Russian Women Discussion

RWD Discussion Groups => Cultural and Political Events => Topic started by: Eduard on February 01, 2012, 06:42:28 AM

Title: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 01, 2012, 06:42:28 AM

 
 
PRICELESS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting. Well, for example,
the other day, Kate
, my wife and I went into town and visited a shop.

When we came out, there was a cop writing out a parking ticket. We went up to him and I said, 'Come on,
man, how about giving a senior citizen a break?'

 
 
 
 
He ignored us and continued writing the ticket.
 
 
 
 
I called him an assh___. He glared at me and started writing another ticket for having worn-out tires.

So Kate called him a sh_t head.  He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first.

 
 
 
 
Then he started writing more tickets. This went on for about 20 minutes.  The more we abused him,
the more tickets he wrote.

Just then our bus arrived, and we got on it and went home
.
 
 
 
 
We always look for cars with "OBAMA 2012 stickers.
 
 
 
 
We try to have a little fun each day now that we're retired.  It's important at our age.</blockquote>
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on February 01, 2012, 08:34:36 AM
Nope.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on February 01, 2012, 08:40:06 AM
Polyamory, Mormon, Muslim...... who cares?
 
GOB

PS.... You gotta love Newt. He is getting more action than Charlie Sheen!  >:D 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: JR on February 01, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
The more important question is: "Does any of them have real answers and workable solutions to the problems we face as a nation?"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on February 01, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
*Heard on the radio* Newsflash! Newt got neutered by a Mormon!
 
I think with a very sluggish economy and with this persistent unemployment, by election time, the number of food stamp and welfare recipients will far outnumber the hardworking Americans...
 
so no, can't touch Obama.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: mendeleyev on February 01, 2012, 12:19:03 PM
A poll I've seen recently suggests that either Newt or Romney would win but we should remember that polls are a snapshot of today and not a reliable predictor of future events.

How they'd win would be different as this poll indicated that Newt turns off independent voters who in turn do trust Romney. However, Newt would gain more conservatives who might otherwise stay home or vote for a third party if a person like Ron Paul ran independently.

Democratic pollsters sometimes make the mistake of thinking that committed conservatives will vote for whoever is on the Republican ticket and this not correct--often they stay home. Republican pollsters make the mistake of thinking that independents will stay home if not given a clear choice--they tend to come out to vote even if their choice is a last minute decision and a last minute decision in this election would likely help Obama.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on February 01, 2012, 12:37:48 PM
The answer sadly appears to be NO.

Of most importance, neither Mitt nor Newt is a populist.  By the way, who would have thought the polygamist would be a non-Mormon.  :D

But wait, Obama is no longer a populist given the bad economy.   So once the Republican nominee is determined, it will be a race between two unelectables.

Look at the numbers for votes (a composite of multiple commentaries but mainly from Professor Walter Williams, a libertarian economist):

1) Blacks will vote for Obama without question.  Obama is black.

2) Hispanics will vote for Obama.  He is the path to citizenship for those  who are illegal.  And Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry  in the Democratic  Party,     

3)  College  educated women will vote for Obama, swooning at his oratory.

4)  Union members will  vote for  Obama.  He is their key to money and power in  business.

5)  Liberals will vote for Obama.  He  is their great hope.

6)  Most  other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him.  Muslims clearly will support him after the way he appeased Muslim leaders.   Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews will support him (or just stay home) because they won't vote Republican.   American Indians will support  him.  Obviously homosexuals vote Democratic. 

7)  Remaining Democrats will vote  for  Obama.  He is the leader of their party, and they hope his coat tails  will  carry other Democrats to victory nationwide,

8  )  IN ADDITION TO THE SEVEN VOTING BLOCKS THERE IS ANOTHER HUGE GROUP AND GROWING - THE NEARLY  ONE-HALF OF ALL ADULTS WHO DO  NOT PAY ANY TAXES AND, IN FACT,  MOST OF THEM RECEIVE MONEY FROM THE  GOVERNMENT. THESE GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCY PEOPLE DO NOT WANT ANYTHING THAT THREATENS  THE  FLOW OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO THEMSELVES.

That still leaves a large number of hard working, religious middle Americans, but not enough.  The battle is for the independents, and most will vote Republican but not enough to offset the coalition of eight voting blocks above.

In addition to the core voting blocks, consider the huge support Obama receives:

a)  The  media  love him.  They may attack the  people who work for him, but they love  him.  After all,  to not love him would be racist,

b)  Oddly, Big  Business supports Obama.  They already have.  He has almost $1  Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections  with Big Business and is gaining more every day.  Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda.

Not to fear, there is hope.  The last election prompted many previously apathetic citizens to become concerned about America's future.  This may convince most Americans to believe that change is needed (that was what Obama promised in 2008).   If so, it is possible that Mitt will prove himself to be the leader needed to redirect America's overhaul (fiscal reform, regulatory reform, tax reform, entitlement reform, tort reform, etc.) that gets the economy moving again.  Failing that, there is a chance that the Republicans can keep control of the House and even win the Senate.  If so, some middle ground initiatives would be enacted. 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on February 02, 2012, 03:32:49 PM
Dissatisfied with the looming prospect of choosing between the Republican Nominee, Ron Paul's ADD, the Tea Party's soccer Moms with nothing to do, or repeating another 4 disastrous years under Jimmi Hoffa's boy....Americans decided to introduce a new party into the Presidential race later this year.
 
Welcome: The 2012 People's Party. The ABF-AIA Guardians (Anti-Bottom Feeders, Anti-Illegal Alien Squad)
 
To better serve the fate of America by True Americans, loyal to the Constitution; a debate forum will be held high noon at the peak of North Dakota's Bakken Heights, in a town aptly called 'Trillion Barrel Slick City (http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911)' on Friday, April 13, 2012, between these Presidential Nominees.
 
Congressional leaders balked at the late introduction of this party since the election is but a scant 10 months away. But beltway officials argue this debate should only take a fraction of what it usually takes both the Democratic / Republican's circus to mark their brand. DC experts agree and believe their debate should really only last an hour.
 
So please Ladies and Gentlemen, help me welcome, your.....
 
 
 
2012 People's Party Presidential Nominees.
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9346/spartyconvention.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/spartyconvention.jpg/)

 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on February 23, 2012, 11:28:08 AM
With this year's Presidential election arriving soon, do you know who 'your' candidate is? One that best represent your social and political views? What are the hottest issues with you? Do you know enough of each candidates' views and platform to make an informed decision come election time?
 
Take this 2-minute quiz and the result will not only amaze you, but give you a clearer overview on which candidate share your ideals..
 
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game-ipad/?csp=ipadinapp (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game-ipad/?csp=ipadinapp)
 
Almost shocked the heck out of me when I saw my result.  :o
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on February 23, 2012, 01:14:40 PM
So who is most like you GQ?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 23, 2012, 02:14:40 PM
Ron Paul makes the most sense to me the rest of them seem all about the same except Santorum who doesn't have enough presence and right "aura" IMO. Any of these will be better than what we have now. 4 more years of Obama and the country is gonna look like Detroit. I think there is gonna be an exodus of Americans from the US if he gets reelected.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on February 23, 2012, 02:50:57 PM
So who is most like you GQ?

Well, apparently, or so it seems, according to this quiz, the order of candidates that best portray my social/political views are (in this order) : Newt, Obama, R. Paul, Bachman...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on February 23, 2012, 03:03:36 PM
Interesting Survey GQ..... Paul, Bachman (out) and Perry (out).
 
GOB

PS... Trump called the guy (Paul) a circus clown.  :o
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 23, 2012, 03:24:12 PM
I took the test... Ron Paul seems to be my guy 60.1%
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on February 23, 2012, 03:43:13 PM
I took the test... Ron Paul seems to be my guy 60.1%

I'll assume the percentages that accompanied the result denote the similarity of the candidates' views alongside the quiz takers. I had a 40.1% on Newt (38.4, 37.8, & 36.5 respectively) which if I'm correct, my front runner does not even represent the majority of my social/political viewpoints, nor does he generally mirror my 'hot button' issues.
 
Quite damning to be in a situation to have to pick between less than ideal choices.
 
Rubio/Ryan should have been on the ticket. Heck, at this rate, I'd even vote for Jeremey Lin today if he was running for office. At least he graduated from Harvard with honors (genuinely) and he really CAN play basketball.    :(
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on February 23, 2012, 03:44:55 PM
Interesting Survey GQ..... Paul, Bachman (out) and Perry (out).
 
GOB

PS... Trump called the guy (Paul) a circus clown.  :o

Perry was dead last for me, GOB.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on February 23, 2012, 03:47:02 PM
Big 'O' all the way here, but strangely enough, Perry second runner but a wide spread.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 23, 2012, 03:51:08 PM
I had: 1. Paul 2. Perry 3. Bachman
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 23, 2012, 06:24:48 PM
Big 'O' all the way here, but strangely enough, Perry second runner but a wide spread.


You really have it in for the American people don't you?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 23, 2012, 07:21:46 PM

You really have it in for the American people don't you?
+1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on February 24, 2012, 02:37:23 AM
With this year's Presidential election arriving soon, do you know who 'your' candidate is? One that best represent your social and political views? What are the hottest issues with you? Do you know enough of each candidates' views and platform to make an informed decision come election time?
 
Take this 2-minute quiz and the result will not only amaze you, but give you a clearer overview on which candidate share your ideals..
 
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game-ipad/?csp=ipadinapp (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game-ipad/?csp=ipadinapp)
 
Almost shocked the heck out of me when I saw my result.  :o

Thought I'd take this just for interest (with apologies to those of you for whom this matters).
 
Near enough to a dead-heat - Obama (as I expected) top with 61.3%, but Jon Huntsman right behind with 61.2%.  Newt Gingrich only just getting into the home straight to be third with 42.9%.  Bachman and Santorum dead-heated for last.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on February 24, 2012, 04:44:00 AM

You really have it in for the American people don't you?

What do you mean by 'have it in' Maxx?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on February 24, 2012, 11:37:40 AM

Take this 2-minute quiz and the result will not only amaze you, but give you a clearer overview on which candidate share your ideals..
 
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game-ipad/?csp=ipadinapp (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game-ipad/?csp=ipadinapp)
 

The test is interesting but far from valid.  The test gives no points for coming close to the policy I selected.  For example, I said I would prefer a candidate who had a successful business career, served as Governor, and was a diplomat.  Huntsman wins all the points because he meets all three.  Romney meets two (plus should get credit for the Olympics).  However Romney gets the same points as others who are nothing more than a life long politician, one a "has been" politician.
 
Romney is my man.  I would have trouble voting for Santorum, yet Obama is so bad as a leader I would do it (lesser of two evils).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on February 24, 2012, 11:51:45 AM
I selected the same line item you did as preference, Gator, and quite surprised the fnal names I received. To the best of my knowledge, Newt was a consultant, Obama never ran a business, neither did Dr. Paul (none were diplomats) but those were the names slated to me based on a cumulative point system.
 
I am almost convinced they assigned and established a certain amount of points according to their own estimation on how much those individual line items are worth.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 24, 2012, 02:00:33 PM
I think both Romney and Newt have very strong points as well as Santorum, but my feeling is that they will only slow down the decline of this country. We need a radical change to actually turn it around and Paul is the only guy who would do it if he wins and... lives
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on February 24, 2012, 02:38:01 PM
Romney is my man.  I would have trouble voting for Santorum, yet Obama is so bad as a leader I would do it (lesser of two evils).

'Lesser of two evils'

Isn't that a cop out? Shouldn't you be voting for the best man or woman you are convinced is best suited for the job at hand?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on February 24, 2012, 04:30:22 PM
'Lesser of two evils'

Isn't that a cop out? Shouldn't you be voting for the best man or woman you are convinced is best suited for the job at hand?
I did.  I voted for Romney in the Florida Republican primary. 

Unlike Obama, I consider Mitt as the person who would be the leader for all Americans.  However, the Republican Party may not nominate him.  Conservatives tend to have the highest turnout in primaries, and conservatives are having problems with some of Mitt's moderate views.  Those same moderate views would enable him to be the the best President to serve all Americans. 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 24, 2012, 05:01:45 PM
You guys really need retired Federal Judge Andrew Napolitano to give you a lecture to wise you up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHqnHO97i0U


How gullible can you guys be?! Jezz!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on February 24, 2012, 05:09:56 PM
I selected the same line item you did as preference, Gator, and quite surprised the fnal names I received. To the best of my knowledge, Newt was a consultant, Obama never ran a business, neither did Dr. Paul (none were diplomats) but those were the names slated to me based on a cumulative point system.
 
I am almost convinced they assigned and established a certain amount of points according to their own estimation on how much those individual line items are worth.
I redid the test and Romney received the same height of the blue band (experience) as Obama.  Your position is supported by the voting on climate change, as three candidates received the full height.
 
BTW, my result was Huntsman 73% aligned with my views, Mitt 47% and Newt 40%.  On examination, all of Mitt's views  were close to mine, although not the closest for many issues.  Sometimes the difference is moot. 
 
Oddly, I was aligned with Obama on defense spending and medicare.    :) Nevertheless, the overriding issue is the soul and character of the man, which is not part of the voting in this test.  Obama fails miserably. 
Quote
Years  from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an  inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin  perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did  a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he  could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful  military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on February 24, 2012, 05:16:21 PM
How gullible can you guys be?! Jezz!

Ron Paul is a great American.  His views, although sound, are too drastic to implement IMO. America needs an overhaul but not a complete replacement.  Further, I just listened to Paul's views about Iran.  He does not understand Iranian mentality. 
 
BTW, you should watch BBC news sometimes rather than 100% Fox.news.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 24, 2012, 06:47:18 PM

Ron Paul is a great American.  His views, although sound, are too drastic to implement IMO. America needs an overhaul but not a complete replacement.  Further, I just listened to Paul's views about Iran.  He does not understand Iranian mentality. 
 
BTW, you should watch BBC news sometimes rather than 100% Fox.news.


Gator, the Judge just got canned last week from the Fox business channel even though he had the second highest rated show (Faux blows). The truth is too hard for his big corporate bosses to handle and maybe it is for you also? America is soon heading over a cliff and we can't afford a oh so gentle by a few degrees turn. Your monthly income Gator and mine are going to be hyperinflated away and our assets seized by the government and replaced with low interest bearing government bonds. How long can we have 1.5 trillion yearly deficits before the SHTF? I'm telling yah the most valued assets the men on this board are going to have is their wives dachas.  And BBC? the same as our corporate whore media the "pressitutes" telling us lies and keeping us in the left-right dumb show. Whoever gets into the White House excepting RP are going to have their strings pulled by the boys on Wall Street and the Fed.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 24, 2012, 07:24:42 PM
I hope you guys are watching Stossel's show on Fox right now... This country already has gone to $hit. This is really sad.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 24, 2012, 07:54:42 PM

Gator, the Judge just got canned last week from the Fox business channel even though he had the second highest rated show (Faux blows). The truth is too hard for his big corporate bosses to handle and maybe it is for you also? America is soon heading over a cliff and we can't afford a oh so gentle by a few degrees turn. Your monthly income Gator and mine are going to be hyperinflated away and our assets seized by the government and replaced with low interest bearing government bonds. How long can we have 1.5 trillion yearly deficits before the SHTF? I'm telling yah the most valued assets the men on this board are going to have is their wives dachas.  And BBC? the same as our corporate whore media the "pressitutes" telling us lies and keeping us in the left-right dumb show. Whoever gets into the White House excepting RP are going to have their strings pulled by the boys on Wall Street and the Fed.
I'm with you on this, Maxx. RP is the one who would lead this nation back to the basics of freedom, constitution and sanity, the principles that made this country number 1 in the 20th century.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on February 24, 2012, 09:25:12 PM
I think both Romney and Newt have very strong points as well as Santorum, but my feeling is that they will only slow down the decline of this country. We need a radical change to actually turn it around and Paul is the only guy who would do it if he wins and... lives

Can we wait for Paul's son; senator from KY.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 24, 2012, 10:02:15 PM
Can we wait for Paul's son; senator from KY.
don't think we have any time left to wait. We are at the edge. Once the $hit hits the fan evntually we'll come out of it but the country is not gonna be the same.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 25, 2012, 02:45:55 AM
I just listened to Paul's views about Iran.  He does not understand Iranian mentality. 


He understands this about the Iranian mentality and our own.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2R4oB8BU1Q
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 25, 2012, 06:28:43 PM
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/ron-paul.jpg)


Well maybe this time...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on February 25, 2012, 09:20:57 PM
'Lesser of two evils'

Isn't that a cop out? Shouldn't you be voting for the best man or woman you are convinced is best suited for the job at hand?


Absolutely!   Of course it is impossible.   Reagan is dead, Christy won't run.  I haven't seen Jefferson around lately.  I don't think jb wants to run.   There is no one running for either party that is the least bit suited for the job.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 25, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
Ray, Paul would do the job just fine if... they let him live.


By the way have you heard that China announced that they are going to back up their currency withy gold? Yep, in June of this year they are going to be on gold standart... They have been using dollars to buy gold for a while now. So what are the implications you might ask?
1. US dollar loses value
2. Yuan becomes the "world currency"
3. the price of gold skyrockets (I know this one is your favorite, Ray  :P  )
4. Chinese people who have been poor for decades suddenly become wealthy while the Rich Americans and Europeans become poor


Just thinking out loud :))
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: CG7 on February 25, 2012, 10:58:24 PM
MAXX2
 +1
 Thank you.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on February 26, 2012, 04:09:34 AM

Absolutely!   Of course it is impossible.   Reagan is dead, Christy won't run.  I haven't seen Jefferson around lately.  I don't think jb wants to run.   There is no one running for either party that is the least bit suited for the job.

Obviously a highly democratic process elected someone who after 3 years now has not made an ass of himself or been deemed incompetent to hold that office.

My remark was meant to prompt thought that overreaches party lines.

Lets play a game...  throw away the current candidates and pull out some names of other leaders that you feel would be appropriate for office, regardless of their political affiliation.

How about Richard Lugar.. or Kent Conrad?  Maybe both?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 26, 2012, 12:44:26 PM
MAXX2
 +1
 Thank you.


You are welcome. It is always encouraging to see another person being part of the growing Freedom Movement. The American Revolution started at least a decade before 1776 and war breaking out. The new American "Restore our Freedom!" revolution started several years ago. Now we see the growing support for Ron Paul, the Occupy Wall Street movement and Wikileaks. No wonder the US Senate just passed the controversial NDAA by a 93-7 vote. It is "preserve our current system at any cost!" I'll bet Turboguy, BC and Gator have no idea what the NDAA is. The Ron Paul supporters do, indefinite detention without council or a trial for American citizens as determined by the Military. This totally upturns our Constitution yet it goes largely unreported. The powers that be are getting ready to crush any resistance to themselves when the economy turns upside down. America, Europe and most of the rest of the other world will become as Greece is today. All taxes and national assets will flow to the bankers and their muscle the military.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 26, 2012, 01:00:56 PM
[size=78%]America, Europe and most of the rest of the other world will become as Greece is today. All taxes and national assets will flow to the bankers and their muscle the military.[/size]
as China changes to gold standart and becomes the new financial world superpower. I'm just having a hard time imagining world war III with all the nukes on all sides. Prolly we won't have an all out war but there is gona be a big mess all over Europe and here in the US. If Obama gets reelcted the $hit is gonna hit the fence by the end of 2013. If Mitt or Newt or Rick becomes the next pres, I'd give it another 3-4 years and it will still happen, maybe it won't be as nasty and severe though. If Paul wins and is allowed to live and do his thing, we will probably go through a very rough patch for about 3 years but then we'll see tremendous growth as the country begins to shed all the chains that the politicians, lawers and bankers wrapped around it in the last few decades. I feel that at this point Ron Paul is the only hope to turn things around in a matter of just a few short years.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 26, 2012, 02:39:06 PM
as China changes to gold standart and becomes the new financial world superpower. I'm just having a hard time imagining world war III with all the nukes on all sides. Prolly we won't have an all out war but there is gona be a big mess all over Europe and here in the US. If Obama gets reelcted the $hit is gonna hit the fence by the end of 2013. If Mitt or Newt or Rick becomes the next pres, I'd give it another 3-4 years and it will still happen, maybe it won't be as nasty and severe though. If Paul wins and is allowed to live and do his thing, we will probably go through a very rough patch for about 3 years but then we'll see tremendous growth as the country begins to shed all the chains that the politicians, lawers and bankers wrapped around it in the last few decades. I feel that at this point Ron Paul is the only hope to turn things around in a matter of just a few short years.


