as well. When people are nominated by a President to become Cabinet members, the Constitution requires that they be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office, so that facts about them can become known before they are given the powers of their offices.
Although President Obama complied with this requirement when he appointed Cabinet members, he also made other appointments to powerful positions created by Executive Orders -- people aptly called "czars" for the vast, unchecked powers they wielded, in some cases greater than the powers exercised by Cabinet members.
These "czars" never had to be confirmed by the Senate, and so had no public vetting before acquiring their powers. We had unknown and unaccountable rulers placed over us.
Another aspect of transparency was the Constitution's requirement that Congress pass a budget every year. The Democratically controlled Senate during the Obama administration has not passed a budget for three consecutive years.
Passing a budget makes the administration tell the public what it will pay for, what it will have to cut to reduce the deficit -- and how big the deficit will be if they don't cut anything. By not even passing a budget, Obama 2 and his party are in effect saying to the public, "It is none of your business." Transparency?
In his oath of office, Barack Obama swore to see that the laws are faithfully executed, as all Presidents do. But that was Obama 1. Once in the White House, Obama 2 proceeded to explicitly waive the enforcement of laws he didn't agree with.
The immigration laws are a classic example. Failing to get Congress to pass some version of amnesty, Obama 2 simply issued an Executive Order exempting certain classes of illegal immigrants from the immigration laws on the books.
Too many people have gotten sucked into a discussion of whether it is a good or a bad thing for people brought into the country as children to be exempted. But the whole reason for Constitutional government is to have all three branches of government agree on what the laws of the land shall be.
Obama 2 has decided instead that if Congress doesn't do what he wants, he will do it by himself through Executive Orders.
If any President can unilaterally change the law, we are not likely to have the same freedom under rule by presidential fiat as under Constitutional government. This is especially dangerous in a President's second term, when he need no longer have to consider what the voters want. With a couple more Supreme Court appointments he can permanently change the very nature of American government.
One of the most dangerous examples of a lack of transparency was inadvertently revealed last March when Obama 2, unaware that a microphone was on, told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, after he is reelected, and never has to face the voters again, he will have the "flexibility" to make a deal with Russia on missile defense systems.
In other words, Obama will be able to make a deal with a country that has been America's most implacable and most formidable adversary for more than half a century -- a deal he couldn't make if the voters knew about it before the election. Think about that chilling prospect, and what it reveals about the real Obama.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/09/25/obama_versus_obama/page/full/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210887/Obama-secures-socialist-vote-Hugo-Chavez-says-hed-vote-President.html
As much as he is no doubt flattered by this ringing endorsement he would probably just as soon old Hugo kept his opinion to himself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/madonna/9567180/Confused-Madonna-calls-Barack-Obama-a-black-Muslim.html
The POTUS was also on the receiving end of Madonnas pronouncement " "Now, it's so amazing and incredible to think that we have an African-American in the White House ... we have a black Muslim in the White House ... it means there is hope in this country, and Obama is fighting for gay rights, so support the man," Madonna said.
Thank you Madonna and Hugo
Stargazer
10-08-2012, 17:55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCaWYvpVZg
This appeals to the patriot in me, so I wanted to share it.
Stargazer
10-09-2012, 11:25
Good for the Sesame Workshop!
Sesame Workshop has asked the Obama campaign to take down a new TV ad that prominently features the famous talking bird, in a satirical spot mocking Mitt Romney for calling for an end to PBS subsidies.
"Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down," Sesame Workshop said in a statement.
An Obama campaign official said it has received the request and "will review their concerns."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/obama-campaign-deploys-big-bird-in-new-ad/#ixzz28p82ejZX
The legislature can't amend the Constitution on its own. Amending the Constitution requires two-thirds of each House to vote in favor and three-fourths of the states legislatures to support it. Or, two thirds of the state legislatures can call a Constitutional convention, where one or more amendments are proposed, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states legislatures, which has never been done.
That's just one of the things that made me LOL at that Pelosi vid - you suggesting all future posts referencing Pelosi be made in the comedy section? :D
ZonieDiver
10-09-2012, 13:54
The legislature can't amend the Constitution on its own. Amending the Constitution requires two-thirds of each House to vote in favor and three-fourths of the states legislatures to support it. Or, two thirds of the state legislatures can call a Constitutional convention, where one or more amendments are proposed, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states legislatures, which has never been done.
Really!?!?!?:eek:
And just what percentage of the members of this board do you think were NOT already aware of the amendment process?:mad:
And, I still think you two guys need to get a room for this lovefest!
Really!?!?!?:eek:
And just what percentage of the members of this board do you think were NOT already aware of the amendment process?:mad:
And, I still think you two guys need to get a room for this lovefest!
Hey, it would be rude of me to have said - thank you Captain Obvious - anyway, my disdain for Pelosi got the better of me.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/did-obama-just-throw-the-entire-election-away.html
One has to wonder if Mr. Sullivan actually feels this way, or if he is using his words as a means of lower expectations for the next debate, in the hope the "real" Obama will show up.
The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 - 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 - 45 lead. That's a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama's performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.
Romney's favorables are above Obama's now. Yes, you read that right. Romney's favorables are higher than Obama's right now. That gender gap that was Obama's firewall? Over in one night:
Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.
Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That's terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney - even though they are all much diminished. Obama still has an edge on Medicare, scores much higher on relating to ordinary people, is ahead on foreign policy, and on being moderate, consistent and honest (only 14 percent of swing voters believe Romney is honest). But on the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president's ass:
By a 37% to 24% margin, more swing voters say Romney would improve the job situation. Swing voters favor Romney on the deficit by a two-to-one (41% vs. 20%) margin.... Romney has gained ground on several of these measures since earlier in the campaign. Most notably, Obama and Romney now run even (44% each) in terms of which candidate is the stronger leader. Obama held a 13-point advantage on this a month ago. And Obama’s 14-point edge as the more honest and truthful candidate has narrowed to just five points. In June, Obama held a 17-point lead as the candidate voters thought was more willing to work with leaders from the other party. Today, the candidates run about even on this (45% say Obama, 42% Romney).
Lies work when they are unrebutted live on stage. And momentum counts at this point in the election.
Now look at Pew's question as to who would help the middle class the most:
Look: I'm trying to rally some morale, but I've never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week - throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does. How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement? And after Romney's convincing Etch-A-Sketch, convincing because Obama was incapable of exposing it, Romney is now the centrist candidate, even as he is running to head up the most radical party in the modern era.
How can Obama come back? By ensuring people know that Romney was and is a shameless liar and opportunist? That doesn't work for a sitting president. He always needed a clear positive proposal - tax reform, a Grand Bargain on S-B lines - as well as a sterling defense of his admirable record. Bill Clinton did the former for him. Everyone imaginable did what they could for him. And his response? Well, let's look back a bit:
With President Obama holed up in a Nevada resort for debate practice, things can get pretty boring on the White House beat right now. Pretty boring for Obama too, apparently. "Basically they're keeping me indoors all the time," Obama told a supporter on the phone during a visit to a Las Vegas area field office. "It's a drag," he added. "They're making me do my homework."
Too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve. If he now came out and said he supports Simpson-Bowles in its entirety, it would look desperate, but now that Romney has junked every proposal he ever told his base, and we're in mid-October, it's Obama's only chance on the economy.
Or maybe, just maybe, Obama can regain our trust and confidence somehow in the next debate. Maybe he can begin to give us a positive vision of what he wants to do (amazing that it's October and some of us are still trying to help him, but he cannot). Maybe if Romney can turn this whole campaign around in 90 minutes, Obama can now do the same. But I doubt it. A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves.
I've never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. Gore was better in his first debate - and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night. Even Bush was better in 2004 than Obama last week. Even Reagan's meandering mess in 1984 was better - and he had approaching Alzheimer's to blame.
I'm trying to see a silver lining. But when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines with lies and smiles, and a record number of people watch, it's hard to see how a president and his party recover. I'm not giving up. If the lies and propaganda of the last four years work even after Obama had managed to fight back solidly against them to get a clear and solid lead in critical states, then reality-based government is over in this country again. We're back to Bush-Cheney, but more extreme. We have to find a way to avoid that. Much, much more than Obama's vanity is at stake.
Barbarian
10-10-2012, 09:12
.....things can get pretty boring on the White House beat right now.
Yes, because we're definately not the verge of a critical conflict with Iran who is developing nukes, or expected to respond to a murdered ambassador, or dealing with a hemmorhagic southern border, or....
I do, however, enjoy watching libs squirm.
Last hard class
10-19-2012, 17:25
17 and a wakeup...
It is alive!
We were afraid some of those left wing skunks had you treed in the back yard.:D
LHC
It is alive!
We were afraid some of those left wing skunks had you treed in the back yard.:D
LHC
They had an early doe season out here this year. :cool:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_US_MILITARY_EXERCISE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-21-09-08-46
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_US_MILITARY_EXERCISE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-21-09-08-46
This shouldn't be a surprise to a lot of folks. This has been planned for months.
welcome back :)
Peregrino
10-21-2012, 16:29
This shouldn't be a surprise to a lot of folks. This has been planned for months.
welcome back :)
True but I think most of the "planned for months" part was really about "how do we reduce it to insignificance so as not to offend anyone in the Islamic world without giving conservatives ammo to claim we're anti-Israel?".
Surprise
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36418&highlight=Austere+Challenge
Surprise
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36473&highlight=Austere+Challenge
Surprise
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37716&highlight=Austere+Challenge
Yeah, we've talked about this surprise since 01/08/2012.
This shouldn't be a surprise to a lot of folks. This has been planned for months.
welcome back :)
I didn't present my material in a sufficient manner as to convey the proper implication.
Thanks!
http://news.yahoo.com/colin-powell-makes-endorsement-121145402--abc-news-politics.html
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has backed President Obama for a second term in the White House.
"I voted for him in 2008, and I plan to stick with him in 2012," Powell said this morning on CBS.
The Republican crossed party lines four years ago to support Obama in his race with Sen. John McCain. Thursday he did the same, casting himself as part of a "dying breed," a "Republican of a more moderate mold."
Powell set the blame for much of the recent gridlock in Washington at the foot of of a divided Congress, though he also pressed Obama to show "greater leadership potential."
A retired four-star general, Powell criticized Mitt Romney's foreign policy plans, calling them "a moving target."
Snip
....."I voted for him in 2008, and I plan to stick with him in 2012," Powell said this morning on CBS.............
Yeah, right. We beat that Republican's" dead horse to a second death 4 years ago
Yeah, right. We beat that Republican's" dead horse to a second death 4 years ago
:D Seems like yesterday.
'Bout 10 and a wakeup. Be safe, MR, you're in the short rows. The nightmare's almost over. Light at the end of the tunnel. I'm out of cliches.
Badger52
10-28-2012, 06:48
The Des Moines Register published their official endorsement (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121028/CAROUSEL/310280078/The-Register-endorsement-Mitt-Romney-offers-a-fresh-economic-vision?Frontpage&nclick_check=1)
(Comments are about the usual mix, different tints on the lenses.)
Hawkeyes don't get massively united across the state about something in my experience having previously lived down there & HH6 relations still visited. With the urban/agri mix they have it's a difficult place to rally. But if enough get pissed to even be objective they are quite capable of looking further than tonight's supper plate. Some I know living in urban centers are using some pretty disparaging remarks about sitting POTUS. They are also not so quick to hide the fact that they have buyer's remorse, and don't mind admitting it right before they tell you "that SOB'll never get my vote again." Little slights on the world stage matter more than campaign stops.
lol I reckon we've made up the 7% we lost last election.
http://www.france24.com/en/20121028-obama-campaign-fears-impact-hurricane-sandy
AFP - A top aide to Barack Obama voiced fears Sunday that Hurricane Sandy could hurt the president's re-election chances by reducing turnout, as the impending storm forced both candidates to cancel campaign stops.
Republican challenger Mitt Romney received good news in two key swing states, winning the endorsement in Iowa of the main newspaper, the Des Moines Register, and tying Obama in a newly-released poll in all-important Ohio.
But nine days out from the nailbiter November 6 election, all eyes were on Hurricane Sandy and how the potentially catastrophic storm might play out on the neck-and-neck race for the White House.
"Obviously we want unfettered access to the polls because we believe that the more people come out, the better we're going to do," senior Obama strategist David Axelrod told CNN.
"And so to the extent that it makes it harder, you know, that's a source of concern," he said.
Democrats desperately need to rally Obama supporters as Romney surged into the lead in national polls following a commanding first debate victory on October 3 and his momentum shows little sign of evaporating.
Snip
The Des Moines Register published their official endorsement (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121028/CAROUSEL/310280078/The-Register-endorsement-Mitt-Romney-offers-a-fresh-economic-vision?Frontpage&nclick_check=1)
(Comments are about the usual mix, different tints on the lenses.)
Hawkeyes don't get massively united across the state about something in my experience having previously lived down there & HH6 relations still visited. With the urban/agri mix they have it's a difficult place to rally. But if enough get pissed to even be objective they are quite capable of looking further than tonight's supper plate. Some I know living in urban centers are using some pretty disparaging remarks about sitting POTUS. They are also not so quick to hide the fact that they have buyer's remorse, and don't mind admitting it right before they tell you "that SOB'll never get my vote again." Little slights on the world stage matter more than campaign stops.
When the DM Register backs a Republican you have to believe they really dislike the the incumbant democrat. The truth of the matter is that O had some sort of tiff going with the Register that did not endeasr him to them, obviously he was on thin ice with them anyway. Obama has speent a fortune here on his campaign, personally we are getting sick of seeing him here.