Eduard, my hat is off to you. You really have it figured out.  :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:


There is a possibility if the Freedom Movement takes hold and enough people join it it will delay or stop the slide into total tyranny and oppression the coming rough times might bring.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 27, 2012, 07:41:20 PM
Ron Paul is the only one who makes sense in regard to foreign policy and wars as well. We had no business going to Iraque or Aphganistan. We will never change their mentality and culture even if we are there for 200 years. What have we accomplished there? Nothing, Nada! Thousands of our boys died there for nothing. USSR tried it in 1979, lost about 50,000 (I think) boys in that war and got nothing out of it. Now we are doing the same! Paul is right! Use our troops to secure our borders and leave them Muslims alone! You can't instill American values in people who think it is normal to cut somebody's head off if their religious belief differs. They wipe their a$$ off with their hands! How can we compete with that culture? Only special interests benefit from these wars, our people and our country does not!


We have enough natural resources right here and we shouldn't be dependent on the Saudies, Iran, etc. for that. Why in the hell did Obama block the building of the pipeline from Canada? WTF???? All these politicians are bought and paid for and soon there is going to be no America as we once new it. Ron Paul is the only one who would take the country back and return it to what it was just a few years ago.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 27, 2012, 10:52:19 PM
Why in the hell did Obama block the building of the pipeline from Canada? WTF???? All these politicians are bought and paid for


It would have hurt Warren Buffet's railroad business with all those tanker cars it has. Without a pipeline our largest oil importer Canada, will need to continue using Warren Buffets rail. The old environmental excuse is just a ruse to throw off the real reason. It's for reasons like this that Buffet tries to make the case for Obama to tax the rich more. For his recommendation of say 10% more taxes he gets to keep 100% of his current business and a crack at other juicy government deals.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on February 28, 2012, 10:09:40 AM



For all the armchair warriors who don't like Ron Paul's foreign policy stand.


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/military-donations-candidate500px.png)


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/military-donations-branch500px.png)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on February 28, 2012, 10:09:36 PM
Maxx and Eduard were discussing Obama's not approving the Keystone pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada's tar sands to America's refineries in Texas and Louisiana.   The added Canadian oil would replace oil imported fromVenezuela and the Middle East.   

This is one Canadian's opinion, a news show host who I presume is conservative.  The commentator bashes Obama and encourages Canada to sell the oil to Asia instead of America.  Canada exports all of its oil to America, and he says Canada needs to use this disapproval to expand its customers.   

The clip is over 12 minutes long, but is summarized at the 10:35 minute mark.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKYX9kEDkUY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKYX9kEDkUY)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on February 29, 2012, 11:42:40 AM
He tells is it like it is, thanks for posting this. Phil!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 02, 2012, 08:47:42 AM
I am very much against Obama simply because of his lack of leadership.  In 2008 I even considered voting for him because he seemed to want to unite the country.   Instead he has helped to create an even larger gap between our polar differences.

Although my posts at RWD have been critical of Obama, I do read the pro-Obama material.  Here is a very intelligent article written by a neoliberal who gives insight into Obama and why he has changed.  Warning:  long and multisyllabic.
 
 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: sunandsail on March 02, 2012, 10:41:12 AM
Gator,


The Keystone pipeline issue is really not one of canceling it, it has been delayed, allowing differing sides to work out concerns regarding the pipelines route.    An Austin, TX newspaper wrote on the issue:


http://www.statesman.com/opinion/keystone-xl-delayed-but-it-wont-be-stopped-2116504.html?printArticle=y


I think you'll likely see it go forward in 2013, with those in the pipeline's path perhaps happier with how its done.   


While I believe the oil will likely end up routed to Texas, whether it goes to Texas or to the British Columbia coast for tankers to pick up will have no effect on world oil prices.    Either way, the oil is provided to world markets.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 02, 2012, 01:07:38 PM
With decreasing demand in the US there is no need of oil.. Oil from Canada will not be cheaper.

What is planned is for the pipeline being an easier transit route to southern port refineries for shipping refined fuel to south america and elsewhere.

Transit is the main goal.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 02, 2012, 04:11:47 PM

I think you'll likely see it go forward in 2013, with those in the pipeline's path perhaps happier with how its done.   

The path is just one part of the opposition.   Thie real concern is global warming (I do not shit you).   As a retired environmental engineer, let me please enlighten you. 

The primary concern of the environmental groups is not protection of Nebraska sand hills but the mere fact that this oil is from Canada's tar sands.   Production of oil from the viscous tar sands requires processing such as heating and more pumping (pipelines).  Also, its chemical composition is not as sweet as Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude.   The  end result is that from "well to wheels" the tar sands oil produces 10-45% more greenhouse gases than  conventional sources. 
 
Environmental groups (and Obama's administration) believe in global warming and they protest  use of tar sands.  Instead they believe the world should be developing alternative energy supplies (solar, wind, etc.).  Opening new supplies of oil keeps the price of crude lower than alternative energy.  The Nebraska sand hills are akin to the snail darter minnow that stopped the construction of a dam on a wild river in Tennessee decades ago.  No one cared about the endangered minnow - they did not want the dam.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 02, 2012, 04:36:05 PM

While I believe the oil will likely end up routed to Texas, whether it goes to Texas or to the British Columbia coast for tankers to pick up will have no effect on world oil prices.    Either way, the oil is provided to world markets.
Yes and no.   See below. 
 
 
With decreasing demand in the US there is no need of oil.

 
No need of oil?   Maybe in the year 2050.     
 
Quote
Oil from Canada will not be cheaper.

"Supply and demand" equation suggests that the larger the world supply of oil, the lower the price, all else being equal.  Look at the price of natural gas.  Europe's prices are 300-400% higher than America's prices.  We have a glut of natural gas and are developing plans to export it.  Export it!  Why not use it in automobiles?  Ukraine does this and America can not?


Quote
What is planned is for the pipeline being an easier transit route to southern port refineries for shipping refined fuel to south america and elsewhere.

Transit is the main goal.

Did you know that American crude oil is sweeter than Venezuelan oil, Arab oil and even North Sea oil?   Yet, West Texas crude (WTI) has a significantly lower price than Brent crude.   Transportation is part of the equation, particularly access to markets, e. g. natural gas prices. 
 
Also, did you know that  refineries along America's Gulf  Coast are the most efficient in the World, and even with American labor rates can refine a gallon (liter) of gasoline for the lowest price in the World..  So yes, exporting oil is part of the plan.   It is called adding value to natural resources.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 05, 2012, 05:57:40 PM
Double Standard? It's somehow unconstitutional to hold known foreign terrorists without due (judicial) process, but yet okay to omit such and just target and kill US citizens?
 
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10585197-holder-us-can-legally-kill-americans-in-terror-groups (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10585197-holder-us-can-legally-kill-americans-in-terror-groups)
 
Additionally, I thought 'O' and Holder held there's no such thing as *WAR* on Terror? Why vassilate now? Isn't this one of the platform Obama used to get elected?  >:(
 
Quote from: Holder
"We are at war with a stateless enemy,"

LOL...Isn't that what Bush said that Obama and the Dems were all up in arms with before?
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on March 06, 2012, 06:15:27 AM
President Obama was raised in Jakarta (Indonesia) by a transvestite nanny.
 
The White House has "no comment".
 
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ap-exclusive-obamas-transgender-nanny-outcast-15847122 (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ap-exclusive-obamas-transgender-nanny-outcast-15847122)
 
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20110859/ap-exclusive-obamas-transgender-ex-nanny-proud (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20110859/ap-exclusive-obamas-transgender-ex-nanny-proud)
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 06, 2012, 07:29:26 AM
views of a Leftist,,,,

Any Republican will loose to Obama.

The Christian Fanatic vision Rick has is just scarey.
I am sure he would make a great church leader for a Racist and Homophobic white Power group.
I personally Take pride in the fact America is a tolerant Country. People who want to change that
Are a true danger to America. I see these Fascist Hate mongers for what they are.


Now in a 3 way race,,,  Mitt Republican - Obama Democrat  - Ron Paul 3rd party 

I strongly Feel Ron Paul will win. He Will get support from both sides and Win.
His Brand of freedom is popular. Although his economic ideas are not always the best.


http://stewartalexanderforpresident2012.org/ (http://stewartalexanderforpresident2012.org/)

I would much rather Support these guys.. In 2016 I hope a 3rd party will emerge. The SP has almost doubled since I joined 4 months ago. In fact I hope to start a local in my area. By drawing from other leftist groups in the area.


Some might say the working class is lazy in America. I think that's Bull shit.
Give a Man a job not a hand out. That should be the American way. I intend to make it happen with in my life time.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on March 06, 2012, 09:28:08 AM
My favorite piece of "leftist" propaganda!
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnnaeOHXFyI

:ROFL:
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 06, 2012, 09:36:37 AM
My favorite Right wing  propaganda!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxV9K3aw-h0&skipcontrinter=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxV9K3aw-h0&skipcontrinter=1)

 :cluebat:  :cluebat:  :cluebat:  :cluebat:  :cluebat:  :cluebat:


America is full of Punks like this,, I plan on making them disappear.

 :cluebat:  :cluebat:  :cluebat:  :cluebat:  :cluebat:  :cluebat:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 09:47:40 AM
Double Standard? It's somehow unconstitutional to hold known foreign terrorists without due (judicial) process, but yet okay to omit such and just target and kill US citizens?
 
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10585197-holder-us-can-legally-kill-americans-in-terror-groups (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10585197-holder-us-can-legally-kill-americans-in-terror-groups)
 
Additionally, I thought 'O' and Holder held there's no such thing as *WAR* on Terror? Why vassilate now? Isn't this one of the platform Obama used to get elected?  >:(
 
LOL...Isn't that what Bush said that Obama and the Dems were all up in arms with before?


GQ, it's obvious you are much smarter than Santorum. He couldn't come close to understanding what you posted above. So why do you endorse him?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 09:49:56 AM

Some might say the working class is lazy in America. I think that's Bull shit.
Give a Man a job not a hand out. That should be the American way. I intend to make it happen with in my life time.


So you plan on finding a job?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 06, 2012, 09:52:51 AM
I got a job, bro...

Fighting Fascist Nazi's is a Hobby..


I remember my grand father telling me about the concentration camps that he had the misinformation of seeing with his own eye's when they were liberated by American Troops..

Were the Nazi killed Jews and Russians alike, By the millions.

I don't want that to happen in this country... 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 06, 2012, 10:19:55 AM

GQ, it's obvious you are much smarter than Santorum. He couldn't come close to understanding what you posted above. So why do you endorse him?

 :o
 
Then you must definitely be far smarter than me to know who I am endorsing considering I still do not.
 
Although I'm smart enough to know, for a fact, 911 is NOT a planned inside (US) job.  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 01:54:15 PM

 :o
 
Then you must definitely be far smarter than me to know who I am endorsing considering I still do not.
 
Although I'm smart enough to know, for a fact, 911 is NOT a planned inside (US) job.  ;)


You must have changed your leanings. I read on this board you saying you were pulling for Santorum. This was when he was barely showing. When he did well in Iowa I thought of sending you a congratulatory PM.


About 911. At least the mastermind of it, the old bearded guy living in a cave mansion was brought to justice. Too bad we couldn't have gotten the details from him on how he accomplished NORAD standing down for an hour and a half.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17d4aVmKj5c
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 02:02:00 PM
I did a search


http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=13779.msg275031#msg275031 (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=13779.msg275031#msg275031)


Quote
I like Rick Santorum the best, but this isn't saying much as this wasn't such an impressive bunch.


I see it was a luck warm endorsement at best.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 02:27:08 PM
Forget 911. Did you know that a member of RWD (NOT me!) is leading in the investigation of Obama's birth certificate with Sheriff Joe?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJOKlAq8Vy0&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJOKlAq8Vy0&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 06, 2012, 03:05:05 PM
...I see it was a luck warm endorsement at best.

It was neither cold, cool, room temperature, lukewarm, tepid, warm or boiling. It was a preliminay impression expressed.
 
Endorsement is absolute.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pitbull on March 06, 2012, 03:05:18 PM
Forget 911. Did you know that a member of RWD (NOT me!) is leading in the investigation of Obama's birth certificate with Sheriff Joe?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJOKlAq8Vy0&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJOKlAq8Vy0&feature=youtu.be)

Seriously? Which one? Yeah, RWD is full of wackos in more ways than one
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 06, 2012, 03:12:03 PM
....I personally Take pride in the fact America is a tolerant Country. People who want to change that Are a true danger to America. I see these Fascist Hate mongers for what they are.

 
Quote from: Darth_Budda
America is full of Punks like this,, I plan on making them disappear.

LOL. You sound almost like a regular US politician.
 
2 good views/convictions DB. Interestingly, they're opposed. At least unlike our silly politicians, you stated these at nearly the same time.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 03:41:07 PM

Seriously? Which one? Yeah, RWD is full of wackos in more ways than one


Retired I.C.E. agent and INS document investigator John Sampson. JnSampson


[/font][/color]
Quote
Three attorneys presented cases for their plaintiffs – all twelve are Georgia registered voters. The testimony from three witnesses, Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, scanning, and typesetting experts, was that the birth certificate for Obama that was released online was a forgery. The testimony of former Immigration officer, John Sampson, was especially compelling. It was his testimony that the birth certificate has serial numbers that are out of sequence with other births at the time; the certification paragraphs are different on Obama’s alleged birth certificate and the birth certificates issued before and after his; and the name of the registrar was different on the birth certificates issued at the same time to others. Mr. Sampson has found a number of irregularities that would cause him to demand documents and investigate further. He indicated that it is a crime to claim to be a US citizen if you aren’t, and one of the consequences is deportation.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 03:44:24 PM

It was neither cold, cool, room temperature, lukewarm, tepid, warm or boiling. It was a preliminay impression expressed.
 
Endorsement is absolute.


I endorse RON PAUL! America's only hope. (so we are doomed)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 06, 2012, 03:49:44 PM
Forget 911. Did you know that a member of RWD (NOT me!) is leading in the investigation of Obama's birth certificate with Sheriff Joe?...

LOL...Phoenix, Arizona newscast!?! Posted by IdiotSavant53?  ;)
 
Anyway, he you should try to find a way for Harvard to release his (O) academic transcripts instead. That's all I'd be interested in.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on March 06, 2012, 03:52:59 PM

Seriously? Which one? Yeah, RWD is full of wackos in more ways than one


Takes one to know one!!  :tongueout:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 06, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
Quote from: Mr Sampson
...He indicated that it is a crime to claim to be a US citizen if you aren’t, and one of the consequences is deportation.[/color]

Deportation?!? Did Mr Sampson crawled into a snow cave deep in Antartica and forgotten this is the USofA he's talking about? LOL!
We not only feed and treat illegal aliens here, they get to vote, too! Go ahead, ask Obama's aunt and uncle if you don't believe me!
Deportation, my butt! Good luck with that...

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 04:08:09 PM

LOL...Phoenix, Arizona newscast!?! Posted by IdiotSavant53?  ;)
 
Anyway, he you should try to find a way for Harvard to release his (O) academic transcripts instead. That's all I'd be interested in.


hey! hey! hey! idiotsavant53 is me!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 06, 2012, 04:08:18 PM
Thanks! I hope to run in NYS with in the next few years,, I am slowly getting people together to make a run for assembly under the greens.


I don't think we should be Tolerant of Hate groups..

I understand some people think that freedom of speech includes
Hate speech against one group or another. But I disagree.

To be honest I think most people think these white power groups are dangerous.
It you feel the need to stick up for them. Go for it. But i will assure you many more will stand up and see these people for what they are.

It's the same reason why these groups need police escorts.
To keep the general public from showing them just how we feel.

Tolerance does not mean hate speech is okay.
Weather it is directed at a Russian Immigrant, or a Mexican Immigrant.

I feel sorry for you, if you think tolerance means supporting or allowing hate groups to be part of your town.

They need to be wiped from the face of the earth.
This is not the 1950..It's 2012..

They had their chance to give up their Racist views, Now we must show them, their time is up. If i ever get a chance to go to one of their rallies you can bet I will their with my buddies to Kick some azz.. They don't represent America or Americans. They have no right to spew their Hate not in my town or yours.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 04:12:49 PM
 
Anyway, he you should try to find a way for Harvard to release his (O) academic transcripts instead. That's all I'd be interested in.


I'd like see the video of Obumer hanging around with the radical Dorens and Bill Airs that Breitbart was supposed to release on March 1st. Only this 43 year old guy drops dead of a heart attack at 12:07 AM March 1st instead.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 06, 2012, 04:19:02 PM
Breitbart,,,

My guess is that he was in to hard drugs... He had issues from what i saw..

It's perfectly natural to die from a heart attack, after years of Cocaine abuse.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 06, 2012, 04:20:59 PM
....
I understand some people think that freedom of speech includes
Hate speech against one group or another. But I disagree....

I do, too! But when Jeremiah Wright spoke, Obama listened, praised and applauded him. Look at him now...I heard he's got so much $$ he was able to renovate his parish since.

How'bout the beer fest they had at the white house, courtesy of you and me, when Henry Louis-Gates spewed hate towards that white policeman..

..or is hate-spewing being 'bad' simply a one-sided issue? Again...for example,
 
Quote from: Darth_Budda
America is full of Punks like this,, I plan on making them disappear.

Is this not spewing hate?
 
Quote from: Darth_Budda
...I feel sorry for you, if you think tolerance means supporting or allowing hate groups to be part of your town.

Don't be. I'm perfectly fine where I'm sitting...the view is incredible from here  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 06, 2012, 05:04:04 PM
1st,, Obama Has Lied...

2nd,,,I am not a democrat.....

3rd,,, I don't think when America executed the Racist Nazi after WWII,
That very many people would think they were Innocent or deserved mercy.

4th,,, We killed them because they were evil. Not because we hated them.

5th,,, No I don't think it is Spewing Hate.. I am spewing the truth. That we are all humans and we all have a right to live in a world were groups Like the KKK, Neo-Nazi and Christian Fundamentalist are no more. Disappear does not mean Killing them,, It means Making what they stand for sociable unpalatable. Do I Hate the Racist,, Hell yea. Because that's all they understand.

What is a Religious Fundamentalist??

Lets look at Afghanistan, a country both Russians and Americans can understand.
I should also point out we armed these groups that killed so many people..
Also Russia never invaded Afghanistan they were asked by the legal government to help fight these religious groups that we armed...

What is a Religious Fundamentalist??

They try to imposes their religious view on the people through Laws... Like sharia law
and they use the State to enforce these views based on religion..

How is that any different than what the Christian conservatives are doing in the united states now?

By telling women what they can and can't do with their body? Based on what??
Religion,,,, Last time I checked we had religious freedom in this country!!

When people like Rick Santorum openly say that the Bible is a higher power than the constitution,
he is being a religious fanatic.. BTW Look up what Santorum means... you will get a laugh..

Look GOD did not write the bible.. It says right on it who wrote it.. King James...

I disagree with the other republicans, but none are as dangerous as Rick.

Really Vote Ron Paul if you want to keep your freedom... The other guys are all fake and jokes..
I would rather vote for a Communist or Socialist candidate, But ron will have to do. We have no right telling other countries what to do. This American Imperialism has to stop.

Why do we still have a trade embargo against Cuba? Why can't Iran have Nuclear power?

Why do we support Israel with their actions against the Palestinians?

I want these fat cats on wall street to pay their fair share. I am fed up with the Lies my government tell us on a daily basis..

I want my country back..

That my honest opinion..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on March 06, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
Damn dude, you really are a nut job!  :rolleyes:
 
GOB
 
PS... OK Daveman, I'm ready, lay it on me.  8)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 06, 2012, 05:14:25 PM
1st,, Obama Has Lied...

2nd,,,I am not a democrat.....

3rd,,, I don't think when America executed the Racist Nazi after WWII,
That very many people would think they were Innocent or deserved mercy.

4th,,, We killed them because they were evil. Not because we hated them.

5th,,, No I don't think it is Spewing Hate.. I am spewing the truth. That we are all humans and we all have a right to live in a world were groups Like the KKK, Neo-Nazi and Christian Fundamentalist are no more. Disappear does not mean Killing them,, It means Making what they stand for sociable unpalatable. Do I Hate the Racist,, Hell yea. Because that's all they understand.

What is a Religious Fundamentalist??

Lets look at Afghanistan, a country both Russians and Americans can understand.
I should also point out we armed these groups that killed so many people..
Also Russia never invaded Afghanistan they were asked by the legal government to help fight these religious groups that we armed...

What is a Religious Fundamentalist??

They try to imposes their religious view on the people through Laws... Like sharia law
and they use the State to enforce these views based on religion..

How is that any different than what the Christian conservatives are doing in the united states now?

By telling women what they can and can't do with their body? Based on what??
Religion,,,, Last time I checked we had religious freedom in this country!!

When people like Rick Santorum openly say that the Bible is a higher power than the constitution,
he is being a religious fanatic.. BTW Look up what Santorum means... you will get a laugh..

Look GOD did not write the bible.. It says right on it who wrote it.. King James...

I disagree with the other republicans, but none are as dangerous as Rick.

Really Vote Ron Paul if you want to keep your freedom... The other guys are all fake and jokes..
I would rather vote for a Communist or Socialist candidate, But ron will have to do. We have no right telling other countries what to do. This American Imperialism has to stop.

Why do we still have a trade embargo against Cuba? Why can't Iran have Nuclear power?

Why do we support Israel with their actions against the Palestinians?

I want these fat cats on wall street to pay their fair share. I am fed up with the Lies my government tell us on a daily basis..

I want my country back..

That my honest opinion..

For someone who profess to despise hate, you sure seem like one angry fellow who hates your entire society, DB. LOL.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 07:32:52 PM

For someone who profess to despise hate, you sure seem like one angry fellow who hates your entire society, DB. LOL.


Seems OK to me. Society wants everyone to act like they are on some psychotropic medication that takes the passion out of them. It is good that people get disturbed by the injustice and unfairness of our present system. Ron Paul supporters are on the forefront of this. I suspect people will come around to our way of thinking once they get the shaft in the coming economic collapse.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on March 06, 2012, 08:05:55 PM
Damn dude, you really are a nut job!  :rolleyes:
 
GOB
 
PS... OK Daveman, I'm ready, lay it on me.  8)


 ;D
Well, let's take a look at the what the nut job actually wrote...




1st,, Obama Has Lied...


Hmmm, seems reasonable to me


Quote
2nd,,,I am not a democrat.....


Nothing overly nutty there


Quote

3rd,,, I don't think when America executed the Racist Nazi after WWII,
That very many people would think they were Innocent or deserved mercy.

4th,,, We killed them because they were evil. Not because we hated them.



Did we kill them all?  Or were some harbored for what we thought we could gain from them?


Quote

5th,,, No I don't think it is Spewing Hate.. I am spewing the truth. That we are all humans and we all have a right to live in a world were groups Like the KKK, Neo-Nazi and Christian Fundamentalist are no more. Disappear does not mean Killing them,, It means Making what they stand for sociable unpalatable. Do I Hate the Racist,, Hell yea. Because that's all they understand.

What is a Religious Fundamentalist??

Lets look at Afghanistan, a country both Russians and Americans can understand.
I should also point out we armed these groups that killed so many people..
Also Russia never invaded Afghanistan they were asked by the legal government to help fight these religious groups that we armed...

What is a Religious Fundamentalist??

How is that any different than what the Christian conservatives are doing in the united states now?

By telling women what they can and can't do with their body? Based on what??
Religion,,,, Last time I checked we had religious freedom in this country!!

When people like Rick Santorum openly say that the Bible is a higher power than the constitution,
he is being a religious fanatic.. BTW Look up what Santorum means... you will get a laugh..

Look GOD did not write the bible.. It says right on it who wrote it.. King James...

I disagree with the other republicans, but none are as dangerous as Rick.


No religion should have any place in government.  Religious freedom also includes freedom FROM religion.  While the post is (seemingly) a bit on the emotional side, I cannot disagree with the content.


Quote

Really Vote Ron Paul if you want to keep your freedom... The other guys are all fake and jokes..
I would rather vote for a Communist or Socialist candidate, But ron will have to do. We have no right telling other countries what to do. This American Imperialism has to stop.



Can't say I'd support a socialist or communist, I do believe the good ole US of A needs to take care of her own and her own business. 


Quote

Why do we still have a trade embargo against Cuba?



Good question, some decent stogies would be nice


Quote

Why can't Iran have Nuclear power?


I can answer that one... see number 5 above. 


Quote

Why do we support Israel with their actions against the Palestinians?



Another excellent question...


Quote

I want these fat cats on wall street to pay their fair share.


Well sure, but define 'fair'


Quote



I am fed up with the Lies my government tell us on a daily basis..

I want my country back..



yep, and yep...


Quote
That my honest opinion..


I reckon I'm at least part Nutjoblican too..  8)   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 06, 2012, 08:16:42 PM

Can't say I'd support a socialist or communist, I do believe the good ole US of A needs to take care of her own and her own business. 

 


I agree with you Daveman on that and the rest of what you wrote.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 06, 2012, 08:29:37 PM
I am done with hate,,, Feel the love  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zab9cluVJa0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zab9cluVJa0)

I am a little passionate about my political convictions.

Sorry.

Yes good point, The USA did keep their hands on several SS officers after WWII..
Because they were Anti-Communist. The CIA most likely though they would be useful in keeping South America In line.

I guess the issue with Iran and the Nuclear option, I just think we should trust the Russians to handle the Power Plant issue. From my understanding they were the ones helping the Iranians build it.
Also Israel has something like 130 Nukes,,, I think.. So Iran get one? Big deal... Odds are if they really wanted they already have some of the old Russian Nuclear suitcase bombs.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 06, 2012, 08:38:02 PM

 


Can't say I'd support a socialist or communist, I do believe the good ole US of A needs to take care of her own and her own business. 

 

Very few would support socialism.  Yet, many believe Big Government control of capitalism is best.  Here ia a clip from over 30 years ago by a brilliant economist, Milton Friedman.
 
http://dauckster.posterous.com/a-31-year-old-video-clip-absolutely-worth-you (http://dauckster.posterous.com/a-31-year-old-video-clip-absolutely-worth-you)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 06, 2012, 08:51:46 PM
The Super Tuesday results show Santorum not going away but gaining momentum even though his underfunded weak organization made some key mistakes (he was not on the ballot in some Ohio districts)..   So Mitt will need to combat Newt and Rick until the bitter end, making him spend too much from his war chest and making him take more conservative positions, and thereby losing his moderate base.  American politics.   
 
Rick Santorum would make a good Pope, but a good President? 
 
If Rick is nominated, who do I vote for? 
There are many Jews who normally vote democratic yet will refuse to vote for Obama because of his Muslim leanings and his lack of wholehearted support for Israel.  Will they vote for a Republican?  Not a Santorum.  They may stay home.

I would not vote for Obama or Santorum.  So I forget about the President, yet I do not stay home.  I will vote for my Republican candidate for congress. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 06, 2012, 08:56:11 PM
It's just a poll but,, But when you view socialism,, Age Matters... Younger people just don't have that Red scare thing... The word Socialism may sound bad but that's what people want. Just in America we say Progressive if we don't want to scare any one..

http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/?src=prc-headline (http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/?src=prc-headline)


Whats the joke,, Marx was wrong about what Communism would do, But was right about Capitalism?


Edit:

Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism.
Benito Mussolini

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 07, 2012, 12:32:37 AM
I would not vote for Obama or Santorum.  So I forget about the President, yet I do not stay home.  I will vote for my Republican candidate for congress.

Gator,

You can always write me in...

 :clapping:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 07, 2012, 06:21:50 AM
Gator,

You can always write me in...

 :clapping:

 
You would be more experienced and worldly than Obama, and more honest too.  ;)   However,  aren't you a Eurocrat?    :)  I will never vote for Big Government. 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 07, 2012, 07:50:00 AM
Gator,

400k salary for all the hassle and stress involved would simply not be worth it. Most folk that end up in that office are thinking too often of things worth a lot more than the paltry paycheck which is a part of the problem.. self interest.  I'd say a Constitutional amendment that mandates candidates for President must be able to prove that they made less than three quarters of the current salary during the last 5 years.  Aside from Obama's book earnings he pretty much met that test.  At least when he stepped into office he still remembered what it takes to earn a buck.

Eurocrat.. not really, just seen some things during my lifetime over here that are done a lot better, many worse though.  Until good common sense rather than party politics rules Congress, little good can or will be done.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 07, 2012, 08:53:22 AM

Hubris ( /ˈhjuËbrɪs/), also hybris,  means extreme haughtiness, pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.
 
 
Two contrasting speeches follow to illustrate hubris.   
 
George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam Hussein :     [note: I am not a fan of Bush Jr] 

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq .
The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the
dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting forceOur servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many
dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and
freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the
nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.
 
Barack Hussein Obama speech, Sunday, May 1, 2011:

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, Iwas briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I  determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan .

(not even a "thank you" and the SEALs mission was more dangerous)
 
Obama is not a leader, and it shows everywhere.  Early retirement for Obama.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 07, 2012, 10:13:50 AM
....
 
Two contrasting speeches follow to illustrate hubris.   
 
George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam Hussein :     [note: I am not a fan of Bush Jr] 

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq .
The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the
dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting forceOur servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many
dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and
freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the
nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.
 
Barack Hussein Obama speech, Sunday, May 1, 2011:

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, Iwas briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I  determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan .

(not even a "thank you" and the SEALs mission was more dangerous)
 
Obama is not a leader, and it shows everywhere.  Early retirement for Obama.

 :clapping:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 07, 2012, 01:00:49 PM
As long as we are raising Ire (pun intended)

http://youtu.be/mmbKpO_Js9E


Some have remarked that the tape was edited a bit, but I can imagine his speechwriters avoided using "I" like the plague.

To be fair, I did look at a few of Obama's speeches available here http://obamaspeeches.com/

He does use "I" a fair bit, but probably does a good bit of speechwriting himself; in his role as Commander in Chief, especially for this speech not inappropriately, more from a standpoint 'I am calling the shots' instead of having to share it with Cheney as Bush did.

All this of course in good hubris... LOL

I would of course defer to Sandro's opinion on Obama's usage of "I".  He's the unrivaled language expert around here.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 07, 2012, 03:06:21 PM
Does anyone think these fools are really running/ran the country?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 07, 2012, 03:08:41 PM
As to thanking the SEAL team...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42919214/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/t/obama-thanks-awards-team-bin-laden-raid/#.T1fYePF5mSM

A personal visit from both President and Vice President at the same time is a pretty big deal.

i doubt they were offended by his statement.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 07, 2012, 03:15:25 PM
Does anyone think these fools are really running the country?

Texans do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 07, 2012, 03:28:59 PM
Tonight @ 9:00 PM ET on Hannity/Fox News Breitbart's video on Obama. The one Breitbart said "would bring the house of cards Obama's house down". And "Obama is finished". Sorry BC


Andrew Breitbart at CPAC said this was to be released March 1st but he died a little past midnight March 1st so it was delayed.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 07, 2012, 05:29:03 PM
Tonight @ 9:00 PM ET on Hannity/Fox News Breitbart's video on Obama. The one Breitbart said "would bring the house of cards Obama's house down". And "Obama is finished".

Doubt it, Maxx. Nothing on that video is really that incriminating.
 
Besides, I'd much rather watch the bio "A Day in the Life of  Uncle 'Omar'". How he's able to be held innocent for DUI, Indentity theft, Immigration fraud, oh, and selling liquor to a minor. LOL.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 07, 2012, 06:10:15 PM

Doubt it, Maxx. Nothing on that video is really that incriminating.
 
Besides, I'd much rather watch the bio "A Day in the Life of  Uncle 'Omar'". How he's able to be held innocent for DUI, Indentity theft, Immigration fraud, oh, and selling liquor to a minor. LOL.


It is an extended version. The one you and I saw was edited and I agree nothing there to get excited over. But we will see. The sceptic in me says that whatever Sean Hannity shows will get a big shrug. I hope I am wrong. The only way Obama might get run out of office would be if they had video of him plotting the overthrow of the American system and government. Why would he allow himself to be videotaped? Of course Breitbart said he had the "smoking gun" and "it is bigger than can be imagined".
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 07, 2012, 07:19:55 PM
I watched just Hannity. Not much. A video of Obama hugging a radical professor and another professor on video saying he had the video of it and said he kept it under wraps during the 2008 election and that now it's OK for it to come out.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on March 07, 2012, 08:59:32 PM
gots to connect the dots... he's got the leftist, socialist ideology ingrained in him. everything points to that. maybe this video isn't a "smoking gun" but it sure is another piece of the puzzle that identifies who he is and his ideology.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 07, 2012, 09:03:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfr3x4u8tGA
.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 07, 2012, 09:19:51 PM
His crazy rants were helping the Democrats, I doubt someone would kill him. My guess is he used a lot of cocaine in his younger days,,, That is why his heart exploded. perfectly natural...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 07, 2012, 09:20:55 PM
You see what I mean, maxx?


O and his legions are much smarter than that. If he wasn't smart, he would've filed petitions for his dear ol' aunt and uncle like a normal citizen. He didn't, so he wouldn't have to be responsible for them for 10 years and just let folks like you and me own up to it.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 07, 2012, 10:26:21 PM
His crazy rants were helping the Democrats, I doubt someone would kill him. My guess is he used a lot of cocaine in his younger days,,, That is why his heart exploded. perfectly natural...


That sounds like something that would have happened to Bill Clinton. Remember he had his medical records sealed when he was running for president. What's up with Obama having his school records sealed?  What are these guys hiding?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 07, 2012, 10:27:51 PM
You see what I mean, maxx?


O and his legions are much smarter than that. If he wasn't smart, he would've filed petitions for his dear ol' aunt and uncle like a normal citizen. He didn't, so he wouldn't have to be responsible for them for 10 years and just let folks like you and me own up to it.


If they were smart enough to kill Breitbart without leaving a trace then they would be smart enough to take what he had on their guy Obama. Obama is a puppet that can be controlled by blackmail but mostly they don't need to. Does anyone here know about the controversially aspects of the NDAA? GQ? anyone? Obama signed off on that.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on March 08, 2012, 08:02:40 AM
I'd much rather watch the bio "A Day in the Life of  Uncle 'Omar'". How he's able to be held innocent for DUI, Indentity theft, Immigration fraud, oh, and selling liquor to a minor. LOL.

I guess Uncle and Auntie "O" will be voting in November?
 
Why not, their only here in the GoodOl' USA illegally.  :rolleyes:
 
GOB
 
PS... Make sure to keep an eye out for Obama's transvestite nanny on voting day also.  >:D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on March 08, 2012, 08:34:44 AM
His crazy rants were helping the Democrats, I doubt someone would kill him. My guess is he used a lot of cocaine in his younger days,,, That is why his heart exploded. perfectly natural...

Just wow. Didn't someone already call you a nutbag? Am I understanding you right that you are looking forward to the day of "tolerance"? Yet, you are completely intolerant of any view that doesn't goosestep with yours. You my friend, are whats wrong with the world today.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on March 08, 2012, 09:23:05 AM
You my friend, are whats wrong with the world today.

FP, you may have missed this little gem he posted earlier (it explains everything  :rolleyes: ):
 
Thanks! I hope to run in NYS with in the next few years,, I am slowly getting people together to make a run for assembly.....

Perhaps Anthony Weiner's old seat?  >:D
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 08, 2012, 11:14:56 AM
Darth is just more honest (open) about his beliefs than the US Congressmen, Senators and Presidents. They are all "Slick Willies".
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 08, 2012, 12:43:43 PM

Perhaps Anthony Weiner's old seat?  >:D
 
GOB

I remember a good German schnitzel chain restaurant, quite good by the way.. it was called 'Wienerwald'... which in german means a forest of Wieners! [sic]

Maybe some sprouts are budding....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 08, 2012, 04:06:17 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/breitbart-obama-college-video-turns-dud-sparks-race-172252336.html


Quote
Andrew Breitbart's promised video of Barack Obama's college days at Harvard University was released in full on Sean Hannity's Fox News show on Wednesday night—and unlike the late conservative provocateur's other video hits, this one appears to be a bit of a dud.
The video—which sent some conservatives into a frenzy (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/andrew-breitbart-death-sparks-conspiracy-theories-galore-175523779.html) when Breitbart told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last month that he had the footage—shows Obama, then a Harvard law student, introducing former Harvard Law Professor Derrick Bell, who Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak called the "Jeremiah Wright of academia."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 08, 2012, 04:49:33 PM
This is the same Breitbart we are talking about,, Right Faux Pas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o)


Who was he talking to??

STOP Raping PEOPLE??? What???
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on March 08, 2012, 05:51:41 PM
This is the same Breitbart we are talking about,, Right Faux Pas




Who was he talking to??

STOP Raping PEOPLE??? What???


Apparently the Occupy Wall Street crowd which I am sure these people are were an irritation with Breitbart. He sees them as a George Soros liberal left creation. Accusing them of rape was an insult he used because some rapes had happened during some of their protests and he knows liberals tend to be feminists and feminists use this red meat accusation to get what they want. Fighting fire with fire.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on March 09, 2012, 05:15:57 PM
This is the same Breitbart we are talking about,, Right Faux Pas


Who was he talking to??

STOP Raping PEOPLE??? What???

You have the mindset of a pubescent teenager. The man is dead and obviously, you have no respect for the dead. At least show a modicum of respect for yourself and quit posting this inane bullshit that proves you an idiot
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 09, 2012, 07:45:38 PM
Wow and I am the Nut job,,,, LoL

Your lucky I am in a good mood Pas,,,,,,

If your trying to get me to blow up on you, It's not gonna happen...  :arguing:

Listen, just get some re-runs and take your meds, It will all be okay....  >:(

You can always listen to rush, If he does not get dropped from his show because of his hateful comments to women.  :deadhorse:

enjoy, This tip is for free....  :D

Try not to get to stressed this is just a internet chat board,, It is not real life...  ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 09, 2012, 07:51:12 PM
If you are related to Mr. Breitbart. I am sorry for your loss...

If your just a crazy fan,, Calm down....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on March 09, 2012, 08:13:11 PM
Ahh, nothing quite like a political thread to get things heated a bit, eh?  Reminds me of that old song..


"When it's time to relax..."   8)   can anyone finish that tune?




Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 09, 2012, 08:20:49 PM
Politics are always heated,, That's the way I like it!!

If i didn't piss someone off, I am doing it all wrong.

I will debate any one, But a would rather not fight.
You can't argue with a idealist..

That is why it is better to be a materialist.  So Marx said...

I don't have all the answers, and my opinion can be changed.
I just need to be convinced I am wrong. I like to think for my self, so I don't believe anyone just because they say it id so..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 10, 2012, 08:23:12 AM
....
You can always listen to rush, If he does not get dropped from his show because of his hateful comments to women.  :deadhorse: ....


There, you see...there's that silly little liberal default, fall-back counter thrust. You just know it's never really a matter of 'if' or 'when' that bomb is going to get dropped, but more the question as to whether it's going to be a) Rush Limbaugh, or b) Glenn Beck, or c) Sean Hannity, or d) All of the Above. LOL!


Anyway, sure, Rush Limbaugh made an ill-advised remark about Georgetown's Law Student Sandra *I'm horny with no money* Fluke. Calling her 'slut/prostitute. Thus, like the rising sun, you just know it'll send a cascading heat over the blue hills of the US media soon enough. Rush gets invoiced and should pay for that tab...LOL, even Gloria Allred gets in the mix thinking there's got to be money in it for her in a pigsty we know as US media politics.


I'm thinking....hhhmmm, remember that campaign speech during the '08 campaign in reference to palin's intro as VP: "You can put lipstick on a pig....?" Now you can say that's benign, but then when that blue moron Bill Maher* publicly calls Palin the 'C-word' on the radio, I wonder, how come the aftermath of that is so still you can actually hear crickets? Strange how a million bucks can 'hush' the storm, eh?


*Remember him? he's the jerk, who after 911, admiringly noted that the true bravery shown during that tragic morning, were those shown by the terrorists, because unlike the firemen and policemen, they knew what were facing them.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 10, 2012, 09:41:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjDXmI3WATI&feature=share (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjDXmI3WATI&feature=share)

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 10, 2012, 08:43:52 PM
Nearly 100 advertisers stampede away from right-wing radio

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/10/nearly-100-advertisers-stampeding-away-from-right-wing-radio-altogether/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/10/nearly-100-advertisers-stampeding-away-from-right-wing-radio-altogether/)

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on March 11, 2012, 10:28:13 AM
Russian News

http://hobosti.ru/news/2012/03/obamatchurov (http://hobosti.ru/news/2012/03/obamatchurov)

Obama Administration officially asked Kremlin to help him with his election campaign and invited  Churov, the pro-putin Chairman of the Central Election Commission of Russia, and his staff to work on Obama's campaign strategy.  ::)




OK, that was a joke  :P
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 11, 2012, 02:25:25 PM
Has anyone been following JustiaGate?