"A transcript of the interview was posted the morning after the newspaper's editor wrote in a blistering blog post Tuesday that representatives for Obama refused an on-the-record conversation with the newspaper's editorial board, which is preparing to endorse a candidate for president in the coming days."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/iowa-newspaper-blasts-obama-camp-for-off-the-record-interview-demand/comment-page-1/
http://www.france24.com/en/20121028-obama-campaign-fears-impact-hurricane-sandy
AFP - A top aide to Barack Obama voiced fears Sunday that Hurricane Sandy could hurt the president's re-election chances by reducing turnout, as the impending storm forced both candidates to cancel campaign stops.
Republican challenger Mitt Romney received good news in two key swing states, winning the endorsement in Iowa of the main newspaper, the Des Moines Register, and tying Obama in a newly-released poll in all-important Ohio.
But nine days out from the nailbiter November 6 election, all eyes were on Hurricane Sandy and how the potentially catastrophic storm might play out on the neck-and-neck race for the White House.
"Obviously we want unfettered access to the polls because we believe that the more people come out, the better we're going to do," senior Obama strategist David Axelrod told CNN.
"And so to the extent that it makes it harder, you know, that's a source of concern," he said.
Democrats desperately need to rally Obama supporters as Romney surged into the lead in national polls following a commanding first debate victory on October 3 and his momentum shows little sign of evaporating.
Snip
Translation 11-7-2012, Since President Obama is unable to blame his crushing defeat on former President George Bush he is blaming the weather, "the storm was just too much to overcome, it was much larger than I had anticipated," he stated in his concession speech. Bill Clinton also chimed in saying that not even he could have overcome a storm of that magnitude.
The storm he is actually facing comes from we the people.
A week and a wakeup. I'm thinking Mitt will win 42-44 states. :lifter
He's nearly a cinch to nab PA, NC and FL, and he could easily take AZ, CO, and WI.
Badger52
10-29-2012, 08:05
Bill Clinton also chimed in saying that not even he could have overcome a storm of that magnitude.That was a nice touch.
Axelrod is in IPB mode; lotsa lawyers. Maybe they'll invite the UN election observers to NYC. Oh, wait...
A week and a wakeup. I'm thinking Mitt will win 42-44 states. :lifter
He's nearly a cinch to nab PA, NC and FL, and he could easily take AZ, CO, and WI.
He's also making a nice showing in Ohio according to the latest Rasmussen Reports .....
The race for Ohio’s Electoral College votes remains very close, but now Mitt Romney now has a two-point advantage.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Romney with 50% support to President Obama’s 48%. One percent (1%) likes some other candidate, while another one percent (1%) remains undecided.
<snip>
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president
That would be the "icing on the cake" if he can pull in this state.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/29/labor-department-may-delay-jobs-report/
Captain Romney for America!
Well, the sitting President has Cumberland County, NC wrapped up and under his Christmas Tree - just like he did last time.
"....Democrats, women and blacks lead early voting in Cumberland County"
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2012/10/29/1211933?sac=fo.local
".................Of those, 62 percent were registered Democrats, compared with 21 percent for Republicans and 16.7 percent for unaffiliated voters.
Women in early voting in the county lead the gender gap by 15 percentage points.
And 54 percent who have voted are black, compared with 38 percent white. ...................."
This is a Democrat County for sure - But us R's add our total to the state numbers.
I like the way this map looks and how the numbers add up.
http://www.unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012%20president_02.cfm
:D :D
Detonics
10-30-2012, 05:29
I like the way this map looks and how the numbers add up.
http://www.unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012%20president_02.cfm
:D :D
From that site: "District of Columbia 92.38% Obama vs. 6.42% Romney" :rolleyes:
Image my surprise!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Gallup-Shock-Romney-Up-7-with-early-voters
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Gallup-Shock-Romney-Up-7-with-early-voters
Gallup: R Up 72-45 with Early Voters
And they say that we don't need voter ID laws... 72+45 = 117%
Must be a lot of dead people voting
Gallup: R Up 72-45 with Early Voters
And they say that we don't need voter ID laws... 72+45 = 117%
Must be a lot of dead people voting
They fixed it. It's now 52-47.
Pat
Gallup: R Up 72-45 with Early Voters
And they say that we don't need voter ID laws... 72+45 = 117%
Must be a lot of dead people voting
lolol
http://washingtonexaminer.com/some-see-gop-voting-tsunami-coming/article/2512142#.UJBDfkbCz8B
Democrats more than Republicans are getting their most loyal supporters to vote early, but with polls showing a close race among those who have voted so far, concerns are being raised about a GOP tsunami on the actual Election Day, next Tuesday.
According to a GOP analysis of early voting and absentee ballot requests provided to Secrets, the Democrats are turning out their most reliable, or so-called "high propensity voters" than Republicans, leaving fewer for Election Day. The GOP is pushing weaker supporters to vote early, expecting high enthusiasm to drive their regular supporters to the polls next week.
"Democrats are cannibalizing their high-propensity voters in advance of election day to get stories that they are winning," said a GOP analyst. "But in effect they are stealing from Peter, or Election Day, to pay Paul, or early voting."
For example, in Ohio, the Democrats have turned out 43 percent of the most loyal supporters to vote, compared to just 27 percent of the GOP. In Iowa, the difference is 43 percent to 29 percent.
Snip
Badger52
10-31-2012, 06:46
[url]For example, in Ohio, the Democrats have turned out 43 percent of the most loyal supporters to vote, compared to just 27 percent of the GOP. In Iowa, the difference is 43 percent to 29 percent.
Conservatives tend to vote late, even in terms of time of day. They have diverse interests and/or have been working all day.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/some-see-gop-voting-tsunami-coming/article/2512142#.UJBDfkbCz8B
Democrats more than Republicans are getting their most loyal supporters to vote early, but with polls showing a close race among those who have voted so far, concerns are being raised about a GOP tsunami on the actual Election Day, next Tuesday.
According to a GOP analysis of early voting and absentee ballot requests provided to Secrets, the Democrats are turning out their most reliable, or so-called "high propensity voters" than Republicans, leaving fewer for Election Day. The GOP is pushing weaker supporters to vote early, expecting high enthusiasm to drive their regular supporters to the polls next week.
"Democrats are cannibalizing their high-propensity voters in advance of election day to get stories that they are winning," said a GOP analyst. "But in effect they are stealing from Peter, or Election Day, to pay Paul, or early voting."
For example, in Ohio, the Democrats have turned out 43 percent of the most loyal supporters to vote, compared to just 27 percent of the GOP. In Iowa, the difference is 43 percent to 29 percent.
Snip
It's about the end of the road and only 7 days before we know which of the soothsayers have the best crystal balls......and likely began another 4 years of toxic debate, campaigning for 2016 and a new topic or two for conversation.
It's about the end of the road and only 7 days before we know which of the soothsayers have the best crystal balls......and likely began another 4 years of toxic debate, campaigning for 2016 and a new topic or two for conversation.
Beats going under. Mitt's in for 8.
Beats going under. Mitt's in for 8.
That it is!
Badger52
10-31-2012, 17:08
The regular Marquette poll came out. Here's the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal's article. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/obama-leads-romney-in-wisconsin-in-new-marquette-poll-qv7ebn4-176632941.html)
I've always had the feeling that the Marquette operation couldn't report a significant edge to a Republican if the Dem abicated, but I could be wrong. (I've just never seen it, over time.)
I'm sure it couldn't be their sample:
Area Number % of sample
Milwaukee City 106 9
Rest of Milwaukee media market 399 32
Madison media market 225 18
Green Bay/Appleton media market 231 19
Rest of state media markets 282 23
There's only one number that counts.
The Reaper
10-31-2012, 18:17
http://washingtonexaminer.com/some-see-gop-voting-tsunami-coming/article/2512142#.UJBDfkbCz8B
Democrats more than Republicans are getting their most loyal supporters to vote early, but with polls showing a close race among those who have voted so far, concerns are being raised about a GOP tsunami on the actual Election Day, next Tuesday.
According to a GOP analysis of early voting and absentee ballot requests provided to Secrets, the Democrats are turning out their most reliable, or so-called "high propensity voters" than Republicans, leaving fewer for Election Day. The GOP is pushing weaker supporters to vote early, expecting high enthusiasm to drive their regular supporters to the polls next week.
"Democrats are cannibalizing their high-propensity voters in advance of election day to get stories that they are winning," said a GOP analyst. "But in effect they are stealing from Peter, or Election Day, to pay Paul, or early voting."
For example, in Ohio, the Democrats have turned out 43 percent of the most loyal supporters to vote, compared to just 27 percent of the GOP. In Iowa, the difference is 43 percent to 29 percent.
Snip
Unless they follow Dim tradition and vote more than once.
TR
mark46th
10-31-2012, 18:42
"Unless they follow Dim tradition and vote more than once. TR"
Someone already posted this but it bears repeating-
"Proof that Usama bin Laden is dead- He just registered to vote in Chicago..."
"Unless they follow Dim tradition and vote more than once. TR"
Someone already posted this but it bears repeating-
"Proof that Usama bin Laden is dead- He just registered to vote in Chicago..."
He also gave campaign contributions from Pakistani IP adressess.....twice!
I just heard a WSJ "economic expert" give Obama a C-, saying it just might be enough to get him re-elected, lol.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49657529
American job creation improved in October with 171,000 new jobs but the unemployment rate moved higher to 7.9 percent, setting the stage for a final push to the finish line in the heated presidential campaign.
Economists had been expecting the report to show a net of 125,000 new jobs and a steadying of the unemployment rate at 7.8 percent. Nomura Securities predicted the rate would fall to 7.7 percent, but most expected no change.
Most of the job creation came in the services sector, with a gain of 150,000, while government employment rolls saw a collective decrease of 13,000, according to the report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"The labor market continued to improve in October, generating 171,000 new jobs, providing a needed boost to recovering consumer sentiment and bolstering optimism for the upcoming holiday season," said Ken Goldstein, economist at The Conference Board.
Markets reacted positively to the report, with stock market futures indicating a broadly positive open on Wall Street.
A broader measure of unemployment that includes discouraged workers and those employed part-time who would rather work full-time ticked lower to 14.6 percent. (Read More: US Planned Layoffs Jump to a 5-Month High)
The labor force participation rate, a key metric that measures those working or looking for jobs, edged higher to 63.8 percent after wallowing around 31-year lows for the past several months. The total level of employment jumped by 410,000.
But unemployment for blacks showed the highest increase in the survey, surging to 14.3 percent from 13.4 percent.
Also, the average duration of unemployment climbed to a 2012 high of 40.2 weeks.
Taken comprehensively, the report was better than expected but still representative of tepid growth that is doing little to generate escape velocity for the slow-moving economy.
"You're still seeing that gap of a relay race in the economy where the consumer's feeling a little bit better...but the corporate sector is not as strong," Diane Swonk, economist at Mesirow Financial in Chicago, told CNBC. "They're not hiring out like crazy, but certainly you've got to welcome these kinds of numbers."
The report comes at a sensitive time with the presidential election looming Tuesday and the economy and specifically the jobs situation at the forefront. (Read More: What About an Election 'Cliff'? Here's What Could Happen)
(Thursday, when it gets revised, Romney'll be POTUS, so...)
President Barack Obama has touted the more than 4 million jobs created since the 2009 economic nadir, while Republican challenger Mitt Romney has pointed out that job creation has been slow and well behind the pace of previous recoveries. (The number is actually about 587,000. We need about half number that a MONTH to advance.)
Friday's report comes a month after the Labor Department reported a drop in the unemployment rate below 8 percent that virtually no economists saw coming.
There were 114,000 new jobs initially reported in September, but that number was revised up to 148,000 Friday. August's numbers also were revised higher, from 142,000 to 192,000.
The September rate drop prompted criticism and charges that the government was manipulating the data to boost Obama's election fortunes.
"Overall the report is an encouraging one and for now we have to be satisfied with a significant above-consensus reading and a strong upwards net revision set against the backdrop of a tougher position for those out of work," said Andrew Wilkinson, chief economist strategist at Miller Tabak in New York.
Obama and Romney stand in a virtual dead-heat, according to the latest polls.
Employment for the year has averaged 157,000 per month, marginally higher than in 2011.
Job gains came mostly in professional and business services, which collectively added 51,000 new positions, while health care contributed 31,000. Retail gained 36,000, primarily due to increased employment at auto dealers.
There were 28,000 new leisure and hospitality jobs, a sector that has provided much of the growth since the mild jobs recovery.
Manufacturing showed little gain while mining lost 9,000 jobs and construction edged higher.
Average work week and earnings both showed little change.
Snip
ECUPirate09
11-02-2012, 08:35
http://www.chicksontheright.com/categories/the-makeover-and-or-miscellaneous/item/23320-hey-all-of-you-third-party-write-in-protesty-people-claiming-to-vote-on-principle?-this-is-for-you#pagejump
I thought it was a good piece. We'll see in a few days.
Snaquebite
11-02-2012, 14:10
From today's Fayetteville Observer
Who is your pick for President?
Barack Obama
139
Mitt Romney
333
Gary Johnson or other third-party candidate
11
I'm not a voter
9
From today's Fayetteville Observer
Who is your pick for President?
Barack Obama
139
Mitt Romney
333
Gary Johnson or other third-party candidate
11
I'm not a voter
9
Not in Cumberland County. On line surveys only get those folks who cruise by. Voting statistics say the President will carry Cumberland county by at least 60%.
...The hillbillies from the western part of North Cackalacky where I reside will carry Romney for NC :D :cool:
Robo calls from both side - and groups supporting them - have been non stop since Wednesday.
Been 3 in the last two hours or so.
Snaquebite
11-03-2012, 11:40
Voted this morning for a turn around NOT a reach-around...