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate (http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate)
 
I don't pay much attention to these accusations and accept as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.  However, as a friend has shown me, JustiaGate seems more like a conspiracy.   The more I read, the more it seems that something could be there. 

JustiaGate alleges illegal and clandestine changes were made in the US Supreme Court's archives to hide an 1892 case. That case would support a decision to exclude Obama from eligibility for President.   . 

Opponents of Obama searched in 2008 for reasons to exclude Obama's candidacy.   Not discovering the case, opponents of Obama instead concentrated on his birth certificate, which was also withheld.

I checked Snopes for accuracy and it was not mentioned.  Guess what, Soros (the money behind Snopes) is mentioned as a source of funding for one of the  culprits who allegedly altered the Justia records.
 
I would like to know more without sounding like a right-wing nutcase.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 12, 2012, 05:22:16 AM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

findlaw.com has it and 'Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875)' is easily googled.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Minor_v._Happersett.aspx was published to the inet long before 2008

I wouldn't classify this as some grand conspiracy... 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on March 12, 2012, 06:52:46 AM
Nearly 100 advertisers stampede away from right-wing radio

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/10/nearly-100-advertisers-stampeding-away-from-right-wing-radio-altogether/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/10/nearly-100-advertisers-stampeding-away-from-right-wing-radio-altogether/)


I take it they realized that the majority of customers are women, and I would expect that most of them have been on birth control at some point in their life  :o  Now, if only the Republican contenders understood this simple demographic reality that the majority of voters are women  ;)


I enjoyed this little melody in response to Limbaugh's comments:



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fZK75pXLlbY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 12, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162)

findlaw.com has it and 'Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875)' is easily googled.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Minor_v._Happersett.aspx (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Minor_v._Happersett.aspx) was published to the inet long before 2008

I wouldn't classify this as some grand conspiracy...

At first glance, it seems kosher.  However, the Wayback Machine shows that the material scrubbed in 2008 was later replaced.  Why?   Who?

I am not stating it is a conspiracy, yet it is another question suggesting there could be a conspiracy.  I get all of this from a close friend who voted for Obama, and he now feels betrayed because Obama is taking the nation in the wrong direction.   My friend is livid, so I mostly appease him; however, Justiagate caught my attention.   Why doesn't Snopes clear the air? 

Reading some of the strange posts in this thread I thought one of the posters knew something.
 
Anyway, I read more legal opinions about the scrubbed Supreme Court case.  It was a voting rights case, and not a citizenship case.    Supposedly the issue of "natural born citizen" was resolved much later by a controlling citizenship case (Wong Kim Ark vs. USA).  My friend counters that the cases are mangled.
Maybe all of this is a conspiracy by anti-Obama folks to create the suggestion of a conspiracy.   :o   The only truth - politics is a dirty business. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 12, 2012, 10:53:08 AM
The only truth - politics is a dirty business.

Indeed..

In regards to the justiagate.com site, there may have been some manipulation there.  The fact that waybackmachine blocked robots trying to parse information from their site is not unusual as it would allow material to be replicated elsewhere and they want folks to go to their machine and not another.

In any case justiagate is a legal info site, probably one not taken that seriously by lawyers who have more authoritative info in databases they pay for.  I occasionally use PACER for example to get the 'lowdown' on actions.

If you goto google you can input the date range of results.  With http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Minor_v._Happersett.aspx  it was published and has been available since 2005.  If you search for internet articles found by google between 2007 and 2008 you will find approx 27 references to this case.

As to what happened at justiagate, haven't a clue, but what I'm saying is it does not matter.  There were aplenty lawyers looking into the matter back then that basically turned up nothing wrong.  The public had access to a number of other sites at the time that did have full content.  The theory that 99.9% were relying on justiagate is simply wrong.... 99.9% rely on media alone and that's the real problem.

Your friend can sleep well.  Even if all records were electronic and all books burned/banned he would have little to worry about.  It will be a long time before SCOTUS goes totally electronic and even then digitally signed copies will be available in a million places on the planet within milliseconds of their publication.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx will lead any citizen to reliable sources of their opinions.  I don't see justigate listed.  If you can find the same situation at any of these sites, I am quite sure the Court would drop them immediately from their listing.

Information is power, and in this case information is everywhere.. and the internet is great for putting that power in the hands of the people.. but as always is good to check your sources.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 12, 2012, 11:08:02 AM
Just tried whois lookups....

justia.com is a nobody...

Take it from there.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: acctBill on March 12, 2012, 03:22:56 PM

At first glance, it seems kosher.  However, the Wayback Machine shows that the material scrubbed in 2008 was later replaced.  Why?   Who?

I am not stating it is a conspiracy, yet it is another question suggesting there could be a conspiracy.  I get all of this from a close friend who voted for Obama, and he now feels betrayed because Obama is taking the nation in the wrong direction.   My friend is livid, so I mostly appease him; however, Justiagate caught my attention.   Why doesn't Snopes clear the air? 

Reading some of the strange posts in this thread I thought one of the posters knew something.
 
Anyway, I read more legal opinions about the scrubbed Supreme Court case.  It was a voting rights case, and not a citizenship case.    Supposedly the issue of "natural born citizen" was resolved much later by a controlling citizenship case (Wong Kim Ark vs. USA).  My friend counters that the cases are mangled.
Maybe all of this is a conspiracy by anti-Obama folks to create the suggestion of a conspiracy.   :o   The only truth - politics is a dirty business.

Gator if you and your friend don't like the direction Obama is moving the US, vote for the other guy in November. Unfortunately the US is a two party country so your choices are limited if you want your vote to count.  As an outsider, not an American citizen, it seems Obama is simply doing what he promised when he ran in 2008.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on March 12, 2012, 03:32:46 PM
Gator if you and your friend don't like the direction Obama is moving the US, vote for the other guy in November. Unfortunately the US is a two party country so your choices are limited if you want your vote to count.  As an outsider, not an American citizen, it seems Obama is simply doing what he promised when he ran in 2008.

Really? What does an outsider remember of the promises Obama made in 2008? Do you remember the promises?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on March 27, 2012, 04:48:50 PM
I can't think off hand of one promise that he kept. I think (maybe hope is a better word) that people in the middle, swing voters who voted for him in 08 now realised who he is and where he is taking this country. I hope that any one who isn't hard core left will vote for a Republican this November. At this point I kinda like Romney/Rubio combo, but any one of the guys running would be better than Obama IMO.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 27, 2012, 08:26:38 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17526572 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17526572)


So can some one tell me why Mitt thinks Russia is our number one geopolitical foe?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: mendeleyev on March 28, 2012, 10:32:06 AM
The Mendeleyev Journal (http://russianreport.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/romney-says-russia-is-the-usas-top-foe/):

In the years of the cold war Russia considered the USA to be the "main adversary." In remarks Monday following the accidental open microphone conversation between Presidents Obama and Medvedev, candidate Mitt Romney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview that Russia is "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe" citing his belief that Russia "fights every cause for the world's worst actors."

For both presidents the hot-mic comments by President Barack Obama at the international nuclear summit in Seoul was embarrassing as Mr. Obama was overheard telling Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more flexibility in arms-control negotiations after the U.S. presidential election in November.


(http://russianreport.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/medvedev-obama-seoul-march-27-2012.jpg) (http://russianreport.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/medvedev-obama-seoul-march-27-2012.jpg)

(L-R: US President Obama and Russian President Medvedev greet each other in Seoul, South Korea.)


Romney used the occasion to accuse Obama of hiding future concessions once the US presidential election is over in November. Since Monday many political figures have said that the Obama administration has been too soft on Russia.
 
Russian President Medvedev ridiculed the statement by saying, "It smells of Hollywood. Candidates for the U.S. presidency should use reason when they make such statements."

 A close Medvedev associate, Alexander Sokolov, who heads Russia's Public Chamber's international affairs working group said, "Republicans have decided to play the Marlboro man in how they position themselves on the international stage."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: newjason on March 29, 2012, 03:27:18 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 29, 2012, 03:51:42 AM
Mitt reminds me of Brick Tamland, from the "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy"

you know the guy who loves lamps,,,
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 29, 2012, 12:43:53 PM
I officially declare the Republican primaries useless.

The nation simply cannot stand another 8 months of watching them crap all over themselves.  Even watching them trying to crap on others is abhorrent.

It's a lost cause.

The next Presidential candidate representing both Republicans and Democrats - none other than Obama.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 29, 2012, 02:01:18 PM
Lol,, I guess I was not the only one who thinks this!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbA5RM97DI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbA5RM97DI)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on March 29, 2012, 02:46:50 PM
I officially declare the Republican primaries useless.

The nation simply cannot stand another 8 months of watching them crap all over themselves.  Even watching them trying to crap on others is abhorrent.

The Democratic primaries in 2008 were almost as bad, the only difference was that the Democrat candidates were more moderate than Gingrich and Santorum.   

Quote
It's a lost cause.
Romney will do fine when it is him vs. Obama, particularly Obama's record.

Quote
The next Presidential candidate representing both Republicans and Democrats - none other than Obama.

That was his allure in 2008.  His true colors have been revealed.  If you resided here you would understand the hatred many people have against him.    Basically, everyone agrees with 80% of what Obama says, yet disagrees with 80% of what he does. 
 
The key election issue should be about the economic vitality of America, not just now but over the long term.  Romney can run circles around Obama regarding this issue.   
 
If Obama does win, he will need to work with a Republican Congress.  He did not do that in his first 4 years.  For example, Obamacare received zero Republican votes.  ZERO.   And  as this 2,000-page law is better understood (13,000 pages of regulations so far and climbing), its costs keep rising.  The Congressional Budget Office now estimates it will cost $1.76 trillion for 10 years, up from $940 billion when it first became law.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on March 29, 2012, 03:48:06 PM

The key election issue should be about the economic vitality of America, not just now but over the long term.  Romney can run circles around Obama regarding this issue.   
 

As a non-american I might have too many opinions about the election, but I think it's called for because USA is the superpower of the world still and what happens there affects us all to some extent.
 
As far as I'm concerned you have a one-party system in the US. Democrat or Republican is the same, just a little different flavour, that's all. In Europe Bush was hated and when Obama came on the stage he was loved. Most people like charisma and pretty words and being politically correct. Obama did not change anything, of course. Before he was elected I wrote articles on my blog warning against him. But the people here and there make up excuses for him because he's a sweet talker, has charisma and is half black. He increased the attrocities of Bush and and made new wars and dug the US deeper in an economic mightmare.
 
This administration is continuing the previous wars and adding new ones! There's Egypt and Libya and on the books Syria and Iran. Drones over Pakistan and on and on. It never ends, republican or democrat. And now the Americans are ready to make yet another mistake to vote for a mormon, a slick billionaire who supposedly offer yet another change!!!
 
I cannot understand why the majority of Americans which I know are decent people, cannot see through the deception. Even on this site. Several very bright and insightful people support this or that war-monger as President of USA! Come on...
 
There is only one solution to this mess and that is voting for Ron Paul. I don't know how much he can do if ever elected but at least he want to pull the troops back, stop the wars and get on with a very painful job of getting the US economy on the right track.
 
If it's a fair election and the US people vote in Obama, Romney or any other company man, I fear we will have another 4 years of wars and economic disaster.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on March 29, 2012, 04:22:05 PM

I cannot understand why the majority of Americans which I know are decent people, cannot see through the deception. Even on this site. Several very bright and insightful people support this or that war-monger as President of USA! Come on...

My "from the hip" answer to you on this statement is, it's the completely uninformed and ignorant masses. Yes, I am referring to the majority of American voters. They suck up the partisan propaganda like flies to shyte, all while remaining completely oblivious to the real issues at hand. I believe it to be a devised plan by our politicians en mass. Our problems are our leaders/politicians. There is not a dimes worth of difference between the right and the left in Washington. Most Americans accept this illusion of division. Ignorance, plain and simple. Most just wish to follow rather than question.
 
Quote
There is only one solution to this mess and that is voting for Ron Paul. I don't know how much he can do if ever elected but at least he want to pull the troops back, stop the wars and get on with a very painful job of getting the US economy on the right track.


I disagree with you on Paul although I agree with him more than the other candidates. He makes too much sense fiscally and yet has some ideas well out on the lunatic fringe. He likely could never corral enough support to be an effective president either from the Right or the Left. What would help our political situation in America is a 3rd National party IMHO
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on March 29, 2012, 05:16:36 PM
The  Natural,

I cannot disagree with your comments, however it appears that you do not have a good understanding of the present American culture.
Let me give you my perspective from someone that is well educated, and 65+ years old....

Several generations after WWII, have been schooled by the liberal teachers and professors in our public schools.  Each generation has acquired more and more of an attitude of entitlement from our government rather than focusing what you can do for yourself and your fellow citizens.  It has reached such proportions that the takers are outnumbering the givers.  Add in the illegal immigrants and you can see the chaos that it has created.  This gradually increased to it's present state from many sources, entitlements for everyone, union wage increases that were not justified, outrageous pensions that depended on future growth paying the bill, etc.

Our schools do not teach practical economics.  For the most part it is taught as some big complicated subject that is based upon theories that most people cannot relate to ordinary life.  I can remember the days when the mortgage industry was telling everyone that you are wasting your money by having large equities in your home...... you should take loans out to invest and spend on things you want now, not later.  Many Americans fell for the bait and eventually got upside down on their mortgages and eventually lost their homes.  Some common sense would have told you that owning your home outright would be one of the most secure investments and provide shelter even in bad times.  But then who uses common sense when the 'experts' on TV and Wall Street are telling you otherwise.

To exaggerate only slightly, many if not most High School graduates cannot even balance their checkbooks.  We expect them to understand economics further than understanding their bank account in is overdraft?

Learning history and geography in public school!  What a joke.  Most undergraduate Americans could not put a pin on a map of Iran, Pakistan, Ukraine, or most any other countries.  In addition, the liberals do not teach history in a manner that one would gain the lessons of past governments or the rise and fall of democracies and the causes.  The famous saying about history repeating itself seems to fall on deaf ears.

Due to the media blackout of the USSR, most Americans know very little about the Soviet Union and it's history, me included.  The History Channels on TV have done a great deal to educate us about the USSR and it's involvement and sacrifices during WWII.  The problem is that most Americans are watching Oprah or spending most of their time renting Hollywood movies or playing computer games instead of doing anything constructive.  Why should they?  They have been taught to depend on government to solve all their problems.

Things are not going to change soon, maybe never.  We might be already in a state of being too late to reeducate our masses.  Those with a true grasp of history, real down to earth economics, are in such a minority that I do not see much hope on the horizon.

We might be in the same situation as the junkie on dope..... we have to hit bottom, collapse, and then rebuild once everyone comes to their senses.

I agree with you that neither political party represents the interests of middle America.  It has been that way for a long time.  As long as we do not radically change the process of financing elections, things are not going to change.  Our corrupt politicians will continue to represent the interests of their donors and nothing will change.  While the Republicans offer a better fiscal solution, rather than more socialism,it is will still be at the expense of the middle class and favor Wall Street and Corporate America.  In addition, the Republicans radical religious right wants to control the minds and actions of the rest of American on the topic of abortion, pornography, and other religious teachings.  It even scares many fiscal conservatives.  When they put their religion at a higher priority than the survival of the country, they are  going to loose a lot of voters they might otherwise have.

On the other side, we have a moron in the White House that refused to present his birth certificate for years after he was elected.  From a common sense aspect, why would any presidential candidate refuse to release his records prior to an election.  Whether the current version is a fake or not, I will not argue.  It does not make sense that he would spend millions to keep his records from being made public when he is asking the American people to trust him and vote for him.  Even if I were a liberal, it would scare me enough to not vote for him...... but look how many did.  This should alone, tell you something about the intelligence of our current culture.

This is perhaps the worse set of choices in any presidential election in my lifetime.  Where is a Ross Perot when we need him?  The current campaign finance system will not allow someone that is not a billionaire to run for the presidency.

Unless there is a new candidate that performs a miracle, this is perhaps the worse choice we will face in our lives. It seems we are in a critical tipping point, if not already doomed.  The liberals will continue us into socialism until it will ultimately fail, or the conservatives will continue to support Wall Street and bailing out corporations at the expense of the taxpayer.

I will not even address the history of moving our manufacturing and good jobs overseas to Communist China.  That would be a book in itself and we have no one but our past presidents and congress to blame for it.

I hope that you have a better understanding of our current culture now.  It is not anything to be proud of, even though we are still patriotic Americans and hope that there is a solution before we face total collapse.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on March 29, 2012, 05:33:12 PM
I disagree with you on Paul although I agree with him more than the other candidates. He makes too much sense fiscally and yet has some ideas well out on the lunatic fringe. He likely could never corral enough support to be an effective president either from the Right or the Left. What would help our political situation in America is a 3rd National party IMHO

Faux Pas, I know you as a very wise man on this site. But I don't understand what you mean when you say Ron Paul "makes too much sense fiscally and yet has some ideas well out on the lunatic fringe".
 
For me personally it is not a moral position to state that you don't support a candidate because you think he will not get enough votes from the others to matter. It's like people saying they will vote for the lesser of two evils. It's still evil!
 
I agree USA needs a third party but only if that means it will be diffrent from the two (one) party system today. Ron Paul is on the Republicant side but he is very much unlike the others, on either side of the political flavour. I believe he sides with one side only to be in contention at all, lest he be sidelined completely.
 
You know as well as I do that Ron Paul will never be allowed to win the nomination, even if the American masses wised up. This is his last election I guess. After all, he's 77. But whatever happens, he's an American patriot in running and putting up the issues. He has warned the American public of what is happening and I think nobody with an ounce of intelligence would disagree that he can run circles with anyone in politics when it comes to economics.
 
I have a hate/love relationship about USA. I love the idea of what the USA was, it's potential and I hate what it's become. When the US decided to become an empire, that was it. Now it's a dying empire and the rulers want to keep it's citizens preoccupied with bread and circus while it's dying. An injured beast is the most dangerous when it's in that state.
 
What it was, was a country where the poor could come to. They could get land and work their way up, doing honest work. They had equal opportunity and didn't have to answer to landlords like in Europe.
 
I just cannot see any other way out of disaster than to vote for Ron Paul. Hey, when he speaks, even I as a foreigner feel patriotic. Believe me when I say this, I want USA as our ally, as our friend, a strong and free nation. But too many in the great nation has been duped into believing they can force their will on everybody. That has got to stop.
 
PS: This is not an attack on USA or it's people. We in Europe has equal blame in supporting the wars of agression on nations when "promoting democracy" .
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: newjason on March 29, 2012, 05:49:20 PM
I agree that Ron Paul is the only candidate that has any common sense and would be the most likely choice to get this country back on track.  Unfortunately, Most Americans are not like the people you meet here.

Many Amerians simply do not want to put in the hard work that it takes to succeed on a grand scale. They would rather just get by and have the fedreal government fill in the things they need. That is why entitlement spending is breaking records. Food stamps, unemployment benefits, welfare and others are on the rise in a big way.

It's a sad state of affairs when these are the best canidates we can put foward to lead this country back into prosperity. Sad indeed.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on March 29, 2012, 06:06:15 PM
Many Amerians simply do not want to put in the hard work that it takes to succeed on a grand scale. They would rather just get by and have the fedreal government fill in the things they need. That is why entitlement spending is breaking records. Food stamps, unemployment benefits, welfare and others are on the rise in a big way.

Yes, USA is well on it's way of making itself a welfare state and what it brings, a dependable people. We have it here in Norway, a nanny state. But we are only 5 million people and we have for now great income from oil. But we are made dependent of it. We are made dependent of oil and I'm afraid it makes us as a whole more secure in our beliefs in the future than we should be, perhaps more lazy. I believe in a certain amount of social net, but it can go too far and then you end up with a USSR type of society where everybody is cointing on the next guy to provide for his bread.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 29, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
Ron Paul, LOL.
 
If that clown ever becomes the Republican nominee, you may as well start the coronation for another 4 years for Obama.
 
Forget his conviction that the tragedy of 911 is an act by Americans against Americans, but rather chew on some of these tidbits from his 1990/1992 newsletters that will surely surface if he becomes a nominee.
 
..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
 
"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they 'came out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?"
 