XngZeRubicon
11-03-2012, 13:13
Was able to vote Thursday and get it out of the way so I can go help drive old people to the polls on Tuesday,:D
The last unemployment number came out on Friday. The number went UP. Liberal media is falling all over themselves to try to spin it.
How anyone can think that going from the 7.8% rate when POTUS started to now a 7.9% Unemployment rate - even after 6 trillion in extra debt and all that printing of the money by the Fed - is a sign of success baffles the hell out of me. It's that Keynsian hallucinogen taught in the Ivy League schools which makes it hard for liberal elites to channel their common sense. I say after we fire POTUS, let's work on firing our other liberal institutions.
...The hillbillies from the western part of North Cackalacky where I reside will carry Romney for NC :D :cool:
Hopefully.. That is the thing I have been seeing on the AFN NEws here. That Western Cackalacky, West by-God Virgina, southern Ohio and one other state that I can't remember now.
What the hell was President Clinton speech today in Bristol Va?? I saw that on AFN this morning here.
What concerns me is the 44% who actually think Obama is doing a good job. Mind you, they can't tell you why, or they say that it's all Bush's fault in spite of four years of Obama making things worse. These have to be members of "Welfare Nation", that certain group of Americans and in some cases illegal immigrants even, who are able-bodied but prefer food stamps and hand outs to an honest days work. And we keep doling it out. Now, before anyone pounds me for saying that, I'm NOT talking about deserving recipients of help. I'm talking about slackers and druggies, like the 44 year old crackhead who lives in my town. She gets a "disability" check every month, and food stamps to supplement her burglary income, and; in spite of a lengthy rap sheet, numerous felony convictions, too many drug convictions to even list in the state's online offender database and a few stints in prison, she still gets paid every month. She routinely hosts crack parties and is capable of casing and robbing houses, stealing cars, walking for miles when she can't get a ride to obtain dope, but she supposedly can't work - so the check keeps coming which she uses to buy more crack. I for one am absolutely fed up with people who think the government owes them a living, and I cringe when I see a perfectly healthy man pay for two carts of groceries with a EBT card, or an illegal "immigrant" with a EBT card too. He can't speak English but he can coyote his way here and somehow get free groceries, healthcare, etc. Bull$&%#!!! And those without felony convictions will vote for Obama, regardless. They could care less about the country as long as that free check keeps coming.
I guess I answered my own "question". Thanks for listening.
What concerns me is the 44% who actually think Obama is doing a good job. Mind you, they can't tell you why, or they say that it's all Bush's fault in spite of four years of Obama making things worse. These have to be members of "Welfare Nation", that certain group of Americans and in some cases illegal immigrants even, who are able-bodied but prefer food stamps and hand outs to an honest days work. And we keep doling it out. Now, before anyone pounds me for saying that, I'm NOT talking about deserving recipients of help. I'm talking about slackers and druggies, like the 44 year old crackhead who lives in my town. She gets a "disability" check every month, and food stamps to supplement her burglary income, and; in spite of a lengthy rap sheet, numerous felony convictions, too many drug convictions to even list in the state's online offender database and a few stints in prison, she still gets paid every month. She routinely hosts crack parties and is capable of casing and robbing houses, stealing cars, walking for miles when she can't get a ride to obtain dope, but she supposedly can't work - so the check keeps coming which she uses to buy more crack. I for one am absolutely fed up with people who think the government owes them a living, and I cringe when I see a perfectly healthy man pay for two carts of groceries with a EBT card, or an illegal "immigrant" with a EBT card too. He can't speak English but he can coyote his way here and somehow get free groceries, healthcare, etc. Bull$&%#!!! And those without felony convictions will vote for Obama, regardless. They could care less about the country as long as that free check keeps coming.
I guess I answered my own "question". Thanks for listening.
It wasn't the crackheads who got Obama elected. It was students raised on Barney and Elmo who were taught trophies were evil and that you should share when you're taking a dump. It was college students trained by communist hippies and people who think hiphop is cool. It was anybody who watched the drooling lickspittles on CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS to get their news. Anybody who thinks Brangelina is interesting and cares about Miley Cyrus' haircut.
And, most importantly, it was the ladies.
Thankfully, Mitt isn't an old, ugly, worn-out guy and Ryan will appeal to them, as well.
No disrespect to Conservative women intended-I call it like I see it.
Finally-the reason Obama won was because guilt prevented a buttload of whites from voting against a (half-)black candidate.
He had his shot, and he failed. Bye.
Badger52
11-04-2012, 09:29
Finally-the reason Obama won was because guilt prevented a buttload of whites from voting against a (half-)black candidate.
He had his shot, and he failed. Bye.There is an undercurrent among some blacks that he's screwed the pooch for them from ever playing that card again.
'lickspittle' - now there's a crackerjack gem of a term when used in moderation. Nice.
There is an undercurrent among some blacks that he's screwed the pooch for them from ever playing that card again.
See, to me, that's a racist attitude.
Speaking for myself, as a conservative, skin color doesn't have anything to do with it. There are a couple black politicians I would have personally chosen to lead the party other than Romney. Believe me, inside a year, we're gonna have problems with his liberalism, too.
Liberals are all the same color-pink.
Badger52
11-04-2012, 09:53
See, to me, that's a racist attitude.
Speaking for myself, as a conservative, skin color doesn't have anything to do with it. There are a couple black politicians I would have personally chosen to lead the party other than Romney. Believe me, inside a year, we're gonna have problems with his liberalism, too.
Liberals are all the same color-pink.In complete agreement with all above. That many have said so in interviews (NOT covered by MSM) is testament that their own version of bak-sheesh is more important than them being labeled racist. Many are losing their own moral authority well-used over decades; that has some pain to it I'd imagine.
Yes, Romney bears watching and I'd have gone Allen West in a f'instant.
Don't worry.
10 12 years from now when more becomes known about the soon to be ex President - I hope - he will be reinvented as something else and his white half will be given more focus. This will allow the left to claim he really wasn't black - enough - so he's not really the first "Black" President "But by the way this guy we now got........."
Too late
Don't worry.
10 12 years from now when more becomes known about the soon to be ex President - I hope - he will be reinvented as something else and his white half will be given more focus. This will allow the left to claim he really wasn't black - enough - so he's not really the first "Black" President "But by the way this guy we now got........."
Too late
lol That's dead on, Bro.
When the DM Register endorsed Romney my wife asked what I thought of that? My first reply was that he was obviously progressive enough for them, I never cared for that aspect about him however I will take him over Obama any day. We recently got back from a trip just North of Madison, WI. political signs from Dubuque IA to Madison ran 6 to 1 for Romney also saw these signs along the road two in Dubuuque which has always leaned democrat and one in S. Wisconsin got a real charge over seeing them.
234512345223453
It wasn't the crackheads who got Obama elected. It was students raised on Barney and Elmo who were taught trophies were evil and that you should share when you're taking a dump. It was college students trained by communist hippies and people who think hiphop is cool. It was anybody who watched the drooling lickspittles on CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS to get their news. Anybody who thinks Brangelina is interesting and cares about Miley Cyrus' haircut.
And, most importantly, it was the ladies.
Thankfully, Mitt isn't an old, ugly, worn-out guy and Ryan will appeal to them, as well.
No disrespect to Conservative women intended-I call it like I see it.
Finally-the reason Obama won was because guilt prevented a buttload of whites from voting against a (half-)black candidate.
He had his shot, and he failed. Bye.
Ladies did not carry Obama alone. Men have just as much to do with this as ladies. Nice.try though :)
Ladies did not carry Obama alone. Men have just as much to do with this as ladies. Nice.try though :)
I'm including the ladies who voted for Obama with the other factions of society who did.
Can you deny that the women vote had a large impact on the '08 election?
I'm including the ladies who voted for Obama with the other factions of society who did.
Can you deny that the women vote had a large impact on the '08 election?
No more so than men.
No more so than men.
How is that possible? According to the Census Bureau, about 10 million more women voted in '08 than men.
FWIW, UConn's Roper Center for Public Opinion Research conducted a poll on how groups voted in 2008. The results are available here (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UJcDa2ct6So).
The U.S. Census Bureau's data on the 2008 election are available here (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html).
How is that possible? According to the Census Bureau, about 10 million more women voted in '08 than men.
May be so. But not all 10 million voted for Obama. If all the jackass men out there wouldn't have voted for him he wouldn't be POTUS :)
May be so. But not all 10 million voted for Obama. If all the jackass men out there wouldn't have voted for him he wouldn't be POTUS :)
I see. I must have missed the "war on men".
I see. I must have missed the "war on men".
If you think women vote with their ovaries or vaginas you have drunk the koolaid. If any demographic puts Romney in the WH it will be.women who are tired of being told they are nothing more than their reproductive organs.
Thank You Uncle Obama...it pays to feed the sheep!
http://news.msn.com/us/us-gasoline-prices-post-biggest-fall-in-nearly-4-years
I hate to say it but I gotta a bad feeling about Tuesday!
This question has been gnawing at my curiosity for quite some time concerning this thread. How confident are you that Romney/Obama will win the election? Just curious to see how confident everyone is...
My confidence......
With 65% confidence I believe Romney wins.
This question has been gnawing at my curiosity for quite some time concerning this thread. How confident are you that Romney/Obama will win the election? Just curious to see how confident everyone is...
My confidence......
With 65% confidence I believe Romney wins.
ACK,
Go back and read your instructional email before posting!
Where is your intro post?
Consider this a friendly reminder, I’m one of the nice ones around here!
Thank You Uncle Obama...it pays to feed the sheep!
http://news.msn.com/us/us-gasoline-prices-post-biggest-fall-in-nearly-4-years
I hate to say it but I gotta a bad feeling about Tuesday!
Patience my friend...with the gas price run up in the last couple of months, prices had nowhere to go but down...
Another reason for the total U.S. price decline in the latest survey is California, the biggest state consumer, where pump prices fell 49 cents in past two weeks after an extreme price increase a month ago because of refinery problems.
This is the biggest reason IMO...I am stationed in CA and gas prices were WELL north of $5 a galloon for the last month or so...CA has the "summer blend" / "winter blend" law with their gas...refineries had to shut down to switch from one to the other which caused a huge gas crunch. An additional problem was a power outage at one of the refineries...they decided to allow the release of the "winter blend" early to ease the gas prices...
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/08/business/la-fi-gas-prices-governor-20121008
Thank You Uncle Obama...it pays to feed the sheep!
http://news.msn.com/us/us-gasoline-prices-post-biggest-fall-in-nearly-4-years
I hate to say it but I gotta a bad feeling about Tuesday!
Not me. I believe Romney will be the next POTUS with over 300 electoral votes.
Not me. I believe Romney will be the next POTUS with over 300 electoral votes.
I DO hope and pray YOU are correct!
MTN Medic
11-04-2012, 21:05
http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html
The statisticians seem to disagree. No telling what the bias is, but numbers are better than simply hoping...
http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html
The statisticians seem to disagree. No telling what the bias is, but numbers are better than simply hoping...
That’s kinda my feeling on it, numbers are numbers! Not sure where ones “political desires” outweighs their desire to be correct. For some of these polling agencies…they base their reputation on being accurate. IF Romney is the winner there's gonna be a whole lot of pollsters with egg on their face, regardless of their political bent.
Dozer523
11-04-2012, 21:13
What concerns me...
I guess I answered my own "question". Thanks for listening. What concerns me is you think you answered some questions. You sound just like the people you rail against. You want someone else to solve your problem. You witness illegal activity by a know felon but don't report it. You see a guy on the dole and you're upset he gets help (I'm upset that he needs help) but you don't offer him a job. You didn't even come up with "A Modest Proposal".
Even Jesus didn't have a solution to the poor.
http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html
The statisticians seem to disagree. No telling what the bias is, but numbers are better than simply hoping...
Sorry but anyone who quotes Nate Silver as much as this guy does is a little squirrly with his facts IMO.
Anyone who is anyone in political polling follows Michael Barone. He has Romney taking it with 315+.
Even most liberal pollsters are starting to admit the electorate loos more like 2004 than it does 2008, yet most polls are using a Democratic advantage that is above 2008 numbers.
How is this for some insight...no I didn't fact check this one yet...
We already know who is going to win the election. The MAJOR UNDERDOGS, Carolina Pathers beat the Washington Redskins at Washington today. In more than 70 years of Redskins history (when Redskins lose at home, the incumbant party loses) tells us the winner is MITT ROMNEY!!!
Okay...almost true
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/04/nfl-redskins-rule-romney/1681023/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule
ZonieDiver
11-04-2012, 22:12
I've said it before here, and I'll repeat it, as I have seen nothing lately to convince me otherwise:
Romney wins the popular vote by a 1-2% margin, but loses the electoral college very closely (a la 2000) by narrowly losing two of the "battleground" states.
Sad as it is to say. It was the R's to win... and I feel they pissed it away.
I've been wrong MANY times before, and I pray this is another... but, my gut says it's not.
Sad as it is to say. It was the R's to win... and I fell they pissed it away.
I've been wrong MANY times before, and I pray this is another... but, my gut says it's not.
So true on that one!
Voting this year is like picking which STD you would want!
I've said it before here, and I'll repeat it, as I have seen nothing lately to convince me otherwise:
Romney wins the popular vote by a 1-2% margin, but loses the electoral college very closely (a la 2000) by narrowly losing two of the "battleground" states.
Sad as it is to say. It was the R's to win... and I feel they pissed it away.
I've been wrong MANY times before, and I pray this is another... but, my gut says it's not.
Nope. Landslide Romney. ;)
The demons will send in the sharks big time, though, trying to extend the vote in NY and NJ, and probably SFO just for the hell of it. :D
Pat
ZonieDiver
11-04-2012, 22:59
Nope. Landslide Romney. ;)
The demons will send in the sharks big time, though, trying to extend the vote in NY and NJ, and probably SFO just for the hell of it. :D
Pat
I hope you're right, my S. AZ neighbor!:D:D
However:
Electoral College -
Romney = 263
Obama = 275
I'll be drinking heavily either way late Tuesday... either from sorrow, or joy!
Not me. I believe Romney will be the next POTUS with over 300 electoral votes.
Concur.
I believed that even before the Skins lost. ;)
Swing State voter turnout is gonna determine this one - it'll be a "nailbiter".
Richard :munchin
Ret10Echo
11-05-2012, 07:55
Swing State voter turnout is gonna determine this one - it'll be a "nailbiter".
Richard :munchin
...Although I would say that the "nailbiting" will probably take the better part of 1 - 2 weeks before anything resembling a final tally is discussed. That doesn't even begin to cover the time that all the lawsuits will take.
...Although I would say that the "nailbiting" will probably take the better part of 1 - 2 weeks before anything resembling a final tally is discussed. That doesn't even begin to cover the time that all the lawsuits will take.
Unless it's not even close enough to go to the trouble.
Romney will take OH, FL, VA, NC and WI. That gives him a huge victory.
He's got a good shot at taking PA, which would make this landslide worse than the Carter lashing, electoral college-wise.
He may even take CO, if the Hispanic vote is less than two-thirds Obama.
What we really need is for that RINO Brown to whip Fauxahontas, and for Akin to somehow pull it off, as ill as he is with hoof-in-mouth.
This being such a close race in the polls is what disturbs me the most. Think what the next election will be like. Even if Romney wins he will probably be blamed for what will happen in the next four years (economically).
Retired top military brass push for Romney
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
November 4, 2012, 03:33PM
Five hundred retired generals and admirals are running an ad in Monday's editions of The Washington Times calling on the country to elect Republican Mitt Romney on Tuesday.
In plain terms the officers, who paid for the ad themselves, said they support Mr. Romney: "We, the undersigned, proudly support Governor Mitt Romney as our nation's next president and commander-in-chief."
The ad then goes on to list all of the officers, in alphabetical order, in four columns of print.
The retired admirals and generals said they decided to take this public stand to try to head off "having to live through four more years of what has been experienced since January 20th, 2009."
Read more: Retired top military brass push for Romney - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/4/retired-top-military-brass-push-romney/#ixzz2BMNAl2SL
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 08:49
What concerns me is you think you answered some questions. You sound just like the people you rail against. You want someone else to solve your problem. You witness illegal activity by a know felon but don't report it. You see a guy on the dole and you're upset he gets help (I'm upset that he needs help) but you don't offer him a job. You didn't even come up with "A Modest Proposal".
Even Jesus didn't have a solution to the poor.
Hello again Dozer523.
I agree with what Dozer said, I'm upset that anyone in America (who isn't illegal) needs help in the first place. There should be enough jobs in America, by Americans, for Americans.
Being poor is not a problem, I've been raised in a poor family and struggled on my own for years, but I never complained, it's a simple life, but everyone struggles. My problem is with poverty, being in poverty can be fixed, being poor is just a result of population control. There are too many people, not enough jobs (at the moment), and I would like to believe an imbalance of wealth (ie sports players getting hundreds of millions when I think even ten million would be too much).
But I don't want to come off as too opinionated, I like to believe I have well thought out rational deductions rather than opinions, but I know that cannot be the case, so I'll stop before I sound like I'm ranting.
Agree with the Jesus quote too, the world isn't perfect, never will be so long as people have different views, which is perfect in its imperfection.
This being such a close race in the polls is what disturbs me the most. Think what the next election will be like. Even if Romney wins he will probably be blamed for what will happen in the next four years (economically).
Devil's advocate: Do you think that Obama is being blamed for things that happened 4 years ago?
This being such a close race in the polls is what disturbs me the most. Think what the next election will be like. Even if Romney wins he will probably be blamed for what will happen in the next four years (economically).
Rather that than an appeal of the 22d Ammendment and a fall into statism.
Do you think that Obama is being blamed for things that happened 4 years ago?
Do you mean when he was a sitting (campaigning) and hardly voting Senator in the Democratic controlled US Senate supported by an extremely liberal Democrat controlled House?
No, I don't think that Obama is being blamed for things that happened 4 years ago.
But here is a list of just 50 of his broken promises (http://morallowground.com/2012/09/06/obamas-top-50-broken-promises/) with descriptions.
Do you mean when he was a sitting (campaigning) and hardly voting Senator in the Democratic controlled US Senate supported by an extremely liberal Democrat controlled House?
No, I don't think that Obama is being blamed for things that happened 4 years ago.
But here is a list of just 50 of his broken promises (http://morallowground.com/2012/09/06/obamas-top-50-broken-promises/) with descriptions.
I don't know, Obama was pretty energetic about the "Born Alive Protection" bill. He felt that if a baby survived an abortion, it should be left to die.
A baby who survives an abortion, to Obama, is a "fetus outside the womb".
A baby who survives an abortion, to Obama, is a "fetus outside the womb".
All the way up to age two according to some of these eugenicists.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 09:24
All the way up to age two according to some of these eugenicists.
Do you have a source?
By the way, the top 50 list, I'm reading currently,
#12 for example
12- No tax increases for families earning less than $250,000: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” vowed candidate Obama. Yet as president, Obama raised the tax on cigarettes by 62 cents per pack. He also introduced a tax on indoor tanning services. And the president’s signature Affordable Care Act, aka ‘Obamacare,’ amounts to a tax on those individuals who choose to go without– or who cannot afford– health insurance.
Increasing taxes on cigarettes and tanning salons, that isn't taxing people who earn less than $250,000 directly, unless there were an empirical fact such as "All people who earn under $250,000 smoke and use tanning salons". Furthermore, it is always a platform of the Conservatives that the lower-income people should stop getting food stamps if they can afford cigarettes, beer, etc... So taxing cigarettes to make them less affordable and therefore less appealing to lower-income families should be something conservatives are happy about. I don't see this as a bad thing, so the list is at least "Top 49" since this one doesn't count.
Not to mention I've noticed at least a couple of these are quoting the U.K.'s Guardian, well I lived in the U.K. for a few years and I am aware of that publisher... They are the equivalent to America's Wal-Mart checkout line magazines "Cher gives birth to Alien Baby!"
(Guardian is very left liberal leaning and makes a lot of Conservative British angry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
Do you have a source?
Look up Princeton Professor Peter Singer.
Pat
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 09:41
Look up Princeton Professor Peter Singer.
Pat
Ah, I see, Singer is too controversial for my tastes to discuss on the internet.
Rather that than an appeal of the 22d Ammendment and a fall into statism.
Its funny you should mention the 22nd amendment. We've been half joking about it recently. This guy is definitely a problem. I'm just trying to say that there were things set in motion many decades ago that need to be dealt with. I think there are fundamental issues concerning our economy. When I say fundamental, I do not refer to fundamentals of laissez-faire capitalism. I mean institutions put in place to essentially end it (EPA, FED, assortment of Obama's czars and agencies). Oh yes, and my favorite, the secretary of business.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 10:11
...
But here is a list of just 50 of his broken promises (http://morallowground.com/2012/09/06/obamas-top-50-broken-promises/) with descriptions.
To quote #20 on the list...
20- Achieve an agreement establishing an independent Palestinian state: Addressing the UN in 2010, President Obama declared that “when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that can lead to a new member of the United Nations, an independent, sovereign state of Palestine living in peace with Israel.” This is the same Obama who once refreshingly acknowledged that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” But the president’s actions have sadly done nothing to curb Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine or its equally illegal settlement expansion. Indeed, by continuing to approve billions of dollars in annual military aid to Israel, Obama is endorsing Israeli occupation, apartheid and the continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
It's pretty rare to find such an angry liberal as is writing this top 50 list. It almost seems as if several people with varying views wrote this without cooperation.
I understand Obama hasn't done everything he claimed he would do, but that's also because America's democracy is nothing like a totalitarian dictatorship, he does not rule with an iron fist, he has to jump through checks and balances, and if he wants to do something, the Republicans have vowed to make him fail. It is well known that GOP has made it their mission to see Obama fail, so I trust you're aware of that as well.
I'm not under any delusion that Obama is perfect for America or anything like that, but I try to be as unbiased as possible, I think when articles quote things such as "We're determined to stop the agenda Americans have rejected and to turn the ship around," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that it's misleading. It is trying to make the reader assume that all Americans rejected Obama, or the majority of Americans rejected Obama, but these are issues which are obviously controversial and Americans are generally split on them.
It isn't true that Americans are tired of Obama, it is true that some Americans are tired of Obama.
It isn't true that Americans are Christian, it is true that some Americans are Christian.
The list of examples could continue, but I think my point is clear enough, which is that things are not always as they seem, and we Americans, especially those who fight and die for freedom, should allow that freedom truly without strings attached. Not "you're free as long as you believe the same as me", there are a lot of veterans and heroes who were atheists, Muslims, Jews, minorities of all sorts, and they all have different views.
Different views is what makes America so great, unlike places such as Pakistan where Islam rules supreme and it is very dangerous to belong to a minority group (even the wrong sect of Islam).
It will be a very sad day when America is forced to bow to one ideology.
Philosophers and true thinkers who challenge each others' opinions and thoughts are what drives innovation and enlightenment.
Obama is not the golden era that many people thought he would be, but I also think that he isn't the dark ages, and if anything is going wrong then it cannot rest solely on the shoulders of the president, just as Bush's era cannot be blamed entirely on Bush alone, it is the result of our three branches of Government's collaboration as a whole, as it always has been in America's history.
So we should stop pointing at the President and blaming them so much, and start focusing more on the fact that there are thousands of people involved in the decision making process...
In fact I'd even venture to say it starts in the schools with what sort of education they receive, it continues especially to the people who are Drill Sergeants in charge of selection process, what kind of standards has the institution set?
I think the standards in America are too low, in schools, in the military, in government...
We've lowered our standards so much which is why there is so much confusion and radicalism. If there were more intelligent and seasoned veterans in places of power instead of whoever has the most money and influence, then America would be far better off. That last sentence summarizes my view the best, I think.
Do you have a source?
Thank you PSM.
#12 for example
Nits upon nits :rolleyes: The article actually claims 100 broken promises!
"Cher gives birth to Alien Baby!"
Do you care to disprove this?
IMO, I believe that some of these "tawdry scandal sheets" have done better Pulitzer quality reporting on topics that the so-called journalists of so-called "news" organizations have chosen to ignore. Yellow Journalism at its finest.
I will agree that for the most part that in comparison between the two, the so-called "Main Stream News" could use some better pictures...
(Guardian is very left liberal leaning and makes a lot of Conservative British angry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
Complaining about The Guardian as a source while using wikipedia.org to justify said complaint is pretty funny, don't you think?
Promises or not, I think parts of one book sum up the reason he was elected. Mackey's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"
Paragrouper
11-05-2012, 10:22
Devil's advocate: Do you think that Obama is being blamed for things that happened 4 years ago?
"Blame" is such an interesting choice of words.
When you consider that Obama, Biden and many news outlets still make reference to "Bush" while they bemoan the trials that beset America. In the end, all the 'blame' has accomplished nothing more than feed the partisanship so prevalent today.
I prefer the word "responsible," which IMO Obama has some trouble with. Obama signed up for the job. He had his chance and he just didn't get very far in addressing those same issues he accepted when he took the office. He is responsible for his foreign policy decisions, the debt he generated while in office and the paralysis that has gripped our government since he took office.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 10:23
Complaining about The Guardian as a source while using wikipedia.org to justify said complaint is pretty funny, don't you think?
Short answer: If I were writing a thesis in a University, yes, but as a public forum reference, it is accurate enough on the topic.
Longer answer: The only other way to learn about the Guardian, for example, would be to be an avid reader of it, or to read what its competitors say about it, or to read what people say about it on a forum. I deduced that what Wikipedia says about it is just as good or better than the previous options, considering time restraints and bias, which all sources quoted would contain so long as they're not written by a superior being which has managed to escape the ties to ego that entail bias to begin with.
edit: also, I just enjoy these sorts of discussions, hope I haven't offended anyone or come across as arrogant, my views are not in any way set in stone.
"Blame" is such an interesting choice of words.
When you consider that Obama, Biden and many news outlets still make reference to "Bush" while they bemoan the trials that beset America. In the end, all the 'blame' has accomplished nothing more than feed the partisanship so prevalent today.
I prefer the word "responsible," which IMO Obama has some trouble with. Obama signed up for the job. He had his chance and he just didn't get very far in addressing those same issues he accepted when he took the office. He is responsible for his foreign policy decisions, the debt he generated while in office and the paralysis that has gripped our government since he took office.
I agree, plain and simple, well said.
I still stand on my previous thought, that American standards are too low, and that it is the government as a whole that poses problems and controversy, not just the President (a figure-head to direct the 'blame' for the most part).
Dozer523
11-05-2012, 10:31
Retired top military brass push for Romney
The retired admirals and generals said they decided to take this public stand to try to head off "having to live through four more years of what has been experienced since . . .
I think it's really neat they included their "nicknames". "Cub", "Ace", "Rabbit", "Assassin" (honest to God)
ddoering
11-05-2012, 10:38
There are too many people, not enough jobs (at the moment), and I would like to believe an imbalance of wealth (ie sports players getting hundreds of millions when I think even ten million would be too much).
Why do people have a problem with people making money? Where in the Constitution does it say everyone should get their fair share of the money? They are only entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nothing more. What they make with that is on them and if they make millions then good on them.