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."
 
"Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," "Lazyopolis." –suggestions for renaming New York city

"[Martin Luther King, Jr.], the FBI files reveal, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys…And we are supposed to honor this 'Christian minister' and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?"
 
"Order was only restored in L.A. (riots) when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
 
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
 
"[AIDS sufferers] enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."


Having said that, I do agree with him when he suggested abolishing the DOE and DOA...
 
As for separation of religion and state...
 
"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
 
The guy is a loony. Sorry.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on March 29, 2012, 06:39:24 PM
Ron Paul, LOL.
 
If that clown ever becomes the Republican nominee, you may as well start the coronation for another 4 years for Obama.

 
The guy is a loony. Sorry.

I'm sorry that I forgot about you for all this time, but when you posted this... yes, I remember something that resemble your nick of a know-it-all-on the sideline kinda guy....always with a few well-thoughout few acid kind of lines...you that guy????
 
Well, whatever, it doesn't change one bit of how I feel about Mr. Ron Paul. He is so way above your league it's really silly to address...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 29, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Ron Paul is a smooth talker like Obama, the more i find out about him the less i like. i hate the fact that our money is backed b thin air, but you say look at history. okay, lets look at his idea of ending the federal reserve. it was done once under Andrew Jackson, it sent the country into the great depression of 1830, unless my date is off. Ron Paul is not a Jeffersonian but a Jacksonian. his economic ideas will only hurt the American worker.

i am 27, my generation does not feel entitled? we have been told our whole life we wold have to pay for the social security of the baby boomers yet we would receive nothing for our payments. we have seen all the jobs transferred over seas. uncontrolled immigration the has brought down our wages, all to boost the income of the rich with cheap labor. it's a basic capitalistic idea, the more surplus of any good lowers prices. i don't feel entitled i feel robed of my future. education prices have skyrocketed yet our pay has dropped.

what happened to the trust busting of Teddy Roosevelt? I would think he would consider most of these companies trusts. no business should be too big to fail. only the government should be too big to fail.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: newjason on March 29, 2012, 07:04:24 PM
Now that we have a clear picture of the choices we have for our next leader, I ask again, Is this the best we can do?
This election will not be about who is the best person to be our president, but rather, who is the lesser of the evils.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on March 29, 2012, 07:12:07 PM

Faux Pas, I know you as a very wise man on this site. But I don't understand what you mean when you say Ron Paul "makes too much sense fiscally and yet has some ideas well out on the lunatic fringe".
 
For me personally it is not a moral position to state that you don't support a candidate because you think he will not get enough votes from the others to matter. It's like people saying they will vote for the lesser of two evils. It's still evil!

Well, that's the thing. I don't support Paul. I have voted for and sent money to the Gingrich campaign. He is the best candidate and most conservative in the race. I had a good idea he that has not a snowball's chance in Hell but, his idea of getting the country back on sound footing is head and shoulders above the rest. Gingrich has too much baggage and is unelectable. Without a doubt IMHO, the smartest and most experienced of the field. I wouldn't support Paul for a number of reasons, the least being because he can't win. Although, I do agree with him on many issues.
 
Quote
I agree USA needs a third party but only if that means it will be diffrent from the two (one) party system today. Ron Paul is on the Republicant side but he is very much unlike the others, on either side of the political flavour. I believe he sides with one side only to be in contention at all, lest he be sidelined completely.
 
You know as well as I do that Ron Paul will never be allowed to win the nomination, even if the American masses wised up. This is his last election I guess. After all, he's 77. But whatever happens, he's an American patriot in running and putting up the issues. He has warned the American public of what is happening and I think nobody with an ounce of intelligence would disagree that he can run circles with anyone in politics when it comes to economics.
 

America needs a 3rd party but not just "any ole party will do" It has to be a grassroots and borne of both the right and left. It needs the teeth, influence and power of both the Dem and Rep. Our current system along with the Dems and Repubs make this impossible. They will never yield.Our political system much like the end of the Roman empire has divided the elitists (politicians) and powerfully rich from the rest. Our politicians are not in the least concerned with what is good or bad for our country. Just what makes them more powerful and re-elected. A third party would, for a time anyway, dilute that power.
Quote
I have a hate/love relationship about USA. I love the idea of what the USA was, it's potential and I hate what it's become. When the US decided to become an empire, that was it. Now it's a dying empire and the rulers want to keep it's citizens preoccupied with bread and circus while it's dying. An injured beast is the most dangerous when it's in that state.
 
What it was, was a country where the poor could come to. They could get land and work their way up, doing honest work. They had equal opportunity and didn't have to answer to landlords like in Europe.

You and I will disagree here. America hasn't to my knowledge "decided" to be an empire. There are different beliefs on this even in America. However, IMHO the American economy being strong and prosperous, along with global has allowed virtually any other nations to ride along on the parade. A bad side effect of that is the world economy depends on what the American economy does which is greatly influenced on the American political system. The American political system is corrupt to the core. Fueled largely by globalization. A case of the mother eating her young, so to speak. America has the look of an empire by default. Since the fall of the USSR, America is the only game in town. To the point that when America breaks wind, the world takes a dump.
 
Quote
I just cannot see any other way out of disaster than to vote for Ron Paul. Hey, when he speaks, even I as a foreigner feel patriotic. Believe me when I say this, I want USA as our ally, as our friend, a strong and free nation. But too many in the great nation has been duped into believing they can force their will on everybody. That has got to stop.

Paul while he speaks a good game has a long history of running for President. He's garnered more support this time around but his lunatic fringe (as referenced by GQ and others) keeps him in clown status. He was doing well early in this election until he opened his mouth on Iran. Iran, not Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the other arab nations are the serious threat to the US and the global economy. Paul believes they should be left alone to do with whatever they wish with nuclear tecvhnology. Leaving Iran alone with nuclear weapons isn't something most Americans are comfortable with.
Quote
PS: This is not an attack on USA or it's people. We in Europe has equal blame in supporting the wars of agression on nations when "promoting democracy" .

Wasn't taken as such. The bottom line here Roy is, the world (lead by the USA) is in a world of shit. I wish I had something patriotic to add but, it just isn't there. You guys across the ocean can point, blame and offer up the same ideas we have over here but at the end of the day, you are all in this boat of shit with us. Whether you wish to believe it or not. Comforting huh?  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on March 29, 2012, 07:19:50 PM
Ron Paul is a smooth talker like Obama, the more i find out about him the less i like.
Yeah, you go right ahead and vote for one of the actors. You feel down because Paul speaks the truth, so on that ground you choose to cast your vote for one of the company men?
 
I feel that USA has been given a chance via Ron Paul to get on the right track again. Don't for a minute think that  your vote counts for nothing. I fimly believe that our actions will count a great deal... at the end!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 29, 2012, 07:37:46 PM
Yeah, you go right ahead and vote for one of the actors. You feel down because Paul speaks the truth, so on that ground you choose to cast your vote for one of the company men?
 
I feel that USA has been given a chance via Ron Paul to get on the right track again. Don't for a minute think that  your vote counts for nothing. I fimly believe that our actions will count a great deal... at the end!


1st - I like a lot of what Ron Paul says in the way of personal freedom and bringing the troops home.
Which BTW are mostly in their 20's...

2nd - He is a Racist and a homophobic person

3rd - His economic ideas will send us in to another great depression.

Take some time and read about President Andrew Jackson..

Ron Paul is a Jacksonian!!

Their is a reason why Hamilton economic ideas beat out Jefferson..

If you don't know who Alexander Hamilton is you need to read some American history.

As Marx said materialism is better than idealism.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on March 29, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
Well, that's the thing. I don't support Paul. I have voted for and sent money to the Gingrich campaign.

That  reminds me of what is so often said here. Don't send money to her before you meet. Have you met Mr. Gingrich?
 

You and I will disagree here. America hasn't to my knowledge "decided" to be an empire.There are different beliefs on this even in America. However, IMHO the American economy being strong and prosperous, along with global has allowed virtually any other nations to ride along on the parade.

As far as I know there is no other empire after the fall of the USSR to contest the military might of USA.
USA has traditionally been effective economy-wise but there are conflicting views concerning it's latter day status as the engine for world economics. Yes, it's still the number 1 in economic output, but it also is important to keep in mind Bretton Woods of 1944 which established the US dollar as the world reserve currency. This means that USA is the only country in the world that can print it's own currency and have it accepted worldwide as hard currency. Oil, gold and so on is reported in US dollars and the US maintain it's empire as long as this system is trusted. Now, because the US is no longer as competitive and also running numerous expensive wars around the globe, this status is at risk.
 

 
Paul while he speaks a good game has a long history of running for President. He's garnered more support this time around but his lunatic fringe (as referenced by GQ and others) keeps him in clown status. He was doing well early in this election until he opened his mouth on Iran. Iran, not Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the other arab nations are the serious threat to the US and the global economy. Paul believes they should be left alone to do with whatever they wish with nuclear tecvhnology. Leaving Iran alone with nuclear weapons isn't something most Americans are comfortable with.
Wasn't taken as such. The bottom line here Roy is, the world (lead by the USA) is in a world of shit. I wish I had something patriotic to add but, it just isn't there. You guys across the ocean can point, blame and offer up the same ideas we have over here but at the end of the day, you are all in this boat of shit with us. Whether you wish to believe it or not. Comforting huh?  :D

Oh man, I'm so surprised to read that you buy into the Iran scare story and how they're just about to get nuclear weapons. I've heard it since 2006... war is imminent. We have to do something. This is in my sincere opinion nonsense and I personally will not take part of it because it can instigate WW3 in the worst case scenario. Come on !!! The American people must be the most afraid people on earth if they believe this. May I remind you the only one in history to ever develop and use atomic weapons are the US.
And what about north Korea? Surely a few nuclear missiles would quiet them down.
 
It surely must be getting more difficult to explain to the US public how it all connects. By Americans we Europeans are ridiculed because we have such high prices at the gas pumps. Yes, the gas prices at the pumps in USA are low but you forget all the military costs of occupying the oil producing contries and what that cost. Only this cost comes to your children and grandchildren. Come on, wake up!!!
 
You want to be patriotic, well, every nation wants to be patriotic. Is it really necessary to use the military might to show it? It's a waste of life and limb and your economy too.
 
Hey, let me tell you there are other criminals against mankind too. My own country of Norway of a mere 5 million people managed to send F-16's to Libya and count 11% of all the bombs dropped there. I had no saying in the decision but at least I wrote my opposition on Facebook!...... It's pathetic.
 
It is really surreal. What I grew up with has proved to be lies. We, in the west, were always the good guys and those in the Soviet Union were beasts. Now our enemies are changed into Muslims.
We are to be sooooo afraid of the Muslims and accepting the control of our own lives because of the treat from outside. There always has to be an enemy, doesn't it?
 
And if the attempt whitch is ongoing to surround Russia is not
successful, the western military forces will angage and
ensure destruction on all of us.
 
Hey, seems to me it's about time my look-alike Vladimir Putin come on stage again and take to task the war-mongeriong anglo-saxon war aggressors?
 
And pleeeease...... those with at least an IQ of 120..... don't fall for the propaganda where ever it comes from. Read the King James Bible!
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on March 29, 2012, 09:41:54 PM
The Natural,

Please tell us of all the oil producing countries that we currently occupy.  Also, please tell us how  much free oil the Americans are receiving from Kuait and Iraq.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on March 29, 2012, 10:06:33 PM
The Natural,

Please tell us of all the oil producing countries that we currently occupy.  Also, please tell us how  much free oil the Americans are receiving from Kuait and Iraq.

Free oil? Did I say free oil? Oh no my friend, if you're not paying for it right now your children will.
 
Let's see. The control of Kuwait via Iraq for untold billions. And one tiny bit of info that I did not mention beacause it might be too complicated. It is not that the powers that be in the USA act on behalf of it's people. I take it as a given informed people know it is not so. The powers of the US tax payers are being used in a game for profit by elite private cooperations in USA and Europe, but by saying so I'm pretty sure I will quickly be labelled a conspiracy therorist, so be it.
 
The British puppet Idi Amin ran Uganda all through the 70's, killing hundreds of thousands, no problem. But a couple of years ago Uganda discovered oil and all of a suddeen the Kony 2012 campaign was unleashed. It's not only oil, it's all natural resources including narcotics.
 
But if you or others wish to remain "patriots" and support the present policies, there is nothing more to say. At least you have been told the truth!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on March 29, 2012, 10:23:23 PM
It is not that the powers that be in the USA act on behalf of it's people. I take it as a given informed people know it is not so. The powers of the US tax payers are being used in a game for profit by elite private cooperations in USA and Europe, but by saying so I'm pretty sure I will quickly be labelled a conspiracy therorist, so be it.


Hang in there The Natural, I do not think you are a conspiracy theorist.  Keep speaking truth to the fundamentalists.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on March 29, 2012, 10:32:14 PM
The Natural,

You did not answer my question...
You have implied that gasoline prices are cheaper in the US as a result of us occupying oil producing countries.
Please tell us what oil producing countries the US is currently occupying!!!

Your premise that we are now getting cheaper gasoline as a result of the Gulf War is not correct either.  The price of gasoline has more than doubled since the Gulf War.  How is it that we are benefitting from cheaper gas, when the cost has more than doubled?

Please answer the first question and then connect the dots for us as to how we are getting cheaper gas as a  result of our occupation.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on March 29, 2012, 10:46:19 PM
The Natural,

We are to be sooooo afraid of the Muslims and accepting the control of our own lives because of the treat from outside.

On this subject you are correct!  We are afraid of the radical Muslims.  And yes, they have a nice treat for us from outside.   Lets see......... World Trade Center, embassy bombings, ship bombings, airline bombings, suicide bombers, etc etc.  Many of us in the US do not like these kind of treats

If you are happy to be a pacifist, that is OK with me.  I would much rather we deal with legitimate threats before the bombs, beheadings, etc. are inflicted on my family and friends.  I respect your right to not protect yourself, your family, or your country.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on March 29, 2012, 11:11:48 PM
calmissile,
 
I've spent a lot of time on this site tonight and now it's time to go to bed. Just to say that by reading your replies to my posts, it will be an utterly futile use of time and energy to answer you. I would have to answer you double, tripple and so on and you would still not understand my answer and still ask questions, as if it's novel.
 
Right now I will go to bed and sleep a few hours. I reckon you will sleep a lot longer but I hope you too will finally one day wake up and smell the coffee... if it isn't rationed by then.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 30, 2012, 12:27:31 AM
...his administration is continuing the previous wars and adding new ones! There's Egypt and Libya and on the books Syria and Iran. Drones over Pakistan and on and on. It never ends, republican or democrat.

Oh the dramatics! I can barely hold back the tears! Wars! Oil! Empires and Videotapes!
 
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/02/13/probe-demanded-of-libya-bombings/ (http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/02/13/probe-demanded-of-libya-bombings/)
 
 
...Right now I will go to bed and sleep a few hours. I reckon you will sleep a lot longer but I hope you too will finally one day wake up and smell the coffee... if it isn't rationed by then.

Cream and sugar with that?
 
Unless you'd rather skip the coffee altogether and clean the glass house you live in. It's a bit murky these days...guess who primarily need Libyan oil?
 
I really do find Europeans sentiments about aggression ridiculous. Demonize the US for aggression against a tyrant in Iraq, but doesn't seem to mind doing it themselves against a tyrant in Libya with Sarkozy loudly proclaming "Qaddafi must go!". Nope, no protest, no exhaustive UN theatrical deliberations, no diplomacy over Cafe au Lait. Zip, nada, zero...just bomb! bomb! bomb!
 
Funny that, eh?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on March 30, 2012, 12:41:45 AM
Now that we have a clear picture of the choices we have for our next leader, I ask again, Is this the best we can do?

It sure looks that way. It's gotten to the point where the person with the least campaign (financial) support is definitely the least influenced candidate. Unfortunately that's a double-edged sword. Meaning, that person won't make it through passed the first prime-time campaign party bash.

Quote
...This election will not be about who is the best person to be our president, but rather, who is the lesser of the evils...

Sad, isn't it? We have a clown, a fake and the devil himself.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on March 30, 2012, 03:25:17 AM

That  reminds me of what is so often said here. Don't send money to her before you meet. Have you met Mr. Gingrich?
 

Actually, yes I have but that isn't the point nor the reason I supported his campaign.

Quote
As far as I know there is no other empire after the fall of the USSR to contest the military might of USA.
USA has traditionally been effective economy-wise but there are conflicting views concerning it's latter day status as the engine for world economics. Yes, it's still the number 1 in economic output, but it also is important to keep in mind Bretton Woods of 1944 which established the US dollar as the world reserve currency. This means that USA is the only country in the world that can print it's own currency and have it accepted worldwide as hard currency. Oil, gold and so on is reported in US dollars and the US maintain it's empire as long as this system is trusted. Now, because the US is no longer as competitive and also running numerous expensive wars around the globe, this status is at risk.
 
I believe you are mistaken. Bretton Woods didn't establish the USD as the world reserve currency. Maybe you should check your information. That didn't happen until 1971 when the US dropped the gold standard but, don't let the facts get in the way of a good myth  ;D
Quote
Oh man, I'm so surprised to read that you buy into the Iran scare story and how they're just about to get nuclear weapons. I've heard it since 2006... war is imminent. We have to do something. This is in my sincere opinion nonsense and I personally will not take part of it because it can instigate WW3 in the worst case scenario. Come on !!! The American people must be the most afraid people on earth if they believe this. May I remind you the only one in history to ever develop and use atomic weapons are the US.
And what about north Korea? Surely a few nuclear missiles would quiet them down.
 
It surely must be getting more difficult to explain to the US public how it all connects. By Americans we Europeans are ridiculed because we have such high prices at the gas pumps. Yes, the gas prices at the pumps in USA are low but you forget all the military costs of occupying the oil producing contries and what that cost. Only this cost comes to your children and grandchildren. Come on, wake up!!!
 
You want to be patriotic, well, every nation wants to be patriotic. Is it really necessary to use the military might to show it? It's a waste of life and limb and your economy too.
 

Roy, you asked the question, I gave you the answer. I can't help it that you don't like it. Be more careful of the questions you ask.

Quote
Hey, let me tell you there are other criminals against mankind too. My own country of Norway of a mere 5 million people managed to send F-16's to Libya and count 11% of all the bombs dropped there. I had no saying in the decision but at least I wrote my opposition on Facebook!...... It's pathetic.

My will and voice in America is even more diluted than yours in Norway but I don't depend on Facebook to put it out there. I support politicians I hope will make the correct decisions for "me"  ;D I vote and speak with my pocketbook
 
Quote
It is really surreal. What I grew up with has proved to be lies. We, in the west, were always the good guys and those in the Soviet Union were beasts. Now our enemies are changed into Muslims.
We are to be sooooo afraid of the Muslims and accepting the control of our own lives because of the treat from outside. There always has to be an enemy, doesn't it?

All governments are based on the premise of a boogeyman. Fear is a very effective tool to control the masses. Second probably only to religion.
 
Quote
And if the attempt whitch is ongoing to surround Russia is not
successful, the western military forces will angage and
ensure destruction on all of us.
 
Hey, seems to me it's about time my look-alike Vladimir Putin come on stage again and take to task the war-mongeriong anglo-saxon war aggressors?
 

C'mon Roy. This statement is pure hyperbole. NATO is antiquated, Russia is no military threat and only an economic threat to Europe at this juncture. Russia is in no danger from the West and they know it. Now who's lapping up the propaganda?
Quote
And pleeeease...... those with at least an IQ of 120..... don't fall for the propaganda where ever it comes from. Read the King James Bible!
Thats probably a discussion you need to have with your most ardent supporter SF and EE there
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pitbull on March 30, 2012, 05:06:43 AM

i am 27, my generation does not feel entitled? we have been told our whole life we wold have to pay for the social security of the baby boomers yet we would receive nothing for our payments. we have seen all the jobs transferred over seas. uncontrolled immigration the has brought down our wages, all to boost the income of the rich with cheap labor. it's a basic capitalistic idea, the more surplus of any good lowers prices. i don't feel entitled i feel robed of my future. education prices have skyrocketed yet our pay has dropped.

\
Darth, I have to agree!
American baby-bommers have the highest sense of entitlement of all generations. Aside from controlling most of the country's wealth, having grown up and matured during the economic uprise of the US, they dare to accuse the young Americans of entitlement attutude! All the while they do believe that they have already paid for their SS and Medicare and are now entitled to full medical benefits till their last breath! Don't give a damn if the whole country goes bancrupt as a result, if our kids don't get decent education or young people have to die if they don't have insurance or money to pay the crazy medical bills!
 