Its not that we have too many people, we have too many poor people because we subsidize their existance which allows them to breed more poor people. It is a lose-lose cycle that keeps them in poverty.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 10:50
Why do people have a problem with people making money? Where in the Constitution does it say everyone should get their fair share of the money? They are only entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nothing more. What they make with that is on them and if they make millions then good on them.
Its not that we have too many people, we have too many poor people because we subsidize their existance which allows them to breed more poor people. It is a lose-lose cycle that keeps them in poverty.
That is such a great question which is why I have made a new thread to discuss it, if you would be interested in joining.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=473079#post473079
I don't have a problem with people earning money, but who makes the decision in the first place about how much someone earns?
craigepo
11-05-2012, 11:10
When people start saying things like "I believe there is an imbalance of wealth", and "(fill in the blank) make too much money", freedom-loving people should instantly put their guard up.
This country, and its wealth, was built on a free-enterprise/capitalist system. That system efficiently allocates resources based upon demand. Presently, Apple is making a lot of money selling Ipads and Iphones. If I find that offensive, and wish that wagon wheel makers should make more money, I have the right to such opinion. However, this free market doesn't care, and will continue to allocate resources (money) to Apple, until demand for Apple's product decreases, whether by competition or a change in consumers' taste.
This system allocates scarce resources. Money is not limitless, and the system allocates resources/money based upon other demanded scarcities. How much should a teacher, a surgeon, or a professional quarterback make? While it makes great coffee-table fodder to discuss this, the free-market figures it out every day, based upon scarcity of ability. Not many people can lead a 4-th quarter comeback with a blitzing defense on the other side of the line of scrimmage (actually, most pro quarterbacks can't), so quarterbacks make a lot of money, because they make team owners a lot of money. How much should we pay a neuro surgeon, or an interventional radiologist? Well, how many people can do what they do? Not very many, so they are well paid. On the other hand, how many people can teach 1st-grade reading? Lots. So, those people are paid less.
It's easy to despise this system. However, it is the only one that works for the long-term. Other systems necessitate some subjective statement by someone, who opines who should earn what. That is where the tyranny comes in.
" We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Hitler, May 1, 1927.
Sorry to use Hitler as an example, but systems other than capitalism just never work, and they always lead to tyranny.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 11:24
When people start saying things like "I believe there is an imbalance of wealth", and "(fill in the blank) make too much money", freedom-loving people should instantly put their guard up.
This country, and its wealth, was built on a free-enterprise/capitalist system. That system efficiently allocates resources based upon demand. Presently, Apple is making a lot of money selling Ipads and Iphones. If I find that offensive, and wish that wagon wheel makers should make more money, I have the right to such opinion. However, this free market doesn't care, and will continue to allocate resources (money) to Apple, until demand for Apple's product decreases, whether by competition or a change in consumers' taste.
This system allocates scarce resources. Money is not limitless, and the system allocates resources/money based upon other demanded scarcities. How much should a teacher, a surgeon, or a professional quarterback make? While it makes great coffee-table fodder to discuss this, the free-market figures it out every day, based upon scarcity of ability. Not many people can lead a 4-th quarter comeback with a blitzing defense on the other side of the line of scrimmage (actually, most pro quarterbacks can't), so quarterbacks make a lot of money, because they make team owners a lot of money. How much should we pay a neuro surgeon, or an interventional radiologist? Well, how many people can do what they do? Not very many, so they are well paid. On the other hand, how many people can teach 1st-grade reading? Lots. So, those people are paid less.
It's easy to despise this system. However, it is the only one that works for the long-term. Other systems necessitate some subjective statement by someone, who opines who should earn what. That is where the tyranny comes in.
" We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Hitler, May 1, 1927.
Sorry to use Hitler as an example, but systems other than capitalism just never work, and they always lead to tyranny.
Sorry that I came across as bashing capitalism as a whole, in the thread I started, I clarified that.
My problem isn't with people earning wealth by demand of product, but the fact that America has such wealthy people but is in debt and has inadequate health care and public schooling, to summarize very briefly. Read my other thread for depth.
......My problem isn't with people earning wealth by demand of product, but the fact that America has such wealthy people but is in debt and.............
I find it funny that I donate more to my church each year than the VP does. And I ain't rich - solid middle class. Libs love to do things with other people's money.
Once again you stray into that lib lane of the evil rich.
Is it the rich folks fault that the US is in dept?
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 11:48
I find it funny that I donate more to my church each year than the VP does. And I ain't rich - solid middle class. Libs love to do things with other people's money.
Once again you stray into that lib lane of the evil rich.
Is it the rich folks fault that the US is in dept?
I believe that the wealthy people have influence and power, in that sense yes, in some ways.
It doesn't mean that the rich should give everything to every American.
My stance is simple: America shouldn't be so far behind in healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
I think that if the wealthy elite focused on these issues, then some resolution could be set in motion.
Our taxes should be paying for these things, but they're not getting done... I suspect a lot of our taxes are fueling greed and corruption more than the resolution of vital issues.
Stargazer
11-05-2012, 11:59
I understand Obama hasn't done everything he claimed he would do, but that's also because America's democracy is nothing like a totalitarian dictatorship, he does not rule with an iron fist, he has to jump through checks and balances, and if he wants to do something, the Republicans have vowed to make him fail. It is well known that GOP has made it their mission to see Obama fail, so I trust you're aware of that as well.
Those Republican 'obstructionist' were sent to Washington representing their constituents. It's nothing short of 'malarkey" to suggest that there is 'no merit' in the positions they took.
Pretty much sums it up for me:
"The top 1% of earners pay almost 40% of federal income taxes, the top 10% of earners pay 70%, the top 50% pay 97% and 47% pay no federal taxes. Is that fair? Really, does that show “rich” people are taking advantage of the rest of us?
President Obama says so.
The man, who promised “I’m not going to demonize you because you disagree with me,” has done exactly that to “the rich.”
Here’s another thing. “The rich” and “the poor” are not static categories. We know people move up from “poor” and people move down from “rich.” That is one of the beauties of the free enterprise system.
But can we expect President Obama to know that? He has said: “Limited government and free market economies don’t work and never have.” Not one of our prior 43 presidents would agree with that. A decade ago, he said “I actually believe in redistribution.” In a famous 2008 interview, Obama told Charles Gibson that, although raising capital gains tax has historically reduced, not increased, revenues, he would still raise taxes for “fairness.” Reducing revenue in the name of fairness?
What does the president know about what works in a free enterprise system? He went to a fancy prep school, a prestigious small California college, two Ivy League universities and traveled extensively abroad and we still do not know how all that got financed.
We do know we elected someone with no significant private sector or executive experience, who then compounded the problem by choosing advisors who have less private sector experience than the advisors of any other president in the last 100 years. We should not be surprised at the results.
He explained that he meant we need more public sector employees. Does our president not understand that more public sector employees mean more spending of tax dollars; which will call for more taxes from the productive and thus less monies for the private sector to generate jobs? In fact, our government collects more tax dollars from the people than any nation ever has before in all of recorded history, still spends a trillion dollars more that it has per year, and complains that it doesn’t have nearly enough money. Every thinking American knows you cannot spend multiples of what you earn without disaster following. That is called common sense. But Obama and Harry Reid refused to consider bills calling for a balanced budget.
Let’s get back to where we started. Is it fair that the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes and 47% pay no federal taxes? What do you think?
Noted economist Walter Williams said this: “People who pay little or no income taxes become natural constituents for big-spending politicians. After all, if you pay no income taxes, what do you care if income taxes are raised? Also, you won’t be enthusiastic about tax cuts; you’ll see them as a threat to your handouts.”
Bottom line: people tend to vote for those who promise goodies that they think someone else will pay for. It is legalized bribery. It helps elect unscrupulous politicians. But it is certainly not fair."
- By Richard Coleman in a letter to the editors of the Malibu Times paper posted Nov. 1 2012
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 12:04
Those Republican 'obstructionist' were sent to Washington representing their constituents. It's nothing short of 'malarkey" to suggest that there is 'no merit' in the positions they took.
Well I'm not saying that Republicans shouldn't represent their constituents by any means, but I think there is a level of radicalism in the partisan circle which is bad for everyone.
I like the following article (I know all news is biased, but they point out an important factor) as a response also:
"Making a big deal of Republican obstructionism could all too easily come across as whining. Yet this obstructionism is real, and arguably is the biggest single reason for our ongoing economic weakness." - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html
................"Making a big deal of Republican obstructionism could all too easily come across as whining. Yet this obstructionism is real, and arguably is the biggest single reason for our ongoing economic weakness." - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html
Hmmm, you don't seem to blame Senator Reid and his cronies for any "obstructionism" seeing how the house has been sending bills to the Senate the last couple of years where Reid has been sitting on them.
You don't seem to care much that Reid has said he's not passing any of the Republican stuff after Romney is elected.
Dadaleci - you are starting to suffer from diarrhea of the keyboard. Your posts have shown you want higher taxes on the "evil rich" and more government spending.
Cool your jets or they will be cooled for you.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 12:15
Pretty much sums it up for me:
"The top 1% of earners pay almost 40% of federal income taxes, the top 10% of earners pay 70%, the top 50% pay 97% and 47% pay no federal taxes. Is that fair? Really, does that show “rich” people are taking advantage of the rest of us?
President Obama says so.
Romney himself even took back his statement about the 47%, it's simply not true or accurate.
You can research the statement more and see a lot of facts refuting the claim, which is why Romney corrected his stance in the first place.
The man, who promised “I’m not going to demonize you because you disagree with me,” has done exactly that to “the rich.”
Here’s another thing. “The rich” and “the poor” are not static categories. We know people move up from “poor” and people move down from “rich.” That is one of the beauties of the free enterprise system.
But can we expect President Obama to know that? He has said: “Limited government and free market economies don’t work and never have.” Not one of our prior 43 presidents would agree with that. A decade ago, he said “I actually believe in redistribution.” In a famous 2008 interview, Obama told Charles Gibson that, although raising capital gains tax has historically reduced, not increased, revenues, he would still raise taxes for “fairness.” Reducing revenue in the name of fairness?
What does the president know about what works in a free enterprise system? He went to a fancy prep school, a prestigious small California college, two Ivy League universities and traveled extensively abroad and we still do not know how all that got financed.
We do know we elected someone with no significant private sector or executive experience, who then compounded the problem by choosing advisors who have less private sector experience than the advisors of any other president in the last 100 years. We should not be surprised at the results.
He explained that he meant we need more public sector employees. Does our president not understand that more public sector employees mean more spending of tax dollars; which will call for more taxes from the productive and thus less monies for the private sector to generate jobs? In fact, our government collects more tax dollars from the people than any nation ever has before in all of recorded history, still spends a trillion dollars more that it has per year, and complains that it doesn’t have nearly enough money. Every thinking American knows you cannot spend multiples of what you earn without disaster following. That is called common sense. But Obama and Harry Reid refused to consider bills calling for a balanced budget.
Let’s get back to where we started. Is it fair that the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes and 47% pay no federal taxes? What do you think?
Noted economist Walter Williams said this: “People who pay little or no income taxes become natural constituents for big-spending politicians. After all, if you pay no income taxes, what do you care if income taxes are raised? Also, you won’t be enthusiastic about tax cuts; you’ll see them as a threat to your handouts.”
Bottom line: people tend to vote for those who promise goodies that they think someone else will pay for. It is legalized bribery. It helps elect unscrupulous politicians. But it is certainly not fair."
- By Richard Coleman in a letter to the editors of the Malibu Times paper posted Nov. 1 2012
The rest of your post is based on the fallacious statement about 47% being true, or so I understood it to be.
I don't vote for goodies, I don't want handouts, I know I don't represent all of America either, but I represent a different view at this point in time, and all I want is someone who is going to distribute taxes into healthcare, education, and infrastructure for the sake of America's prosperity. Not saying that is Obama, just speaking in general terms.
"Making a big deal of Republican obstructionism could all too easily come across as whining. Yet this obstructionism is real, and arguably is the biggest single reason for our ongoing economic weakness." - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html
Citing an even less reliable "source" than Wikipedia. :rolleyes:
Have you considered the unstated 'obstructionism' of the US Senate? During this administrations first two years, hundreds of bills were sent to the Democratically held Senate by the Democratically held House. Many were never even considered. Too many, IMO, passed. How could the Republicans obstruct? Two Supreme Court Justices were even appointed! Mid-term, the people of these United States sent a message for change. During the, hopefully, final two years of this Administration, the still Democratically held Senate has refused to allow most bills from even coming out of committee. Who were the obstructionists when no one, D or R, voted for this Presidents budget proposal?
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 12:21
Hmmm, you don't seem to blame Senator Reid and his cronies for any "obstructionism" seeing how the house has been sending bills to the Senate the last couple of years where Reid has been sitting on them.
You don't seem to care much that Reid has said he's not passing any of the Republican stuff after Romney is elected.
Dadaleci - you are starting to suffer from diarrhea of the keyboard. Your posts have shown you want higher taxes on the "evil rich" and more government spending.
Cool your jets or they will be cooled for you.
I'm calm and collected, I'm asking questions more than making claims, and I'm also expressing thoughts about America's poor healthcare and education.
I simply want to see our healthcare, education, and infrastructure improved. I'm not asking for handouts or bailouts, I'm asking for responsible governing of funds so that people's cars don't have to constantly suffer from poor roads, houses being condemned for years at a time with no progress, and public schools pushing children through grades who are seriously uneducated and lagging far behind...
I'd like to read a response of how our government will achieve these things.
I'd like to read a response of how our government will achieve these things.
I'm beginning to see your posts as trolling. Not much value.
Since you asked the question then you answer it first.
Take this as your second warning.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 12:26
Citing an even less reliable "source" than Wikipedia. :rolleyes:
Have you considered the unstated 'obstructionism' of the US Senate? During this administrations first two years, hundreds of bills were sent to the Democratically held Senate by the Democratically held House. Many were never even considered. Too many, IMO, passed. How could the Republicans obstruct? Two Supreme Court Justices were even appointed! Mid-term, the people of these United States sent a message for change. During the, hopefully, final two years of this Administration, the still Democratically held Senate has refused to allow most bills from even coming out of committee. Who were the obstructionists when no one, D or R, voted for this Presidents budget proposal?
I'm a registered Republican, but I don't buy into partisanship, this side that side, I want to see co-operation from all sides to achieve what I've stated many times: better healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
"The President" simply is not the problem or solution, I don't think Romney or Obama alone can achieve much in the way of dire repairs, but it is a joint effort of our entire government as a whole.
Stargazer
11-05-2012, 12:28
I like the following article (I know all news is biased, but they point out an important factor) as a response also:
"Making a big deal of Republican obstructionism could all too easily come across as whining. Yet this obstructionism is real, and arguably is the biggest single reason for our ongoing economic weakness." - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html
How familiar are you with the "American Jobs Act" v. the talking points? What is your position on the current financial state of the country? Do you know how much our spending exceeds revenues? Do you believe by taking more from the wealthy will bridge that financial gap?
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 12:39
How familiar are you with the "American Jobs Act" v. the talking points? What is your position on the current financial state of the country? Do you know how much our spending exceeds revenues? Do you believe by taking more from the wealthy will bridge that financial gap?
I'm not a scholar or educated politician by any means, I'm just an average citizen who sees a problem with our healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Our financial state is approximately 16 trillion dollars in debt. I don't know how much our spending exceeds revenues but I'd presume it is by more than 200%.
I don't believe that taking more from the wealthy will bridge that gap.
I would like to believe that distributing what is already being taken properly should solve a lot of our problems with healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
My whole premise has been that there is corruption somewhere and that those people who are wealthy and powerful (going hand in hand together) are not distributing the money properly, or we wouldn't have these problems... Where is the money going? We're all paying taxes, but we're not seeing results. At least from my perspective.
And I did post my idea of what the problem is and how to fix it (higher standards) back on page 26 of this thread:
Obama is not the golden era that many people thought he would be, but I also think that he isn't the dark ages, and if anything is going wrong then it cannot rest solely on the shoulders of the president, just as Bush's era cannot be blamed entirely on Bush alone, it is the result of our three branches of Government's collaboration as a whole, as it always has been in America's history.
So we should stop pointing at the President and blaming them so much, and start focusing more on the fact that there are thousands of people involved in the decision making process...
In fact I'd even venture to say it starts in the schools with what sort of education they receive, it continues especially to the people who are Drill Sergeants in charge of selection process, what kind of standards has the institution set?
I think the standards in America are too low, in schools, in the military, in government...
We've lowered our standards so much which is why there is so much confusion and radicalism. If there were more intelligent and seasoned veterans in places of power instead of whoever has the most money and influence, then America would be far better off. That last sentence summarizes my view the best, I think.
"The rest of your post is based on the fallacious statement about 47% being true, or so I understood it to be."
Ok...So it's not 47%, like Romney said. It's actually 46.4%. That's hardly "fallacious".
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3054.
As I understand it, it is a tax code issue.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 13:08
"The rest of your post is based on the fallacious statement about 47% being true, or so I understood it to be."
Ok...So it's not 47%, like Romney said. It's actually 46.4%. That's hardly "fallacious".
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3054.
As I understand it, it is a tax code issue.
The statement was simply inaccurate and misleading, which is why Romney retracted it himself.
The 47% is implying that they pay no taxes and live off of government handouts and welfare, etc... which is untrue. There are laws and regulations put in place to encourage people to work which both parties passed together.
www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/ghilarducci-mcgahey-romney/index.html
Even Fox reported on this
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/09/27/who-is-47-not-paying-taxes/
"So as you can see, the 47% is a varied group. Some are elderly, living modestly on small pensions. Some work and pay into the system in other ways. Some are thrown by the bad economy, unemployed and looking, losing their businesses, losing their homes."
I'm a registered Republican, but I don't buy into partisanship, this side that side, I want to see co-operation from all sides to achieve what I've stated many times: better healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
"The President" simply is not the problem or solution, I don't think Romney or Obama alone can achieve much in the way of dire repairs, but it is a joint effort of our entire government as a whole.
You know I just don't think that you're very credible. You are going to have to bring a better, more consistent dialogue to earn anything back. I would strongly consider the wise suggestion from Pete just a few posts back. Specifically, stop writing, read more here/elsewhere, think things through and come back with well researched and considered comments/opinions. Impress us - next month for example.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 13:17
You know I just don't think that you're very credible. You are going to have to bring a better, more consistent dialogue to earn anything back. I would strongly consider the wise suggestion from Pete just a few posts back. Specifically, stop writing, read more here/elsewhere, think things through and come back with well researched and considered comments/opinions. Impress us - next month for example.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473058&postcount=377
I started at post #377 and have stated my views clearly, and what I really want to see is higher standards, raise the bar, we have too many people in positions they are not qualified for.
That has been my platform all along.
I've not thrown any mud around or bashed any one group of people, I'm saying that America is a great country and should have higher standards. Everyone agrees with that, but we disagree on how to achieve that. I don't think it is as simple as taxing the wealthy more as democrats say, and it's not as simple as the republicans say either. If you just walk into a public school you will most likely see an appalling education system which is producing humans who will control the future destiny of this country, it is scary.
Stargazer
11-05-2012, 13:24
I'm not a scholar or educated politician by any means, I'm just an average citizen who sees a problem with our healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Our financial state is approximately 16 trillion dollars in debt. I don't know how much our spending exceeds revenues but I'd presume it is by more than 200%.
Let's look at actual numbers in 2011. Our spending at the federal level was 3.6 trillion v. revenue of 2.3 trillion. They spent 1.3 trillion more than we made -- 157%. It has to stop!
You have concerns with health and education, well so do I. What makes you think giving the government more authority or money will yield the desired results? In 2011, $0.9 Trillion was spent on health and $0.1 trillion on education at the FEDERAL level.
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/
I don't believe that taking more from the wealthy will bridge that gap. I thought in another post you stated that the wealthier should pay more or didn't have a problem with them doing so. Perhaps I misunderstood or my recall misfired.
I would like to believe that distributing what is already being taken properly should solve a lot of our problems with healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Careful -- Paul Krugman may write an article calling you a stonewaller. :)
My whole premise has been that there is corruption somewhere and that those people who are wealthy and powerful (going hand in hand together) are not distributing the money properly, or we wouldn't have these problems... Where is the money going? We're all paying taxes, but we're not seeing results. At least from my perspective.
:eek: This is a good place for me to stop....... :)
............. If you just walk into a public school you will most likely see an appalling education system which is producing humans who will control the future destiny of this country, it is scary.
Which is why Short Round is in private school.
Did you miss the flap in the Chicago Public school system just a couple of months back? Start there if you're looking for why the standards aren't higher.
The US public school system is a combination of Union job protection, Liberal education theory and parents who don't value an education - because they don't need one.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 13:28
Let's look at actual numbers in 2011. Our spending at the federal level was 3.6 trillion v. revenue of 2.3 trillion. They spent 1.3 trillion more than we made -- 157%. It has to stop!
You have concerns with health and education, well so do I. What makes you think giving the government more authority or money will yield the desired results? In 2011, $0.9 Trillion was spent on health and $0.1 trillion on education at the FEDERAL level.
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/
I thought in another post you stated that the wealthier should pay more or didn't have a problem with them doing so. Perhaps I misunderstood or my recall misfired.
Careful -- Paul Krugman may write an article calling you a stonewaller. :)
:eek: This is a good place for me to stop....... :)
I'm genuinely curious.
Feel free to PM me if preferred.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 13:36
Which is why Short Round is in private school.
Did you miss the flap in the Chicago Public school system just a couple of months back? Start there if you're looking for why the standards aren't higher.
The US public school system is a combination of Union job protection, Liberal education theory and parents who don't value an education - because they don't need one.
I agree, I would love to see it resolved.
I've not supported any party in any of my posts, and I've agreed with a lot of what people have responded, so I'm unsure why I feel as though I'm being demonized as if I were a radical liberal (which I'm not).
I have varying views, as most people, and don't prescribe to one side or the other.
I support the right to firearms, I'm against abortion (unless medical emergency), I don't think people should be allowed to sit at home and milk welfare--they should have a job...
I never proposed handouts. I suppose my wealth comments got people heated. Yes I do believe that some people make way too much money (and I understand why), but education and healthcare require money, and if we're pouring so much money into them, why aren't they improving? If it is because of liberal education theory then how will it be fixed?
I was hoping for some help from members far more educated than myself, because I'm genuinely interested in knowing the answers. The bias is overwhelming, and are a good basis of discussion, or so I thought.
I agree, I would love to see it resolved.
...................
It was resolved.
I'm just an average citizen who sees a problem with our healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Getting rid of government interference, public sector unions, and the minimum wage would go a long way toward solving these problems.
Pat
Badger52
11-05-2012, 13:58
what I really want to see is higher standards, raise the bar, we have too many people in positions they are not qualified for.
The person doing the hiring has the option to write down:
"Terminated for cause. Misrepresented & misstated qualifications in hiring process. Failure to accept responsibility for actions (or inactions). Failure to achieve even basic performance goals for which hired."
After some introspection, hire someone better. Specifically, as it relates to POTUS:
Tomorrow.
It is not the federal government's responsibility or right to interfere with education or healthcare. That is a task that belongs to the state or the people as it is written in the 10th amendment. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject but to me the bill of rights seemed clear on this. I've heard some argue that healthcare wasn't an issue when the constitution was written. That argument is ridiculous. See below.
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
I was hoping for some help from members far more educated than myself, because I'm genuinely interested in knowing the answers.
OK
Vote Romney and quit wringing your hands.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 14:40
OK
Vote Romney and quit wringing your hands.
I'm already voting for Ron Paul.
I'm already voting for Ron Paul.How about that.
I'm already voting for Ron Paul. I would have voted for Ron Paul as well but at this point you'll just be helping Obama.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 14:45
I would have voted for Ron Paul as well but at this point you'll just be helping Obama.
I thought about that, but it's a matter of principle.
I thought about that, but it's a matter of principle.
No, it's a matter of stupidity. You just gave Obama half a vote, after all that windy crap you've been spouting.
ZonieDiver
11-05-2012, 14:47
I'm already voting for Ron Paul.
I'd have never guessed! ;) A "Paulistinian"!
All those "pie in the sky" posts should have tipped me off, but didn't.
all I want is someone who is going to distribute taxes into healthcare, education, and infrastructure for the sake of America's prosperity.
Just my opinion....
When it comes to education and healthcare the best someone to distribute money is the tax payers themselves. Infrastructure would be best handled at the State and local level. Those other someone's or something's will most likely vote themselves a pay raise, purchase lavish outings, create costly bureaucracy's and distribute our taxes in a manner that will benefit themselves and their cronies.
I'd have never guessed! ;) A "Paulistinian"!
All those "pie in the sky" post should have tipped me off, but didn't.
Those posts were faux-pauls. :D
Those posts were faux-pauls. :D
*SIGH*
Dusty ... Dusty ... Dusty ... Dusty ... Dusty ... Dusty ... Dusty ...
What are we gonna do with you ????
Dusty ... Dusty .... Dusty .... Dusty ...
mark46th
11-05-2012, 15:02
In an election that is a virtual tie at this time, every vote for someone other than Mitt Romney is a vote for Obama...
If you think the government can handle your money better than you can yourself, why don't you just write a check for everything in your bank accounts to the U.S. Treasury and let me know how that works out for you...
In an election that is a virtual tie at this time, every vote for someone other than Mitt Romney is a vote for Obama...
If you think the government can handle your money better than you can yourself, why don't you just write a check for everything in your bank accounts to the U.S. Treasury and let me know how that works out for you...
I may be able to cover a few rounds of golf for the president if I did that.
I'm already voting for Ron Paul.
His son isn't.
Pat
I'm already voting for Ron Paul.
I am not a huge fan of Romney, I do not enjoy having to pick the lesser of 2 evils, but RP has absolutely no chance of becoming POTUS and under the circumstances a vote for RP is a vote for Obama.
So if you want at least 4 more years of Obama.....cut your nose off despite your face and cast your vote for Ron Paul.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 15:43
I am not a huge fan of Romney, I do not enjoy having to pick the lesser of 2 evils, but RP has absolutely no chance of becoming POTUS and under the circumstances a vote for RP is a vote for Obama.
So if you want at least 4 more years of Obama.....cut your nose off despite your face and cast your vote for Ron Paul.
Nice quote. "cut your nose off despite your face"
.....cut your nose off despite your face
It's "to spite your face." ;)
Pat
It's "to spite your face." ;)
Pat
You haven't seen the guy's face, apparently.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 15:55
You haven't seen the guy's face, apparently.
I've got a smile only my mother could love.
I've got a smile only my mother could love.
I was talking about Paslode's face.
Check out the sampling data from the poll. It's reality reversed.
"Partisan divisions, Democrats-Republicans-independents, are 35-29-32 percent among likely voters; they were 39-32-29 percent in the 2008 exit poll. The ABC News Political Unit defines the “battleground” states as Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin."
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1143a15TrackingNo15.pdf
For those who think Barry just might pull this off ....
Remember this ....