As my former boss, a very distinguished 75 y.o. MIT professor says, "The 20-30 y. olds are the first generation that will have a life worse than their parents had. It sucks to be young these days".
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 30, 2012, 05:33:23 AM
Thank you Pittbull,, I am assuming you are a women from a FSU, I am glade you can see this bull shit and think of what really matters in this life.

Your Children....

That is why I am fighting now with my off site political work. I don't want anything...
I just want a good life for my Daughter and hopefully my future children.


What makes American children better than children in Russia, South America or Africa Children?
Nothing! We as Americans must stand up and say we will accept no goods made by children through
Child labor. Who are paid slave wages. Think about that next time you have a bit of chocolate to eat.

Were did it come from? Our climate does not produce these taste beans? Were are they made?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8583000/8583499.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8583000/8583499.stm) 

I hope the BBC news is reputable enough for my fellow Americans...

I don't consider my self a liberal... I look into a issue and try to make informed decisions.
My views are on both sides of the the political mainstay. I do lean towards true economic Socialism though. The wealth of this planet should be used for the betterment of all the society and not just the
people in my own country.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on March 30, 2012, 07:42:41 AM
As my former boss, a very distinguished 75 y.o. MIT professor says, "The 20-30 y. olds are the first generation that will have a life worse than their parents had. It sucks to be young these days".


Methinks the generation thar came of age in the great Depression might have disagreed ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 30, 2012, 09:51:08 AM

Methinks the generation thar came of age in the great Depression might have disagreed ;)


I think the great depression generation would understand more than you think about these issues..

After all, the great depression of the 1930 was caused by Wall Street speculation and Corporate greed.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on March 30, 2012, 11:24:12 AM

I think the great depression generation would understand more than you think about these issues..

After all, the great depression of the 1930 was caused by Wall Street speculation and Corporate greed.


The professor in question said that this was the FIRST generation to be poorer than their parents' generation... Clearly, this is not the case.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pitbull on March 30, 2012, 12:42:20 PM

The professor in question said that this was the FIRST generation to be poorer than their parents' generation... Clearly, this is not the case.

Well, the great depression lasted 1929-roughly mid-thirties in the US. The generation that came to age during that time still fared better than their parents in the long run. The Professor meant that the current generation of 20-30 y.-olds are the first generation that will fare worth than their parents over the lifetime, it's just not gonna be better, period. We are talking global structural changes here.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 30, 2012, 12:58:01 PM

The professor in question said that this was the FIRST generation to be poorer than their parents' generation... Clearly, this is not the case.

i can see your point. their has been several great depressions through out American history.

but most were somewhat short lived "10-20 years." also at earlier points in history most Americans were farmers so the depression effected fewer people.

but the professor has  point, in he long run even when the current depression ends, their will still be fewer economic options than the 1930's generation had. with increased energy costs and the huge baby boomer generation that will stretch the resources of the numerical smaller generations after them. we should look to japan to view one possible future for the united states. japan is currently going  through this very same issue. one hing that may help the US is the fact we have large amounts of farm land, in the future food stuffs may become one of our most important exports. it's hard to tell i lost my Crystal ball last month.  ;)

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on March 30, 2012, 01:15:24 PM
\

American baby-bommers have the highest sense of entitlement of all generations. Aside from controlling most of the country's wealth, having grown up and matured during the economic uprise of the US, they dare to accuse the young Americans of entitlement attutude! All the while they do believe that they have already paid for their SS and Medicare and are now entitled to full medical benefits till their last breath! Don't give a damn if the whole country goes bancrupt as a result, if our kids don't get decent education or young people have to die if they don't have insurance or money to pay the crazy medical bills!



Dozens of examples to support this statement.  One of the most powerful is all politicians do not even entertain a discussion of means testing Baby Boomers Social Security, but Gen X and younger is in play.  One of the most important qualities of a political leader in these times is someone who will fight the Boomers.  They will start dying soon enough and they have been voting themselves unfunded entitlements their entire lives.  They have been voting for and living on credit card debt (government pensions, military contracts, unfunded tax benefits, medicare) their whole adult lives. It is time the younger generations start responding with you get what you saved.  Not what you promised yourself from us.  President Obama is younger than every candidate for American president, the next closest being the religious fundamentalist nut who has no boundaries on imposing religious beliefs on non-believers.  Rick Santorum.  Kind of an American Taliban thing going on there.  Vote young, vote accountable, vote constitutional (that includes letting Jesus worry about the religious stuff after we die)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on March 30, 2012, 03:36:36 PM
but the professor has  point, in he long run even when the current depression ends, their will still be fewer economic options than the 1930's generation had.


Perhaps, but only time can tell. For all we know, new technologies will be invented that will create new opportunities that will make all of today's problems moot points...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: newjason on March 31, 2012, 03:28:19 AM

Perhaps, but only time can tell. For all we know, new technologies will be invented that will create new opportunities that will make all of today's problems moot points...

You are Correct Misha.

what is disturbing to me is that it seems that some young people here have already given up on this way of thinking, declaring that they will be worse off than their Folks.

it's pretty normal to feel melancholy in your 20's
It will pass, and so will the economic downturn.


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 31, 2012, 05:01:09 AM

but the professor has  point, in he long run even when the current depression ends, their will still be fewer economic options than the 1930's generation had.

Don't know why folks keep saying we're still in a depression.  It ended over a year ago and we're well into recovery.

What surprises me a bit is that many big companies used the crisis to downsize.  They basically dropped the fat and became meaner / leaner.  This exacerbated unemployment problems but even that is heading in the right direction.  Downside is a sneaky feeling I have that overall this gave corporations and companies that previously fired opportunity to now hire at lower wages.

The baby boom generation will soon be retiring and that will be the huge hurdle in the next 20 years.  Wealth will continue to concentrate creating a huge economic gap without a middle class that can support the aging.  Doesn't take much to figure out who will end up taking care of the elderly.  Social security is barely enough to live on now days,  just a bare minimum.  With healthcare in the final year of life representing over 30% of all healthcare costs it's a disaster in the making that will make the 2008/9 financial crisis look simple in comparison.  SCOTUS may rule against Obamacare, but something similar will be back.. guaranteed.

As for energy, the old principle 'it's easier to save a dollar than earn one' will rule.  Technology like solar energy which is now available at rock bottom prices (1/3rd or less than 5 years ago) will continue to grow and be available for the common household.  It will become as essential to new housing as a heating / cooling system is today.  Prices for energy will keep rising though as the 'old' infrastructure needs to be maintained.  Transportation costs will also keep rising but there are plenty of alternatives there.  Believe it or not the minivan system seen in many countries like UA, RU, TU etc is quite efficient.. I'd like to see that become a part of public transport in other countries.  Heck, it gets you from the airport to the car rental lot so why should it not work elsewhere..




Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 31, 2012, 05:22:36 AM
Don't know why folks keep saying we're still in a depression.  It ended over a year ago and we're well into recovery.

What surprises me a bit is that many big companies used the crisis to downsize.  They basically dropped the fat and became meaner / leaner.  This exacerbated unemployment problems but even that is heading in the right direction.  Downside is a sneaky feeling I have that overall this gave corporations and companies that previously fired opportunity to now hire at lower wages.

The baby boom generation will soon be retiring and that will be the huge hurdle in the next 20 years.  Wealth will continue to concentrate creating a huge economic gap without a middle class that can support the aging.  Doesn't take much to figure out who will end up taking care of the elderly.  Social security is barely enough to live on now days,  just a bare minimum.  With healthcare in the final year of life representing over 30% of all healthcare costs it's a disaster in the making that will make the 2008/9 financial crisis look simple in comparison.  SCOTUS may rule against Obamacare, but something similar will be back.. guaranteed.

As for energy, the old principle 'it's easier to save a dollar than earn one' will rule.  Technology like solar energy which is now available at rock bottom prices (1/3rd or less than 5 years ago) will continue to grow and be available for the common household.  It will become as essential to new housing as a heating / cooling system is today.  Prices for energy will keep rising though as the 'old' infrastructure needs to be maintained.  Transportation costs will also keep rising but there are plenty of alternatives there.  Believe it or not the minivan system seen in many countries like UA, RU, TU etc is quite efficient.. I'd like to see that become a part of public transport in other countries.  Heck, it gets you from the airport to the car rental lot so why should it not work elsewhere..

Interesting BC, So you think a form of Socialized health care is being pushed because the baby boomers don't want to pay for their own health care...

Instead of because the poor need the help most.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 31, 2012, 05:53:22 AM
Interesting BC, So you think a form of Socialized health care is being pushed because the baby boomers don't want to pay for their own health care...

Instead of because the poor need the help most.

You can call it socialized or whatever, the term does not matter.. in any case healthcare cannot remain one term: Expensive....  compare costs with other 'socialized' healthcare countries..  and guess what.. life expectancy is lower. 

It's way out of whack

(http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif)

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm

Bottom line, no bang for BIG BUCK.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 31, 2012, 05:58:34 AM
The only way to lower Health care cost is to encourage more young people to Become doctors.. I bet it's almost that simple.

To do this we need public/Socialized education for doctors. I am sure their are many young people who want to be doctors but can't afford the cost of schools.

Also we need to think of building publicly owned pharmaceutical  companies to produce some of the drugs that the big companies don't want or can't make enough profit from.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 31, 2012, 06:01:03 AM
Interesting BC, So you think a form of Socialized health care is being pushed because the baby boomers don't want to pay for their own health care...

Instead of because the poor need the help most.

Baby boomer, poor, rich, no matter... someone pays for it.

A good example, due to the economic crisis, costs for prescribed medicine here dropped about 10 to 15%  Government basically says either lower your prices or we'll raise your taxes.  Good system.. lol
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on March 31, 2012, 06:18:30 AM
The only way to lower Health care cost is to encourage more young people to Become doctors.. I bet it's almost that simple.


I would tend to disagree with you.  First, I think you believe the average doctor makes far more than he does.   I will agree that a brain surgeon or heart surgeon makes good money but most doctors don't make as much as you think.   I know a couple of doctors who went back to school to become lawyers because their income was so low.   Flooding the market with doctors would reduce the pay but for every doctor who sticks a stethoscope on your chest it takes three support people to keep him going.  Streamlining the paperwork, and improving efficiency could cut costs far more.  For every buck he charges you or your insurance company 40 cents of that is in some way related to the risk of lawsuits.  Tort reform could cut medical costs far more.  There are far better ways of reducing medical costs than flooding the market with doctors.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on March 31, 2012, 06:27:16 AM

I would tend to disagree with you.  First, I think you believe the average doctor makes far more than he does.   I will agree that a brain surgeon or heart surgeon makes good money but most doctors don't make as much as you think.   I know a couple of doctors who went back to school to become lawyers because their income was so low.   Flooding the market with doctors would reduce the pay but for every doctor who sticks a stethoscope on your chest it takes three support people to keep him going.  Streamlining the paperwork, and improving efficiency could cut costs far more.  For every buck he charges you or your insurance company 40 cents of that is in some way related to the risk of lawsuits.  Tort reform could cut medical costs far more.  There are far better ways of reducing medical costs than flooding the market with doctors.

I can agree to tort reform, But i would rather see both happen.
So less advantaged areas could have as many doctors as advantaged ones.
Poor rural areas need more doctors, besides it's a noble profession. Much more important to society than more stock brokers or lawyers.


I think insurance companies are a scam.. I understand what they do but they should not make millions from the industry. They should be re-organized in to Non-profit shared money pools.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on March 31, 2012, 02:55:57 PM
Tort reform is only a part of the problem.

The huge parts:

Pharmaceuticals and extraordinary measures deemed necessary for end of life care.  It seems all are still after that (expensive) elixir that will prolong life but statistically does not.  It is a big money maker though.

There is a big difference between a HMO negotiating kickbacks for pharma and a country leveraging lower prices.  Instead of devoting a third or more of expensive resources trying to cure instead of providing a measure of comfort for those who will pass on put those funds to use in preventative medicine...

Actually Obamacare is not radical enough..  Miss your mandated yearly checkup or follow up appointments and you should be fined instead.  That will increase longevity and quality of life.

Healthcare is a benefit for society, a bottom up environment.  Once the general population grasps that concept things will change and objections will fall.

As an expat living overseas, I have never, ever seen a medical bill.. with one exception - a minor procedure while visiting in US.  The lab costs were twice that what the doctor charged.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on March 31, 2012, 05:29:37 PM

...
 
And pleeeease...... those with at least an IQ of 120..... don't fall for the propaganda where ever it comes from. Read the King James Bible!




Gotta love this line..   ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on April 01, 2012, 03:40:53 AM
Somewhat  :offtopic:  now, but very true!
 
...Transportation costs will also keep rising but there are plenty of alternatives there.  Believe it or not the minivan system seen in many countries like UA, RU, TU etc is quite efficient.. I'd like to see that become a part of public transport in other countries.  Heck, it gets you from the airport to the car rental lot so why should it not work elsewhere..

People here moan about public transport (buses mainly, although occasionally about the suburban rail system - there don't seem to be complaints about the ferry services) because there are so many areas in this huge city that are just not served, or the service is minimal (e.g. one bus per hour off-peak, or two buses on a Sunday).  I totally agree that something like a marshrutka set-up would be a huge improvement in many parts of town.
 
Unfortunately I don't have the money to set it up - perhaps ML could sell another one or two of his properties and become our benefactor?  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 01, 2012, 10:53:10 AM
The only way to lower Health care cost is to encourage more young people to Become doctors.. I bet it's almost that simple.

To do this we need public/Socialized education for doctors. I am sure their are many young people who want to be doctors but can't afford the cost of schools.

Also we need to think of building publicly owned pharmaceutical  companies to produce some of the drugs that the big companies don't want or can't make enough profit from.

The first thing that needs to happen is that healthcare becomes an entitlement officially.  I say 'officially' because de facto it is when emergency rooms usually cannot refuse care to those without insurance or money.   

Those who are not insured often go this route and know well the 'symptoms' that have to be present in order to get care.  Downside is that ER care is much much more expensive than just going to your doctor for a simple ailment or prescription.  It seems this might also be the preferred 'way to go' for those that do have insurance but requires a co-pay / deductible.

In addition many who avoid going to the doctor due to cost factors or inability to pay may just wait and wait until their symptoms become unavoidable and at the same time more expensive to treat.

Once this critical first step establishing entitlement happens, the rest of the puzzle can start to fall into place.. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on April 01, 2012, 12:07:08 PM
Tort reform is only a part of the problem.

The huge parts:

Pharmaceuticals and extraordinary measures deemed necessary for end of life care.  It seems all are still after that (expensive) elixir that will prolong life but statistically does not.  It is a big money maker though.

There is a big difference between a HMO negotiating kickbacks for pharma and a country leveraging lower prices.  Instead of devoting a third or more of expensive resources trying to cure instead of providing a measure of comfort for those who will pass on put those funds to use in preventative medicine...

Actually Obamacare is not radical enough..  Miss your mandated yearly checkup or follow up appointments and you should be fined instead.  That will increase longevity and quality of life.

Healthcare is a benefit for society, a bottom up environment.  Once the general population grasps that concept things will change and objections will fall.

As an expat living overseas, I have never, ever seen a medical bill.. with one exception - a minor procedure while visiting in US.  The lab costs were twice that what the doctor charged.

I think when you get down to the nuts and bolts you'd likely find that few are against a universal healthcare system. What I, and many in my particular circle oppose is it being an entity of this lazy, polarized, corrupt government we have. A healthcare system instituted and run by the same people who give us the IRS and the Department of Energy. Our government isn't capable. Reference the current national debt. I don't wish to assign these people with my insurance premiums or rely on them for my care. The cost of the Obamacare has doubled since the initial ramming down the throats just 3 years ago. It's doubled in 3 years. Do you not see where this is heading?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 01, 2012, 12:58:01 PM
I think when you get down to the nuts and bolts you'd likely find that few are against a universal healthcare system. What I, and many in my particular circle oppose is it being an entity of this lazy, polarized, corrupt government we have. A healthcare system instituted and run by the same people who give us the IRS and the Department of Energy. Our government isn't capable. Reference the current national debt. I don't wish to assign these people with my insurance premiums or rely on them for my care. The cost of the Obamacare has doubled since the initial ramming down the throats just 3 years ago. It's doubled in 3 years. Do you not see where this is heading?

Actually no one can see where it is heading, especially before June.  I am quite familiar with socialized medicine throughout a good part of Europe and know it can work if there is a will to do so.  That 'will' is obviously ignored with 'political will' ruling in favor of bizness.  At the same time the costs going forward with or without a program is massive.  I think what is happening is that 'all is well' until the crisis hits.. and it will be a big one. 

I do get your point though and even agree..  Add unlimited corporate election contributions to the mix and I really get it.  Democracy? Try rule by lobby.

Maybe the answer is simply to do nothing..  Care will have to be cut for those that cannot pay.  This might lead to lower life expectancy which would also work positively for programs like social security in the longer run.

As stated upthread, Obamacare did not go far enough.  Something much more radical is needed.

In Germany, there are around a dozen government health insurers that compete for the business.  Some even offer a few perks, but there is a minimum coverage level set by the government, profits are capped and all contribute to a superfund to balance the risks.  Everyone is guaranteed coverage but those with higher income can opt for a number of private insurers.  Co-pay is quite reasonable, maybe 50 bucks a quarter and a small co-pay for medicine with emphasis on generics, usually a couple bucks.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 01, 2012, 03:18:57 PM
I think when you get down to the nuts and bolts you'd likely find that few are against a universal healthcare system. What I, and many in my particular circle oppose is it being an entity of this lazy, polarized, corrupt government we have. A healthcare system instituted and run by the same people who give us the IRS and the Department of Energy. Our government isn't capable. Reference the current national debt. I don't wish to assign these people with my insurance premiums or rely on them for my care. The cost of the Obamacare has doubled since the initial ramming down the throats just 3 years ago. It's doubled in 3 years. Do you not see where this is heading?


Maybe we should let let the doctors run the health care system with out the politician... Worker run cooperatives on a massive scale. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 02, 2012, 03:32:38 AM

Worker run cooperatives on a massive scale.

Well, doctor overbilling is a problem..

But the general idea is to get everyone enrolled in some program.  That's the only way to spread the risk and provide leverage against suppliers and healthcare providers.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on April 02, 2012, 07:57:26 PM
Actually no one can see where it is heading, especially before June.  I am quite familiar with socialized medicine throughout a good part of Europe and know it can work if there is a will to do so.  That 'will' is obviously ignored with 'political will' ruling in favor of bizness.  At the same time the costs going forward with or without a program is massive.  I think what is happening is that 'all is well' until the crisis hits.. and it will be a big one. 

I do get your point though and even agree..  Add unlimited corporate election contributions to the mix and I really get it.  Democracy? Try rule by lobby.

Maybe the answer is simply to do nothing..  Care will have to be cut for those that cannot pay.  This might lead to lower life expectancy which would also work positively for programs like social security in the longer run.

As stated upthread, Obamacare did not go far enough.  Something much more radical is needed.

In Germany, there are around a dozen government health insurers that compete for the business.  Some even offer a few perks, but there is a minimum coverage level set by the government, profits are capped and all contribute to a superfund to balance the risks.  Everyone is guaranteed coverage but those with higher income can opt for a number of private insurers.  Co-pay is quite reasonable, maybe 50 bucks a quarter and a small co-pay for medicine with emphasis on generics, usually a couple bucks.

It's a political football. Two Democratic Presidents have used it to get elected. Neither with any intention of actually serving the need, just serving their purpose. There are a number of models that can actually work and not put the burden on the working taxpayer. The first move would be to take politics completely out of the equation but, that will truly be a cold day in Hell in this country.

If Obamacare were to continue it would only be a matter of time before the politicians from both sides would be passing laws to allow themselves access to the massive amounts of money it would generate.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: newjason on April 04, 2012, 01:30:33 AM
This Healthcare issue is a very slippery slope.
While affordable care is what we all can agree on, The way it is being brought to fruition is not.
This at one time was a free country.
How can the government of a free country, FORCE you to purchase medical insurance? 
By being told what we need, we are not free to choose.
We are free t choose to pay, but not free to opt out.
This is insane.

Let me put this in perspective.