I've been mulling over in my mind an appeal to those who have legitimate concerns over the two major candidates. I for one do not believe that a principled vote is a wasted vote. I understand the sentiment. I appreciate the angst. Well Bill Whittle has made a better appeal then I could have and I offer it to those honest dissenters for their consideration. May God guide us as we make these important decisions.
Bill Whittle Makes Appeal Against Protest Votes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wPjBXufufUU
XngZeRubicon
11-05-2012, 17:48
http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html
The statisticians seem to disagree. No telling what the bias is, but numbers are better than simply hoping...
Some friends of mine on another forum were wringing their hands and I was trying to tell them not to worry about the very poor statistical analysis done in the state polls (versus the more seasoned polling firms doing the national polls) by explaining the analytical errors so I'll just post what I said to them:
It's going to be Romney.
*The polls are skewed because the idiots on the lib side don't know how to sample properly, but out of the dozens and dozens of polls, one thing you can clearly see is that the President never gets up to 50. It's been 47-47, or 48-48, or 47-45, or 49-45, etc., etc., etc. If the incumbent can't ever reach 50, how the heck does anyone expect him to win? If people are still undecided by this late date, they're obviously not enamored with Obama and will break for Romney or stay home.
*If you look at the rallys, they are huge for Romney and not very large for Obama. The excitement is clearly on Romney's side. Even liberal media acknowledges this.
*Independents are clearly polling toward Romney....by double digits in a number of the swing states. This is one of the ways one can clearly see how biased a lot of the state polls are. How could it be so even with double digit leads for Romney with independents?
*The momentum was clearly with Romney before Obama did his photo op for the storm. Then it froze for both sides. Starting last night, Romney started to pick up the momentum again. As more people see picture after picture of the suffering in New York and New Jersey, especially Statin Island, the President will lose more and more of his photo op aura.
*It's Romney who is expanding the number of states that are now in play. Like PA, where it's 47-47. Who would've thought that about PA even a week ago?!
*The biggest way to show how stupid the biased the polls are is this. The polls that show Obama in better shape are building a model based on the Democrat turnout in 2008. That assumes that the same level of excitement we saw in 2008 before Obama had a record and had so many broken promies still exists today. Who in the world believes that? Clearly there are a certain number of people who've been disappointed and the level of excitement, and therefore the turnout, can't be the same.
--------------------
The bottom line is why so many of those idiot polling firms would assume there'd be 11% more Democrats turning out - which is even higher than there was in 2008- is crazy. I think that huge turnout in 2008 was only higher by 8% Democrats. And now they're assuming 11%? Makes no sense. I'm just trying to choose between incompetence or corruption as the reason.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 17:52
I've been mulling over in my mind an appeal to those who have legitimate concerns over the two major candidates. I for one do not believe that a principled vote is a wasted vote. I understand the sentiment. I appreciate the angst. Well Bill Whittle has made a better appeal then I could have and I offer it to those honest dissenters for their consideration. May God guide us as we make these important decisions.
Bill Whittle Makes Appeal Against Protest Votes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wPjBXufufUU
That was a very good video. I might just vote for Romney.
XngZeRubicon
11-05-2012, 17:56
By the way, anyone see that late breaking news from CBS's "60 Minutes" that they just released last night? CBS had cut this portion of the tape when it was aired but is now making this public two days before the election.
It basically shows the President lied in the debate where he claimed he told people it was terrorism. This part of the tape that had been withheld by CBS shows POTUS saying on Sept 12, "regarding terrorism, it's too early to know."
Can we find a way to start indicting the idiots in the press as this would've clearly put to rest the false narrative the Administration was putting out?
I am hoping that this is a race like the Wisconsin recall race for Scott Walker, where the polls made it look like it would be very close, and then Walker won by a sizeable margin.
Or Reagan/Carter. If I remember, RR won 47 states.
I'm already voting for Ron Paul.
What state has him on the ballot?
And to all you "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Obama"...not in states like Texas or California. Now if you are in Ohio or Colorado please vote Romney!!!
This two party system and the electoral college "winner take the whole state" procsess sucks and always picking the "lesser of two evils" is no way to run the greatest country in the history of the world!
Gary Johnson got my vote, a week ago!!!
(but I also voted for Ted Cruz)
What state has him on the ballot?
And to all you "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Obama"...not in states like Texas or California. Now if you are in Ohio or Colorado please vote Romney!!!
This two party system and the electoral college "winner take the whole state" procsess sucks and always picking the "lesser of two evils" is no way to run the greatest country in the history of the world!
Gary Johnson got my vote, a week ago!!!
(but I also voted for Ted Cruz)
Hey, Bro-click on the link in post 442 from MR2...
That was a very good video. I might just vote for Romney.
:cool:
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 18:25
What state has him on the ballot?
And to all you "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Obama"...not in states like Texas or California. Now if you are in Ohio or Colorado please vote Romney!!!
This two party system and the electoral college "winner take the whole state" procsess sucks and always picking the "lesser of two evils" is no way to run the greatest country in the history of the world!
Gary Johnson got my vote, a week ago!!!
(but I also voted for Ted Cruz)
I'm young so I haven't seen many elections, but this one seems very poor to me, I agree with you and the electoral college comment... How it always boils down to the same two parties every time is resulting in this radical teetering effect. Ron Paul or Gary Johnson simply cannot win, I realize, and as much as my principles want to vote for them and want to see one of them win, I have to admit that the guys are correct that either Romney or Obama will win, so which one do we want?
But I'm angry that I have to be forced to vote for something I don't want, either that or sit by and see it happen anyways.
The Republicans mostly think Romney would bring change, possibly for the better... and at least he isn't Obama...
The Democrats think Obama may be on to something that requires more than four years... claiming that 8 years of Bush is hard to fix in just 4.
The stress relief after tomorrow will be well deserved for all of America, albeit a lot of people will be disappointed, the anticipation is really heated.
I don't know about anyone else but I'm about ready to jump out of my skin I'm so nervous.
ZonieDiver
11-05-2012, 18:35
By the way, anyone see that late breaking news from CBS's "60 Minutes" that they just released last night? CBS had cut this portion of the tape when it was aired but is now making this public two days before the election.
It basically shows the President lied in the debate where he claimed he told people it was terrorism. This part of the tape that had been withheld by CBS shows POTUS saying on Sept 12, "regarding terrorism, it's too early to know."
Can we find a way to start indicting the idiots in the press as this would've clearly put to rest the false narrative the Administration was putting out?
A link to this reference would be nice.
The main point is that Romney said that Obama didn't call it an 'act of terror' - and those are precisely the words Obama used.
Romney misspoke, and got nailed "in the moment" - when it really counts.
There many ways Romney could have phrased it:
"You didn't specifically call this event an attack by terrorists upon our consulate" would have done nicely. However, he used almost the exact words that Obama used... and the moment was lost. Poor preparation, or poor performance after proper preparation. It was a moment to strike. Romney whiffed it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-really-call-consulate-attack-in-libya-act-terror/
ROMNEY: I think (it's) interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/transcript-president-obama-remarks-following-deadly-attacks-at-us-consulate-in/
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
While some will say POTUS was speaking of terror in 'general terms' and not this specific incident... well, that's open to interpretation. No where in the transcript does Obama mention 'the video' and a 'demonstration gone bad' or anything like that. He does refer to it as an "attack" (or "attacked") four times. Right after the "no acts of terror" statement, he says, "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act."
Face it, Romney misspoke - stepped right into the "L-shaped ambush" and POTUS was ready for him, and sprayed him with full auto while he was in the kill zone. Too bad... it could have, and should have, been different.
There are several reasons why we have an Electoral College. It because we have a democratically elected Republic and not a Democracy. The Electoral College is part of the checks and balances of our system. It prevents large states and states with large populations from crowding out smaller states. look how significant Little New Hampshire with its four electoral votes has become.
I'm thinking about several of my political pundent friends who bemoan the fact that political campaigns never come here! Well, being a battleground state this time, I'm sure they are enjoying all the TV ads and phone calls...
Hey, Bro-click on the link in post 442 from MR2...
Doesn't sway me! I do know that it this will be close between O and R...but neither man impresses me!
I guess I am somewhat hypocritical (at least I know it and admit it) but I HAVE the comfort of voting for the candidate I WANT, knowing that my state will overwhelmingly vote the Republican party line!
As far as changing the system….If not me, then who? If not now, then when?
Except that Romney said that Obama didn't call it an 'act of terror' - and those are precisely the words Obama used.
Imissed that. When did Obama say it was an act of terror?
I don't know about anyone else but I'm about ready to jump out of my skin I'm so nervous.
I was wrong 4 years ago, Gypsy, but I'm right this time. Romney landslide.
I was wrong 4 years ago, Gypsy, but I'm right this time. Romney landslide.
I'm going to trust you. I'd love a good landslide myself.
Imissed that. When did Obama say it was an act of terror?
http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack
In tonight's presidential debate President Obama maintains that he called the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi a "act of terror", which turns out to be accurate. However, the President is using a play on words. The full transcript below supports that assertion, which the moderator, Candy Crowley vehemently confirmed the President did do. However, the legal term of "act of terrorism" is never used. Furthermore, the President clearly implies the attack was a result of the reaction to an anti-Muslim film released on YouTube in the transcript the Whitehouse released with the video below.
But when you read this paragraph of the speech he does not, IMO, call this attack specifically an act of terror. Had he said "This act of terror..." then he'd have a leg to stand on.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
There are several reasons why we have an Electoral College. It because we have a democratically elected Republic and not a Democracy. The Electoral College is part of the checks and balances of our system. It prevents large states and states with large populations from crowding out smaller states. look how significant Little New Hampshire with its four electoral votes has become.
I'm thinking about several of my political pundent friends who bemoan the fact that political campaigns never come here! Well, being a battleground state this time, I'm sure they are enjoying all the TV ads and phone calls...
I do find it interesting that NH is in play but look at states like New York, California and Illinois, those 104 EC votes are “automatically” in the books for the Dem-Party machine, 3 states make up a third of the 271 needed. What did de Tocqueville call it….Tyranny of the majority?
Imissed that. When did Obama say it was an act of terror?Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya).[...]
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.The point ZonieDiver has been making about Romney's gaffe in the debate is accurate. Governor Romney tried to hammer the president on a specific point--what the man said in the Rose Garden.
Dadaleci
11-05-2012, 18:49
I think Romney will win as well. People are increasingly progressive and want change all the time, so just changing the president after 4 years is good enough for them, rather than wait 8 years. And Paul Ryan is grabbing a lot of youth votes for Romney... (we'd like to think that the majority of voters are well-informed, but I think the reality is far from that)
America wanted 'change', they elected Obama, didn't get much change, so they'll probably change the president this year to make up for it.
That's not going by polls or stats, but just the typical American mindset, quick simple fixes, not long dragged out clinging onto hope after it appears utterly hopeless...
So Romney and Ryan get a lot of votes from youth, impatient people, progressives, rich, Christians/Mormons, business owners, business students, a lot of military (especially SF forums)...
While Obama really only has minority voters and staunch Democrats, a lot of whom are not impressed with him this time around.
I would LOVE to see IL go for Romney. THAT would rock. :D
I would LOVE to see IL go for Romney. THAT would rock. :D
I lived there for the first 18 years of my life, Chicago will NEVER let that happen!
Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya).The point ZonieDiver has been making about Romney's gaffe in the debate is accurate. Governor Romney tried to hammer the president on a specific point--what the man said in the Rose Garden.
Sounds like BJ Clinton's "is"-ish wordmincing crap.
Source is here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya).The point ZonieDiver has been making about Romney's gaffe in the debate is accurate. Governor Romney tried to hammer the president on a specific point--what the man said in the Rose Garden.
But, if you read that sentence he states "No act of terror... ", not that this was an act of terror. Not the same intent at all, IMO.
But, if you read that sentence he states "No act of terror... ", not that this was an act of terror. Not the same intent at all, IMO.
Sounds like BJ Clinton's "is"-ish wordmincing crap.That may be, but that wasn't the point Romney was trying to make.
I'm going to trust you. I'd love a good landslide myself.
Think about it like this: How many Republicans are gonna vote for Obama besides Colin Colonel Powell? Zip
How many Dems are gonna vote for Romney? A gazillion.
(Colin Colonel Powell is what Rita X calls him.)
ZonieDiver
11-05-2012, 19:09
Think about it like this: How many Republicans are gonna vote for Obama besides Colin Colonel Powell? Zip
How many Dems are gonna vote for Romney? A gazillion.
(Colin Colonel Powell is what Rita X calls him.)
I've never cared a lot about him, and think he is wrong as hell in his choice fot POTUS, but - with all due respect - I'll still refer to him as General Colin Powell.
ZonieDiver
11-05-2012, 19:13
But, if you read that sentence he states "No act of terror... ", not that this was an act of terror. Not the same intent at all, IMO.
Who's "parsing" now?
Sounds like BJ Clinton's "is"-ish wordmincing crap.
It worked for Clinton, did it not?:D
I've never cared a lot about him, and think he is wrong as hell in his choice fot POTUS, but - with all due respect - I'll still refer to him as General Colin Powell.
The Colin Colonel Powell reference is from an interview Rush Limbaugh had with a radical activist named "RitaX"-a very funny interview.
Not that I respect Powell at all-I don't like racists- but I understand if you do.
Who's "parsing" now?
It worked for Clinton, did it not?:D
You mean the Clinton who got impeached after bringing dishonor to the office of POTUS? Not really.
ZonieDiver
11-05-2012, 19:18
I was altering this post, and while doing the edit a lot of other posts were completed, so I'm reposting. Sorry, it was "wine o'clock"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by XngZeRubicon
By the way, anyone see that late breaking news from CBS's "60 Minutes" that they just released last night? CBS had cut this portion of the tape when it was aired but is now making this public two days before the election.
It basically shows the President lied in the debate where he claimed he told people it was terrorism. This part of the tape that had been withheld by CBS shows POTUS saying on Sept 12, "regarding terrorism, it's too early to know."
Can we find a way to start indicting the idiots in the press as this would've clearly put to rest the false narrative the Administration was putting out?
A link to this reference would be nice.
The main point is that Romney said that Obama didn't call it an 'act of terror' - and those are precisely the words Obama used.
Romney misspoke, and got nailed "in the moment" - when it really counts.
There many ways Romney could have phrased it:
"You didn't specifically call this event an attack by terrorists upon our consulate" would have done nicely. However, he used almost the exact words that Obama used... and the moment was lost. Poor preparation, or poor performance after proper preparation. It was a moment to strike. Romney whiffed it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ya-act-terror/
Quote:
ROMNEY: I think (it's) interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-consulate-in/
Quote:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
While some will say POTUS was speaking of terror in 'general terms' and not this specific incident... well, that's open to interpretation. No where in the transcript does Obama mention 'the video' and a 'demonstration gone bad' or anything like that. He does refer to it as an "attack" (or "attacked") four times. Right after the "no acts of terror" statement, he says, "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act."
Face it, Romney misspoke - stepped right into the "L-shaped ambush" and POTUS was ready for him, and sprayed him with full auto while he was in the kill zone. Too bad... it could have, and should have, been different.
ZonieDiver
11-05-2012, 19:20
You mean the Clinton who got impeached after bringing dishonor to the office of POTUS? Not really.
I missed his being removed from office after that Senate vote, I guess. I was pretty sure he served out his full 8 year term... which is a pretty good definition of 'it worked for him' IMHO.
I'm not saying I agree with him, just that his strategy worked for him.
I missed his being removed from office after that Senate vote, I guess. I was pretty sure he served out his full 8 year term... which is a pretty good definition of 'it worked for him' IMHO.
I'm not saying I agree with him, just that his strategy worked for him.
I know where you're coming from, Brother. :)
I missed his being removed from office after that Senate vote, I guess. I was pretty sure he served out his full 8 year term... which is a pretty good definition of 'it worked for him' IMHO.
I'm not saying I agree with him, just that his strategy worked for him.
Clinton was impeached. The "impeached" part was done in the House.
It was the Senate that did the "jury nullification" bit.
Romney will win big enough for there to be allegations from the libdemons that the minority vote was suppressed in some way.
Not a lot of energy from the hopeandchangers this time around...
Not a lot of energy from the hopeandchangers this time around...They're brawling over on Instagram and Twitter.
They're brawling over on Instagram and Twitter.
Their wizard lost his curtain.
I just got yelled at by the monitor at my polling place for blasting a Mormon Tab Choir CD on 11 out of my truck.
Badger52
11-06-2012, 07:29
Their wizard lost his curtain.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443675404578058740365199974.html
And then came this month's debate in Denver.
That night, the American people watched "the smartest guy in the room" struggle to put together a simple declarative sentence, and then ask the moderator to move onto another topic after Mitt Romney had given a strong statement about jobs and growth and tax revenues.
Some 67 million Americans were watching on TV. What they saw was the scene from the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy's dog pulls back the curtain to reveal there is no wizard at all, just a man from the Midwest who pumped himself up into something far beyond his mortal self—and got the whole of Oz to believe it.HH6 & I will be going together as for the last 30yrs after I bugout from work.
Get it done.
XngZeRubicon
11-06-2012, 09:12
I was altering this post, and while doing the edit a lot of other posts were completed, so I'm reposting. Sorry, it was "wine o'clock"!
I sure won't argue with ya, ZD, regarding the word-game Romney got caught in during the debate. To me though, at this point, this has nothing to do with any other individual in this country and everything to do with the character of this President. The formerly withheld portion of that interview proves yet again that POTUS was not being forthright every time he spoke to the country about this issue.
I'll paste two links below:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/05/benghazi-attack/1684503/
7:54PM EST November 5. 2012 - On the eve of the presidential election CBS News program 60 Minutes released a transcript of an interview with President Obama in which he said it was "too early to tell" whether the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was an act of terrorism.
The statement appears to contradict Obama's claim in a second debate with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney that he identified the Sept. 11 attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans as a terror attack the day after it happened.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/05
/cbs_releases_unaired_footage_of_obama_refusing_to_ call_benghazi_a_terror_attack.html
Besides, sure is a poor sign of presidential leadership when intelligent Americans can't figure out what the hell a president is trying to say about an issue from one day to the next.
They're brawling over on Instagram and Twitter.
Do they just send pictures of their junk and middle fingers back and forth on Instagram to "throw down"?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/06/judge-issuing-order-to-reinstate-booted-philadelphia-election-officials/
Speaking of race related issues, below is a picture of a gem we received in the mail yesterday. I thought nothing of it until I looked again and saw the racial over tones. The kids t-shirts on the left say West Virginia, and the girls t-shirt on the right says Maryland. I saw it as making it seem like "the whites win" if you vote against it, and if you are white, you should feel sorry for the poor girl who just lost her education money if you vote against it. For those who don't know what "question 7" is, it's to allow table games and further construction of casino's in the Maryland area. In return, the tax money will go towards education (bull s*** by the way).
First Poll in the Countdown has Romney Edging Out Obama as Approval for the President Drops
From post # 1 in this thread....here is to hoping!!!:lifter
Cheers!
Holly
HH6 & I will be going together as for the last 30yrs after I bugout from work.
Get it done.
This year myself and my HH6 voted last Saturaday together.. in a scene, She did early voting in NC and I sent in my absentee ballot. LOL
Get it done.
If the Daily Beast is any indication of how Obama will do today, he is in trouble.
They are already going ahead with the line that if Romney wins it is because the whites that vote for him are racist.
If the Daily Beast is any indication of how Obama will do today, he is in trouble.
They are already going ahead with the line that if Romney wins it is because the whites that vote for him are racist.
Oh, yeah. They've got the race card taped on their foreheads because Obama's defeat is so palpable.
If the Daily Beast is any indication of how Obama will do today, he is in trouble.
They are already going ahead with the line that if Romney wins it is because the whites that vote for him are racist.
In 2008, whites were "enlightened" when they voted for him...now that it looks like he is going to get the boot, many of those same whites that voted for him in 2008, who are now going to vote for Romney, are "racists"...
Considering that whites make up ~70% of eligible voters, I find the rantings of MSNBC, HuffPo, The Daily Beast, etc. farcical...
But maybe I didn't get the updated "racial code" dictionary from the Liberals, so maybe I just don't know that I'm a racist...perhaps I have some sort of racial anosognosia
Barbarian
11-06-2012, 13:07
perhaps I have some sort of racial anosognosia
Heh, must be an epidemic.:D
In 2008, whites were "enlightened" when they voted for him...now that it looks like he is going to get the boot, many of those same whites that voted for him in 2008, who are now going to vote for Romney, are "racists"...
Considering that whites make up ~70% of eligible voters, I find the rantings of MSNBC, HuffPo, The Daily Beast, etc. farcical...
But maybe I didn't get the updated "racial code" dictionary from the Liberals, so maybe I just don't know that I'm a racist...perhaps I have some sort of racial anosognosia
Just had an "enlightening" conversation with one of the other instructors. He is far-left, to put it lightly. He is also espousing that if Romney wins, it is racial bias. When I asked him how polls can have the candidates tied, with a D+8 group, and with Romney having a 15%+ advantage with independents. He told me I needed to stop watching Fox. When I told him it was CNN, he started stammering and walked away.
I think I am going to be fat off donuts and drunk off rum tomorrow based on the bets I placed this afternoon.:D
Obama won by roughly 6% last time.
Let's say 3% of those who voted for him last time don't bother because they won't get free gas and mortgages, judge shows and Family Feud are on, whatever.
3% more Repubs vote than voted for McCain because they had no energy when McCain was the candidate, but do for Romney because of the first debate.
3% switched from Obama to Romney beause of jobs, Obamacare, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and other failed policies.
3% of females, in general, choose Romney over Obama because Romney and Ryan are good-looking.
3% of Christian blacks don't vote for Obama because he embraces homo marriage.
That gives Romney a 9% lead. 7% is a landslide.
I might move to Cleveland next year, just to vote for her. :D
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/11/06/black-ohio-resident-explain-why-she-is-voting-for-romney/
:D
Badger52
11-06-2012, 14:23
HUMINT reports lots of voters lined up this AM in Oshkosh B'gosh waiting for polls to open at 0700.
Polls here close at 2000 (0200Z) and this one (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/174962261.html) is of particular concern. I think she sees herself as a Feinstein in her future life as an entrenced Senate tick and is wankers enough to play the role.
HUMINT reports lots of voters lined up this AM in Oshkosh B'gosh waiting for polls to open at 0700.
Polls here close at 2000 (0200Z) and this one (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/174962261.html) is of particular concern. I think she sees herself as a Feinstein in her future life as an entrenced Senate tick and is wankers enough to play the role.
That link brought up a Senate map.:munchin
XngZeRubicon
11-06-2012, 14:58
LMAO, this is very preliminary but the numbers coming out of turnout at Cincinnati polls show Republicans FAR outdoing expectations and Dem turnout below expectations. Again this is preliminary but worth watching because of how hard it went for POTUS in 2008. And as we all know, as goes Ohio goes the country.....
Reports from Bloomington, MN (Minneapolis suburb) that "Never seen lines this long before."
Observed six voters in Arvada, CO
Observed lots of Romney/Ryan signs up in the suburbs of Denver w 9:1 Bronco Bama signs up in Denver proper.
LMAO, this is very preliminary but the numbers coming out of turnout at Cincinnati polls show Republicans FAR outdoing expectations and Dem turnout below expectations. Again this is preliminary but worth watching because of how hard it went for POTUS in 2008. And as we all know, as goes Ohio goes the country.....
Ohio is a done deal.
XngZeRubicon
11-06-2012, 15:13
Ohio is a done deal.
I'm ambivalent about passing the info on as people should vote regardless of what they hear but the significance of what I'm hearing suggests the polls were not correct in OH.
I'm ambivalent about passing the info on as people should vote regardless of what they hear but the significance of what I'm hearing suggests the polls were not correct in OH.
I'm going by what Bill Cunningham said about Butler County. 230,000 R votes.
That's better than Bush in '04.
Don't woryy, I voted already. lol
XngZeRubicon
11-06-2012, 15:19
I'm going by what Bill Cunningham said about Butler County. 230,000 R votes.
That's better than Bush in '04.
Don't woryy, I voted already. lol
Right. There's a sense that "something" is underway that wasn't captured in the polls. And Butler County is a good example of it.
Right. There's a sense that "something" is underway that wasn't captured in the polls. And Butler County is a good example of it.
That "sense" didn't start today.
XngZeRubicon
11-06-2012, 15:25
That "sense" didn't start today.
Well not for you or I.:D:D I'm talking about from others. For example I heard Peggy Noonan say it about noon...and she was critical of Romney in August.
Ret10Echo
11-06-2012, 15:25
Hit the polls at about 2:45 this afternoon. NO line...right-in, right-out.
Scene outside was pretty mild. A couple of local Republic Party folks with a banner were handing out some literature on the ballot questions.
Yard-signs (at the appropriate distance) were easily 10:1 Republican - Dim with the vast majority the "R" challenger to the incumbent "D" senator.
However, this is Maryland...so the outcome is sadly predetermined. :mad:
On a side note...my confusion remains at how people think...(why do I bother)
2ea Yard signs... One "Vote against question 6 (changes the definition of marriage in the State to include same-sex marriage)
Second sign - Vote Barry... So pop quiz...what is the Democratic Party Platform position on gay marriage?
Mindless followers.
XngZeRubicon
11-06-2012, 15:31
I think I am going to be fat off donuts and drunk off rum tomorrow based on the bets I placed this afternoon.:D
LOL, like this post.:D
Well not for you or I.:D:D I'm talking about from others. For example I heard Peggy Noonan say it about noon...and she was critical of Romney in August.
Notice what Noonan implied? That this had been building up for a long time, but they (the press) didn't see it coming.
They believe their own BS, which is the major problem with the DL's.
XngZeRubicon
11-06-2012, 15:43
Notice what Noonan implied? That this had been building up for a long time, but they (the press) didn't see it coming.
They believe their own BS, which is the major problem with the DL's.
The press is stupid when it comes to math; ask 'em and they'll tell you why they majored in journalism - because they weren't good at math. Yet it doesn't take much of a math background to know all those stupid polls weren't adding up.
Just had an "enlightening" conversation with one of the other instructors. He is far-left, to put it lightly. He is also espousing that if Romney wins, it is racial bias. When I asked him how polls can have the candidates tied, with a D+8 group, and with Romney having a 15%+ advantage with independents. He told me I needed to stop watching Fox. When I told him it was CNN, he started stammering and walked away.
I think I am going to be fat off donuts and drunk off rum tomorrow based on the bets I placed this afternoon.:D
Now that is a perfect anecdote / microcosm of the "enlightened/informed" liberal, who truly hasn't bothered to study, watch, and read both liberal and conservative outlets / op-eds to gain a true understanding of both sides of the issues and a better understanding of both parties...
Now that is a perfect anecdote / microcosm of the "enlightened/informed" liberal, who truly hasn't bothered to study, watch, and read both liberal and conservative outlets / op-eds to gain a true understanding of both sides of the issues and a better understanding of both parties...
Yet he swears he is a political junkie. When I told him that certain polls had D+8 or R+1 he had no idea what I was talking about.