===============ATTENTION========================================
Next week, Google, along with it's advertisers, sponsors,  and Data collection Firms, have been awarded the Government Contract for the new
UNIVERSAL CLEAN INTERNET INTEROPERABILITY COLLECTIVE
or
UCIIC

This new legislation will revolutionize the way we communicate over the internet and across all data networks. 
from this point forward,  when you log on to the internet,  you and all of your data will be re - directed through a special proxy network where your activities will be preformed in a secure area and will be monitored and if needed, censored to make a better safer experience for all Americans.  Google will be introducing the new IRONFIST Browser, it will feature targeted ADS, specific to you and your habits.
 All of your personal information will be given to Google and Kept safely In their network Databases. This information will be evaluated continually by google and reported to the Government for future evidence and creation of your specific profile. 
This IRONFIST browser will be the most beneficial tool for everyone, as it will  be the Only Browser that will be able to access the New Internet.
If you attempt to access the New Internet with any other browser, it will no longer work, as Google
has worked with the Government and re-written all the networking Protocalls, forming a Standard that will be the best for Everyone.  If you are caught tampering with IRONFIST, Google.s New Internet, its proxies, or protocalls, You will be arrested immediately and punished with a $1000 fine and 90 days Collecting Personal Information from your fellow Americans.  We know what is best for Americans, and  We bring Affordable NEW Internet to Everyone. The Internet is available to everyone, and the Cost to Americans is only &399.99 / month
This monthly charge with be automatically deducted from you Income, each and every month, beginning Next Week.  Since all existing network technologies will no longer function on the New Internet, all existing data shall be come the property of the US government, Google, and the Original owner of the content, It will be archived and stored automatically, and over the transition period, will become obsolete and no longer needed by our Citizens and will be conveniently destroyed for you.
Since Google IRON uses Data collection and censoring technologies and sends data to real-time monitoring stations,  there now will be only one web site  called  Social-Space  and will be your only source for all your New Internet activities.
You are required to login at least 2 times per day. If you are unable , or un willing to login,  You will be taken through a training course to educate you on the err of your ways.
The monthly charge is for all Americans, and Is non-negotiable.  You will be charged this charge without exception, and you can-not opt out or choose another solution as The New Internet is for Everyone.

++++++++++++=============+++++++++++++++++++

So after you are forced to have healthcare insurance, what is next?
Your Internet?
Your Car?
Social Justice For All


If we live in a free country, then we have the right to say ,
No, the government does NOT know what is best for me.
If I want to Eat Big Macs 5 times A day, It's my choice.
If I want To Smoke Cigarettes, and Eat Fat for desert,  I will.
If ibecome 500 pounds and a walking Cancer Culture,  THAT IS MY LIFE, and there fore my choice. If I choose to watch TV and Drink  Pepsi and eat Cheetoes all day On sundays while I watch football, and do not attend church,  Tough Banannas. I can. I am Responsible for what I do. No one else. If I make good choices, who is to thank?  I am. If I make BAD choices, why is to blame?  I am.  I am the only one who can control my destiny, I make the choices, Not the government.

No one should have the power to force their Will upon me, unless I have the same and equal power to force my will upon them.


Now of course all of this is fiction and presented as satire. to prove a point.  Once you allow your freedom to be imposed upon by a government that thinks it knows what is better for you than you do, it will never end.

Then you loose your freedom to post your opinions openly and while not everyone agrees, thinks, or even acts the same, We all have an opportunity to have a voice and a choice.
Thanks to DAN and the Moderating Crew, or lack thereof.  :)
 

I predict that I will be the center of alot of sharp opposition, but that just proves my point, the fact that you can disagree  openly, and the fact that I can take it, we have those choices.  Don't let the government change that.
 

If you don't think obamaCare is BAD   read the damn Bill.   it's 1250 pages.  I read it. It is scary.  Congress did not read it,  most citizens have never read it.  How can you know what it is, if you don't read the Legislation?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 03:50:55 AM
I live in New York,,,

They force me to buy car insurance, If I choose to drive a car on Public roads,,,,,

This is nothing new.. So I don't see how it could be unconstitutional...

I would much prefer, Single payer gov't health care.. I can pay my medical premiums through my taxes.. 

EDIT:

It's kinda like private schools paid for with vouchers...

You get a voucher which is government money because people don't feel like fixing the system.

Than people take this tax money and give it to a private company...
I don't want my taxes going to support private schools.. But no one ever asked me...


No society on earth is free,,
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 04, 2012, 06:55:40 AM
I live in New York,,,

They force me to buy car insurance, If I choose to drive a car on Public roads,,,,,

This is nothing new.. So I don't see how it could be unconstitutional..

A quick lesson:  There are two stark differences in your auto insurance from Obamacare:

1,  You have the choice to not own a car.

2.  States' rights - political rights reserved for state governments vs. the Federal government.  Federal law is binding on states only if enacted  in accord with constitutionally granted powers.  Any law that exceeds such powers is voidable.   This is so basic to the American way.
 
We all agree that healthcare needs major overhaul.  If  3  years ago Obama had endeavored to work with the democratically Republican members of Congress, this would not be an issue today, and our country would have in place a better system.  With a majority in Congress, Obama had the authority and power to ignore the Republicans and that is what he did.  Not one Republican voted for the Bill.  Not one.   
 
A real leader would have used his influence.   If you examine history of leadership, the best leaders rely far more on influence than power and authority.  For examples, consider the recent toppling of government leaders in the Middle East.  Many people voted for Obama because of the perception that he would be a leader for all of us.  Surprise!



 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 04, 2012, 06:56:36 AM
I live in New York,,,

They force me to buy car insurance, If I choose to drive a car on Public roads,,,,,

This is nothing new.. So I don't see how it could be unconstitutional...


Was thinking along the same lines.

The primary reason for car insurance is to cover damages that one inflicts on others and to the public property.  Run into a light pole or guardrail  and your insurance pays for repair or a new pole.  It also addresses damages that would go way beyond the means of a citizen to self insure.

When someone without insurance turns up at the ER, this does damage the public and the amounts we talk about these days for treatment of serious and almost unavoidable illness is also beyond the means of citizens to self insure.

However...

Quote
Congress adopted the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945, which declared that states should regulate the business of insurance and to affirm that the continued regulation of the insurance industry by the states is in the public's best interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance

This I believe might be a hitch before SCOTUS..

But.... healthcare programs like medicare and medicaid are federal IIRC, so might make the discussion moot as it would be very silly in a mobile society to keep health insurance regulation at the state level. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 04, 2012, 07:07:54 AM

A quick lesson:  There are two stark differences in your auto insurance from Obamacare:

1,  You have the choice to not own a car.

2.  States' rights - political rights reserved for state governments vs. the Federal government.  Federal law is binding on states only if enacted  in accord with constitutionally granted powers.  Any law that exceeds such powers is voidable.   This is so basic to the American way.
 
We all agree that healthcare needs major overhaul.  If  3  years ago Obama had endeavored to work with the democratically Republican members of Congress, this would not be an issue today, and our country would have in place a better system.  With a majority in Congress, Obama had the authority and power to ignore the Republicans and that is what he did.  Not one Republican voted for the Bill.  Not one.   
 
A real leader would have used his influence.   If you examine history of leadership, the best leaders rely far more on influence than power and authority.  For examples, consider the recent toppling of government leaders in the Middle East.  Many people voted for Obama because of the perception that he would be a leader for all of us.  Surprise!

Gator,

For the majority of Americans, is it realistic or even possible to live without a car?  I don't think that is a reasonable choice.

State rights as addressed above.  Congress can pass laws assigning regulatory power to states or deem it a federal task.. they do it all the time. FDA vs gun control for example. It's a choice.  I do agree though that there is a grey zone with Obamacare, one that SCOTUS will figure out.

As to passing the law, a new President has to first build influence but even that is not really his job.  His job is simply to make proposals to Congress and to sign or veto what they spit out that's it.  You're right though all the politicking messes things up quite a bit.

Can you recall any healthcare proposals the Republicans proposed at the time Obamacare was passed?  I'd really be interested to find out what their ideas were.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: newjason on April 04, 2012, 07:13:07 AM
They force you to have auto insurance because you CHOOSE to drive an auto mobile, which is a privilege and you have a choice to do  it or not.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 04, 2012, 07:21:36 AM

As to passing the law, a new President has to first build influence but even that is not really his job.  His job is simply to make proposals to Congress and to sign or veto what they spit out that's it.

Thank you!  Yes, that is his legal authority.    He also had the power in the form of a Democrat majority in Congress, given by the new members swept into office on his coat tails.    Where was his influence?   You have children.  What works best with them:  authority, power or influence?
 
Quote
one that SCOTUS will figure out   

Have you been reading Obama's combative questioning of the Supreme Court's authority?   

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html)   

Our elected leader has a strange sense of what is right and wrong.
 
 
Quote
Can you recall any healthcare proposals the Republicans proposed at the time Obamacare was passed?  I'd really be interested to find out what their ideas were.
   

I recall multiple bills. Even today some new attempts are being floated. 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 04, 2012, 07:31:00 AM
This sign says it all.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 04, 2012, 09:54:17 AM
Thank you!  Yes, that is his legal authority.    He also had the power in the form of a Democrat majority in Congress, given by the new members swept into office on his coat tails.    Where was his influence?   You have children.  What works best with them:  authority, power or influence?

Gator,

even with a couple kids  it takes time to find the right mix.  Trying to do it with 535 kids... I don't think anyone can.

 
Quote

Have you been reading Obama's combative questioning of the Supreme Court's authority?   

Our elected leader has a strange sense of what is right and wrong.

Yeah, but hard to tell who's spinning the best with it.. media or pundits

Seems there are different views on presidents criticizing SCOTUS.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290019

Quote
Right-wing media are attacking President Obama for his criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC during the State of the Union, calling it "unprecedented" and accusing the president of "intimidation." In fact, Obama's comments were not "unprecedented"; Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have previously used the State of the Union to criticize judicial actions, including those of the Supreme Court.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/03/26/santorum-criticizes-romney-at-supreme-court/

Rick Santorum took his presidential campaign to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that he is the best GOP candidate to repeal the national health care law.As the nine justices began three days of oral arguments on President Obama’s health care law, Santorum pressed his case today against Mitt Romney outside the court building. Protesters could be heard chanting “health care is a right.”

Quote

I recall multiple bills. Even today some new attempts are being floated.

Any details?  I guess I missed it but would be interested to see what they did propose aside from cutting medicare and such.  Was there any proposal that included universal health care?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 04, 2012, 11:18:02 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-usa-obama-congress-idUSBRE83310N20120404

How many years did it take to figure this out and start doing something about it?

Shame on Obama and every President before....

Hope there is more to come along these lines.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 01:52:29 PM
They force you to have auto insurance because you CHOOSE to drive an auto mobile, which is a privilege and you have a choice to do  it or not.


you must live in a urban area,,,

their is no public transportation..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 04, 2012, 02:02:28 PM
their is no public transportation..

Very few crosswalks either...walking a mile for a Camel is one thing... walking forever for a crosswalk another.

Believe me... I've tried.

(http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/mtrwgkiie90vg4.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 04:47:15 PM
Saying driving is a choice in the rural parts of the country is a joke,,,,

Plain and simple....


One thing is for sure if we can hold onto a universal health care system for a few more years,, It's gonna be hard to take it away,, That is why i support Obama-care.

I hope it evolves into a single payer health care system. Paid for by taxes.. Kick the insurance companies to the curb...

This freedom line is just plain bull... Freedom for who?
Those with enough money to get the health care they need??
If we had better mental health care in america It would benefit everyone..

Living in a society is a choice. A choice that requires you to pay taxes..

This fascist Neo-con/Libertarian crap is bullshit...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 04, 2012, 04:54:51 PM
Saying driving is a choice in the rural parts of the country is a joke,,,,


No, it isn't.


Just as choosing to live in a rural part of the country isn't a joke either. It's also a choice.


'That' is plain and simple.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 05:22:40 PM

No, it isn't.


Just as choosing to live in a rural part of the country isn't a joke either. It's also a choice.


'That' is plain and simple.

So now your saying i got to choose my parents and were i was born?

lol,,, get real...

next your gonna say i got to choose the color of my skin?


it's a choice to be greedy...
it's a choice to only care about ones self...

if things continue you won't have a choice when the working class rises up, and takes back what is rightfully theirs.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 04, 2012, 05:42:33 PM
So now your saying i got to choose my parents and were i was born?

Sensible folks who didn't have a choice in parents and where they lived normally leave home when they reach proper age. Miserable folks don't and they just blame the system. Life apparently is easier for them that way.  :rolleyes:

Quote
lol,,, get real...

next your gonna say i got to choose the color of my skin?

Sure why not. Michael Jackson did.
 
Quote
it's a choice to be greedy...
it's a choice to only care about ones self...

if things continue you won't have a choice when the working class rises up, and takes back what is rightfully theirs.

Yeppers. The magical, operative word is 'working'.  :P  Folks who weren't afraid to 'work' and didn't milk the system had healthcare provided for them by their employer. Hence, they had no need for free healthcare and all the other entitlements with different politically-correct titling.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on April 04, 2012, 06:11:09 PM

A quick lesson:  There are two stark differences in your auto insurance from Obamacare:

1,  You have the choice to not own a car.

2.  States' rights - political rights reserved for state governments vs. the Federal government.  Federal law is binding on states only if enacted  in accord with constitutionally granted powers.  Any law that exceeds such powers is voidable.   This is so basic to the American way.
 
We all agree that healthcare needs major overhaul.  If  3  years ago Obama had endeavored to work with the democratically Republican members of Congress, this would not be an issue today, and our country would have in place a better system.  With a majority in Congress, Obama had the authority and power to ignore the Republicans and that is what he did.  Not one Republican voted for the Bill.  Not one.   
 
A real leader would have used his influence.   If you examine history of leadership, the best leaders rely far more on influence than power and authority.  For examples, consider the recent toppling of government leaders in the Middle East.  Many people voted for Obama because of the perception that he would be a leader for all of us.  Surprise!

It should be noted, that is an excellent post
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 07:04:57 PM

Sensible folks who didn't have a choice in parents and where they lived normally leave home when they reach proper age. Miserable folks don't and they just blame the system. Life apparently is easier for them that way.  :rolleyes:
 
Sure why not. Michael Jackson did.
 
Yeppers. The magical, operative word is 'working'.  :P  Folks who weren't afraid to 'work' and didn't milk the system had healthcare provided for them by their employer. Hence, they had no need for free healthcare and all the other entitlements with different politically-correct titling.


You really have no clue about life,,

Sad and very pathetic,,,,

http://www.better.tv/view/hot-topics2-hot-topics-hot-topics--are-rich-people-more-likely-to-steel-candy-from-kids-than-poor-people- (http://www.better.tv/view/hot-topics2-hot-topics-hot-topics--are-rich-people-more-likely-to-steel-candy-from-kids-than-poor-people-)

Enjoy your candy,,,,,

EDIT:
I always love to find out what some people call hard work?


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 04, 2012, 07:21:26 PM
Darth,

Your posts are the perfect example of why you can never argue with a liberal and come to any logical conclusion!
If there was some way to corral you into a sphere where you could live without wanting to take the fruits of someone else's labor, I would be very happy to let you live your Utopian dream.  Just keep your hands out of someone else's pockets!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 04, 2012, 07:29:29 PM

You really have no clue about life,,

Sad and very pathetic,,,,

In some intances, you're right.
 
For example, I don't know what food stamps look like. I don't even know, nor interested to know, how to get on that program. I don't know what free healthcare is either. I've always paid my bills and dues. Worked for everything I have and belongs to ME.
 
I was offerred University assistance under that stupid Affirmative Action program ( I chose to call it that), and FWIW, I told them to stick it where the sun don't shine.
 
I am not a social leech....If I am to be treated and judged equally despite the color of my skin, then by golly do so properly instead of lowering my grade acceptance, giving me money to pay for my tuition, and lowering my grading curve during school. Just like they do everyone else. So instead, I CHOSE to work 3 jobs all through University.
 
I know you won't understand the logic to any of this, but hey, now you have a clue.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 07:39:28 PM
Darth,

Your posts are the perfect example of why you can never argue with a liberal and come to any logical conclusion!
If there was some way to corral you into a sphere where you could live without wanting to take the fruits of someone else's labor, I would be very happy to let you live your Utopian dream.  Just keep your hands out of someone else's pockets!!


Keep my hands out of Someone's else's pocket??

The working class has been raped by people like you for the last 30 years!!

You baby boomers have been spending the money of future generations!!
Paying for it all with loans from China.. LoL

Take your own advice...

I am not a Liberal, I am a Socialist...

Some time's I hope that America will come around when they realize the pain and death they cause by their libertarian Neo-con ideas that have consolidated the wealth of this world in the hands of the few with the Capital that is generated by the Labor of the majority.

But when i talk to people like you guys I realize that their is only one way to end this system and it's not by the vote. If things do not change the American people will wake up one day and the privileged class that steals the capital of the working class will suffer...

It's only Class war when the working class fights back,, Look to history and you see what happens to the privileged Class when they go to far. You will see that it does not work out too good for them...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 07:44:42 PM

In some intances, you're right.
 
For example, I don't know what food stamps look like. I don't even know, nor interested to know, how to get on that program. I don't know what free healthcare is either. I've always paid my bills and dues. Worked for everything I have and belongs to ME.
 
I was offerred University assistance under that stupid Affirmative Action program ( I chose to call it that), and FWIW, I told them to stick it where the sun don't shine.
 
I am not a social leech....If I am to be treated and judged equally despite the color of my skin, then by golly do so properly instead of lowering my grade acceptance, giving me money to pay for my tuition, and lowering my grading curve during school. Just like they do everyone else. So instead, I CHOSE to work 3 jobs all through University.
 
I know you won't understand the logic to any of this, but hey, now you have a clue.


Good for you,,,

Now understand not every one is as smart as you.
But they have just as much right to this world as you do.

You should also remember that it was progressive thinking that ended slavery based on skin color.

We must now end slavery based on debt and privilege...

Many people died and bleed for you to have the right not to call some one master. You more than others should remember history... 

Lets see how your fellow less privileged people from your ethnic group are doing?
 
http://cpusa.org/from-anti-slavery-to-the-anti-monopoly-strategy/ (http://cpusa.org/from-anti-slavery-to-the-anti-monopoly-strategy/)

The crisis of poverty and unemployment Black Americans now face is, save for the almost total genocidal elimination of American Indians, without precedent for any segment of this country's population.

"The unemployment rate among Black workers in the ghetto now exceeds the general rate of unemployment of the entire nation during the depression of the 1930's," reported Herbert Hill, NAACP Labor Secretary, at the organization's 1971 National Convention.

"The rate of unemployment of Black workers in 25 major centers of urban non-white population concentration is now between 25 per cent and 40 per cent," stated Hill, "and the unemployment rate for Black youth will be in excess of 50 per cent by the middle of this summer. In 1933, the national unemployment rate was 24.9 per cent, the highest officially recorded unemployment in the history of the United States." Hill also pointed out that tens of thousands of Black workers are classified as employed but never have an income that could lift them above the poverty level.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pitbull on April 04, 2012, 07:50:34 PM
Darth,

Your posts are the perfect example of why you can never argue with a liberal and come to any logical conclusion!
If there was some way to corral you into a sphere where you could live without wanting to take the fruits of someone else's labor, I would be very happy to let you live your Utopian dream.  Just keep your hands out of someone else's pockets!!
Hmmm... well, since you are so against taking the fruits of someone else's labor, you will surely support cuts to Medicare down to bare minumum, right? Saved enough to provide your own healthcare for those golden years (especially those luxury things like latest cancer treatments and knee replacements)? After all, Medicare is the largest unfunded entitlement threatening to bancrupt the country.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 04, 2012, 08:16:30 PM
Darth,

So you don't want to be characterized as a liberal but are proud to be a socialist!  OK, my apology.  It's kind of hard to draw the distinction between the two of late.

It's also somewhat embarrassing to be an American with Socialists among us touting a line of BS that is contrary to what the country was founded on and tried to preserve.  I suppose it must have something to do with your age and/or college professors that instilled these ideas in your head.

You have a lot of balls to suggest that I personally am responsible for the matters you complain about.  Yes, I am a baby boomer.  I have worked since age 12 and often at two jobs, put myself through school and earned everything I have.  I am also angry about corporate welfare, just like I am about social welfare.  You have chosen to hold blame the whole baby boomer generation when many of us supported neither welfare programs.  For the elite that raped the working class, you are correct just like the liberals that raped the working class with social welfare programs.  Don't blame a whole class of citizens for the ones that actually caused the damage (Congress).

You think socialism is the answer?  Why not take the Soviet Union as your example and show us how wonderful it worked there.  Consider that rural Russia and Ukraine was mostly folks working their fingers to the bone on their collective farms just to survive and of course the government took part of the crops to feed the rest of the country.  No indoor toilets, no indoor showers, no spending money, no cars, no fancy clothes, few computers at homes, etc. etc.

During this same period of time, compare it with the average American family!
 
You are the one without a clue!

There are several FSUW posters on this forum that will fill you in on current life in rural UA and RU.  Perhaps they will clear your mind a little about socialism. Even without the corruption factor, it is not a pretty scene to live under socialism.  The incentive to work harder and climb the economic ladder is not like in the US or other capitalistic countries.  Sure, when the balance of power between labor and business gets lobsided then it leads to serious problems for the society.  The solution is to fix the unbalance, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 08:27:20 PM
Darth,

So you don't want to be characterized as a liberal but are proud to be a socialist!  OK, my apology.  It's kind of hard to draw the distinction between the two of late.

It's also somewhat embarrassing to be an American with Socialists among us touting a line of BS that is contrary to what the country was founded on and tried to preserve.  I suppose it must have something to do with your age and/or college professors that instilled these ideas in your head.

You have a lot of balls to suggest that I personally am responsible for the matters you complain about.  Yes, I am a baby boomer.  I have worked since age 12 and often at two jobs, put myself through school and earned everything I have.  I am also angry about corporate welfare, just like I am about social welfare.  You have chosen to hold blame the whole baby boomer generation when many of us supported neither welfare programs.  For the elite that raped the working class, you are correct just like the liberals that raped the working class with social welfare programs.  Don't blame a whole class of citizens for the ones that actually caused the damage (Congress).

You think socialism is the answer?  Why not take the Soviet Union as your example and show us how wonderful it worked there.  Consider that rural Russia and Ukraine was mostly folks working their fingers to the bone on their collective farms just to survive and of course the government took part of the crops to feed the rest of the country.  No indoor toilets, no indoor showers, no spending money, no cars, no fancy clothes, few computers at homes, etc. etc.

During this same period of time, compare it with the average American family!
 
You are the one without a clue!

There are several FSUW posters on this forum that will fill you in on current life in rural UA and RU.  Perhaps they will clear your mind a little about socialism. Even without the corruption factor, it is not a pretty scene to live under socialism.  The incentive to work harder and climb the economic ladder is not like in the US or other capitalistic countries.  Sure, when the balance of power between labor and business gets lobsided then it leads to serious problems for the society.  The solution is to fix the unbalance, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater!

That was State Capitalism,,,,

Not true democratic Socialism or democratic Communism...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixo0gtLIuLk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixo0gtLIuLk)

You can't judge Socialism by what happened in the FSU...

Just like you can't blame Slavery on capitalism..


I have never been to collage,,,

I have worked with my hands and my mind for a family business since I was 12....
I have always produced a real goods with my labor. Goods that can be held in one's hands.
But just because I am smart and work hard does not mean I am blind to the truth, that our society
is wrong... You would rather see people starve and die than give up a little capital. Capital that they owe to the society they have prospered in. 

My ideas are my own, I have come to them based on truth.
In all reality I have read very little of  Marx or Engels works or the bible for that matter.
But i get the jest, When your neighbor does good, so do you.

True happiness is not these shinny things they sell us... It community

Will I suffer financially because of my beliefs? Yes...

That i will gladly do, but only if we all suffer together as one people...
Their is only one earth... That is all we got.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 04, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Darth,
Read the quotes below from a FSUW coming to the US and tell us what socialist country she would have had the same success.....

"I am this woman, so to speak. Those who remember me from 5-7 years ago might tell you that this was exactly what I used to say -" I will never work. I have not worked most of my life in Russia and I am not about to start in US at age 35. My child will go to college. And, not just your regular university of south east Alabama, it would be Harvard, no less. "  I told it all to my husband upfront. Before coming here. I believe that marriage should be a transparent deal. No "hidden skeletons". He agreed.  An old hand here told me back then that life would change my priorities and it did. I hadnt worked for 5+ years out of ten here, but when my son went to college I felt out of place and decided to work. It was MY decision. I quickly realized how easy this place is to advance professionally. I have been working ever since.  By choice. As for my child's college - this priority has not changed. What has changed is my attitude to it.  I could apply pressure to my husband to pay for his education, but I rather decided to apply pressure to my child to study hard and get  a 100% merit scholarship.  It  was not that hard to do by russian school standards.  The University was a regular state school, which was a temporary compromise. He is now accepted to a ivy league law school also with a 100% merit scholarship. My husband does not mind helping with other school related expenses, but I do not even need him to contribute too much - I can now do it all myself.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 08:48:59 PM
Sweden, Norway or Denmark...

But we should remember The good old USA is a rather Socialist country,,,

Socialized Education K-12
Socialized Roads
Socialized medicare
Socialized Social Security
Socialized Research, paid for by public monies at universities...
Socialized Religion,, They don't pay taxes like they should...
Socialized Corporate Welfare, for the privileged few
Socialized Power authorities, that powered our last economic boom
Socialized Imperialism, That keeps prices artificially low

Should I go on?

Many of these programs have been corrupted to fuel the privileged class.

I have talked to many from the FSU who would disagree, They see this system for what it is...
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 04, 2012, 09:10:11 PM
...
You should also remember that it was progressive thinking that ended slavery based on skin color.

We must now end slavery based on debt and privilege...

Many people died and bleed for you to have the right not to call some one master. You more than others should remember history... 

Lets see how your fellow less privileged people from your ethnic group are doing?
 
http://cpusa.org/from-anti-slavery-to-the-anti-monopoly-strategy/ (http://cpusa.org/from-anti-slavery-to-the-anti-monopoly-strategy/)

The crisis of poverty and unemployment Black Americans now face is, save for the almost total genocidal elimination of American Indians, without precedent for any segment of this country's population.

"The unemployment rate among Black workers in the ghetto now exceeds the general rate of unemployment of the entire nation during the depression of the 1930's," reported Herbert Hill, NAACP Labor Secretary, at the organization's 1971 National Convention.

"The rate of unemployment of Black workers in 25 major centers of urban non-white population concentration is now between 25 per cent and 40 per cent," stated Hill, "and the unemployment rate for Black youth will be in excess of 50 per cent by the middle of this summer. In 1933, the national unemployment rate was 24.9 per cent, the highest officially recorded unemployment in the history of the United States." Hill also pointed out that tens of thousands of Black workers are classified as employed but never have an income that could lift them above the poverty level.

Huh?!? WTF?
 
Curious. What does slavery and black workers and the unemployed have anything to do with me? Why do you seem to think I'm black and/or my enthnicity is African? Was it because I mentioned my skin color?
 
You keep harping all for one and one for all but immediately assume the world you live in is solely black and white.
 
One of the chief problem in our society these days are folks locked in a dance called 'race'. Folks coming from around our country today from different parts of the globe, regardless of the color of their skin, and many who doesn't even have English as their first language, are not only able to find opportunities here but many find success.
 
You have to ask yourself the question then, what on earth are the excuses of those who were born here?
 
It isn't the system Darth. It's the people who rely on the system for their own personal state and welfare.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 04, 2012, 09:21:00 PM
Darth,
 
If you are a true socialist, I assume you have trouble sleeping at night thinking of the billions of human souls in our global community whose lifestyle is inferior to yours.  Yes, even your life as an underemployed 27-yo is far superior, making you a member of the world's priviledged class.  When do you depart for Africa to serve your socialistic mission? 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 04, 2012, 09:28:16 PM
Darth,

Sweden, Norway or Denmark...  We should hear from them.  I would not purport to have first hand knowledge.  The one gal from Norway I talked to during an airport layover, would much rather be in the USA or UK.

But we should remember The god old USA is a rather Socialist country,,,  YES AND WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO REMOVE THEM!

Socialized Education K-12    Agree, but not everyone supports this notion considering the quality of the students that come out of it!

Socialized Roads   Agree as it is part of the infrastructure necessary for commerce and transportation of our citizens.

Socialized medicare              Agree it should not have been necessary.

Socialized Social Security     Disagree.. It was set up to be a savings plan for supplemental retirement.  Congress stole the money.

Socialized Research, paid for by public monies at universities... True but not necessarily a bad thing within limits.  They do a lot of good research.

Socialized Religion,, They don't pay taxes like they should...   Not going to touch this one.  It has always been this way.  So what?

Socialized Corporate Welfare, for the privileged few     Agree and we should prosecute all of the bastards!

Socialized Power authorities, that powered our last economic boom  If you mean the energy utilites, I agree wtih you.

Socialized Imperialism, That keeps prices artificially low     WTF is this?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 04, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
Darth,

Please tell us you are not for real and this is just part of some wacky professor's project.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 09:39:30 PM
Darth,
 
If you are a true socialist, I assume you have trouble sleeping at night thinking of the billions of human souls in our global community whose lifestyle is inferior to yours.  Yes, even your life as an underemployed 27-yo is far superior, making you a member of the world's priviledged class.  When do you depart for Africa to serve your socialistic mission?

Why would you think I am underemployed? We rather busy this time of year...
In fact every year more and more of our competition goes out of business,
We also pay higher wages than any other company in our line of work.

But what about the people who are not as smart, skilled or cut throat...
Do they not deserve a fair chance at life? Not every one way born to be in a highly skilled profession... 

Privilege class I might be, But that does not mean I can not see the truth...
Nor does it stop me from working for a better world to raise my Daughter in.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 04, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Darth,

Please tell us you are not for real and this is just part of some wacky professor's project.


I have never been to collage,,, I did not want to be a slave to debt...
I was also privileged to have a family company to work for.. Which I started to work for when I was 12 every summer until i graduated HS.

Although my HS teachers wanted me to be a lawyer.. One day I may decide to study this at home.


American Imperialism,,,

Paid for by the blood of the poor city and country boys.

We have bases all over the world to protect capital interests of the most privileged among us.

Good example:
We are opening a base in Australia....

Why??? When we are already in debt.... Money would be much better spent on space, health care or Balancing the budget.

I do think the American people are starting to wake up,, I bet one year ago many of your answers would of been different.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 04, 2012, 10:47:29 PM
Darth,
In response to your comments....................

I have never been to collage,,, I did not want to be a slave to debt...
I was also privileged to have a family company to work for.. Which I started to work for when I was 12 every summer until i graduated HS.

Although my HS teachers wanted me to be a lawyer.. One day I may decide to study this at home.
This is good.  This is what we need..... more lawyers.   ;D

American Imperialism,,,

Paid for by the blood of the poor city and country boys.
Seems to me it was not ony poor city and country boys...... how about congressmen, senators, and past presidents?

We have bases all over the world to protect capital interests of the most privileged among us.

Yes including your freedom to become a Socialist if you choose!

Good example:
We are opening a base in Australia....

Once again you are mistaken.  We are not opening a base in Australia.  We are rotating some Marines through Austrailian bases at their request.  Apparently one of our allies finds it a mutual benefical interst to do so.

See this link!     http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-marines-not-a-us-base-on-australian-soil-smith-20120404-1wbnl.html

You seem to have a very negative view on the necessity of a military.  Perhaps you should do some reading or even watch the History Channel on TV.  You might learn a lot.
If it were not for the military strength of the allies in WWII, much of Europe (including Russia) would be speaking German now, and the US would be speaking Japanese!


When I was a young man I made the argument with my father about not needing soldiers anymore.  We can simply push a button and the missile will do all the work.  He educated me by explaining that you can drop all the bombs you want, but if you cannot occupy your enemies homeland (with soldiers) you cannot control their behavior.

You can also argue that we do not need a strong military now because no one is invading the US (except illegals).  What you fail to realize is that the time it takes to ramp up and build weapons is lengthy and in all probablility will be too late.  Had it not been for the industrial manufacturing capability of the US, the war in Europe might have turned out much differently!

Another factor for you to consider is the technology of the weapons.  If you wait until the need is there, your existing technology of weapons will be obsolete.  That is why we are continually in the R&D phase of developing newer weapons.  We don't want to get caught with our pants down like we and British were in WWII.  I have personally worked on many weapons programs that were funded only through the development and demonstration phase and then cancelled because there was not a current threat to justify the cost of going into production of them.  Nevertheless, all the R&D was done and all the tech data went into the archives in case it was needed later.

I don't expect you to grasp all this at once, but spending some time in learning history might pay off for you.

Why??? When we are already in debt.... Money would be much better spent on space, health care or Balancing the budget.

Actually, if we had meaningful Tort Reform health care costs would drop dramatically.  Since it's not legal to shoot all the lawyers, Tort Reform is the only solution.



I do think the American people are starting to wake up,, I bet one year ago many of your answers would of been different.

Your mistaken again.  My answers would not have changed for at least the past 50 years.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 05, 2012, 05:48:00 AM

I recall multiple bills. Even today some new attempts are being floated.

Gator,

stumbled across this 2009 article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5093897-503544.html

seems a bit half hearted.

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act

Quote
It would establish Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plans (HAPIs) and require those who do not already have health insurance coverage, and who do not oppose health insurance on religious grounds, to enroll themselves and their children in a HAPI.

Hard to tell what religious grounds are, but seems more complete, including penalties for not enrolling.

http://americancentristparty.net/PDF/KER07016_xml%20Text%20of%20Act.pdf  page 12

Do love that acronym though... HAPI.... lol
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 05, 2012, 01:25:42 PM

Actually, if we had meaningful Tort Reform health care costs would drop dramatically.  Since it's not legal to shoot all the lawyers, Tort Reform is the only solution.

love it!


Darth, you have no idea how disturbing it is for some one as myself, who grew up in a socialist country, to read your fantasies about how wonderful socialism would be in America.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 05, 2012, 05:19:39 PM
What parts do you find disturbing?

I am arguing from the point that the USSR was not a true democratic Socialist country. From my observations, as a outsider the USSR was lacking in the democratic process. It looked like it was ran in a more bureaucratic  appointed fashion.

Nationalism, authoritarianism or corruption is not what i am arguing for, If that is what you think.

I am always interested in others view points..

I spoke recently to a Armenian-Canadian working in the security industry who spoke highly of the Socialized health care and education. As well as the atomic power that was produced. He saw the problem more as corruption and lack of democracy than Socialism in and of itself. He admits people were poor but most people had what they needed. He thought the major reason why it fell was global economic pressure and the isolation imposed by the west.   

I would love to hear first hand accounts of the FSU.
I find many people on both sides but like to know their reason why.

Also how do you feel that the CP in Russia still holds political ground in Russia. Do you think people just concentrate to much on the good and not on the bad of the former system?

I was actually surprised that my friend held the views that he held. I was expecting he would be against Socialism like so many on this forum are.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 05, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
The Nordic countries have been successful in introducing many socialist concepts (Danish socialists introduced many of Plekhanov's concepts to their country), as has France.

 
Quote
He thought the major reason why it fell was global economic pressure and the isolation imposed by the west.
   
 
No, it is because the population grew tired of living like beasts.  I think Pope John Paul's role can't be underestimated as well.  There is quite a bit of interconnection. 
 
Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech really resonated with people in Kyiv, and, I assume other parts of the USSR.  I am just saying what I observed.  That speech got major play in Soviet newspapers.  Lots of people asked, though not directly, why, if they didn't live in an evil empire, they lived in fear.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 05, 2012, 06:18:09 PM
What parts do you find disturbing?

I am arguing from the point that the USSR was not a true democratic Socialist country. From my observations, as a outsider the USSR was lacking in the democratic process.
No shit?!?!?
have you ever heard of a democratic socialist country in the history of humanity? Socialism is a utopian principal that can't work in real life. Just like there are winners and losers under a capitalist system, there are winners and losers in a socialist system, only under socialism losers are the vast majority. hasn't the last 100 years of history teach you guys anything?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 05, 2012, 07:12:51 PM
For your entertainment...

http://s1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/calmissile/Obama/?albumview=slideshow
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 05, 2012, 09:07:57 PM
No shit?!?!?
have you ever heard of a democratic socialist country in the history of humanity? Socialism is a utopian principal that can't work in real life. Just like there are winners and losers under a capitalist system, there are winners and losers in a socialist system, only under socialism losers are the vast majority. hasn't the last 100 years of history teach you guys anything?


The original split with the American left and Communist Russia in the early 1900's was over this very issue...

The Socialist party of America split from the International Communists because they felt Russia was not going forward in a democratic way...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America)

Much of the history of the united states has evolved around a American form of socialism. In fact Women's day was celebrated in the USA years before it was ever celebrated in Russia. Also American Communists in the 1800's were some of the first outspoken critics of Slavery. Yes they pre date the Russian revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day)

I do not judge all Russians by Stalin,,,

Just like I don't judge democracy by Hitler. He was voted in to power...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)


The United States has been a rather Democratic Socialist country at many times in history. That is the only democratic and Socialist country I know of.

I like to study History,, So I read quite a bit... I try to see things for what they are.. It is better to work for a society were people are generally happy,, Not one That exploits the world more.. Much of our history we were not an imperialist country. But times change....


When communism came to Russia in the early 1900's they had no history of the Democratic process.. They simply traded a absolute monarchy for a dictator. I would say Stalin started out with good intentions but made his transformation into a dictator complete during WWII.

America on the other hand Has a History of democratic rule. So any form of Socialism will be it's own.

Marx is dead, He is simply a historical figure that lived in the 1800's.

American Socialists take more inspiration from Eugene V. Debs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs)


EDIT:
Get ready for May Day 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIYMLR_DGWU&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIYMLR_DGWU&feature=player_embedded)





Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 05, 2012, 11:42:31 PM
Quote
I would say Stalin started out with good intentions but made his transformation into a dictator complete during WWII.

No he didn't.  Early in Bolshevik history, he was the party "enforcer".  He was always a thug, and manipulated the party to ensure he gained succession.  In fact, Lenin saw these tendencies.  Stalin was also an absolute dictator far earlier than WWII.  I suppose one could pin this as "absolute" after the show trials in the 1930's.

Lenin implemented a lot of the organs of terror Stalin utilized.  There was a slowdown during NEP because the Bolsheviks needed to consolidate power and end civil unrest. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 06, 2012, 12:02:21 AM

The original split with the American left and Communist Russia in the early 1900's was over this very issue...

The Socialist party of America split from the International Communists because they felt Russia was not going forward in a democratic way...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America)

Much of the history of the united states has evolved around a American form of socialism. In fact Women's day was celebrated in the USA years before it was ever celebrated in Russia. Also American Communists in the 1800's were some of the first outspoken critics of Slavery. Yes they pre date the Russian revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day)

I do not judge all Russians by Stalin,,,

Just like I don't judge democracy by Hitler. He was voted in to power...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)


The United States has been a rather Democratic Socialist country at many times in history. That is the only democratic and Socialist country I know of.

I like to study History,, So I read quite a bit... I try to see things for what they are.. It is better to work for a society were people are generally happy,, Not one That exploits the world more.. Much of our history we were not an imperialist country. But times change....


When communism came to Russia in the early 1900's they had no history of the Democratic process.. They simply traded a absolute monarchy for a dictator. I would say Stalin started out with good intentions but made his transformation into a dictator complete during WWII.
We must be reading different kinds of history! Stalin transformed into dictator only during WWII???? LOL! Check your facts!
Before the communists did their violent overthrow (October revolution) in 1917, Russia did have a temporary government striving for democracy. The Zar stepped down at that time and there was a possibility of Russia becoming a democratic republic. But communists wouldn't allow that and took power in a violent murderous way. When Lenin died and comrade Stalin came to power was ordering systematic assasinations of the old guard. People who he deemed dangerous for his total control of power. You need to brush up on that part of the history.


Socialism by definition can not be democratic because no other party can be allowed to exist. Voting during those years was easy and fun! You were presented with 2 choices at a voting "booth". 1. are you for Brezhnev 2. are you against Breznev   I don't think any one would dare check the "against" box in those days... oh yes, those wonderful days of socialism! And guess what? They (the power structure, press, teachers in schools, etc.) called it a democratic society! hen East Germany was under socialism (DDR) the second "D" stood for "Democratic"! LOL So while 99.9% of the DDR's population (basically every one except the government/party elite) barely existed, living in poverty and constant fear under the "kind and fair" socialist system, people on the other side of the Berlin Wall who were living under the "evil and unfair" capitalist system of West Germany were prosperous, free and happy.


Hmmm, what's wrong with that picture? I know, I know... you are gonna build a fair and democratis socialist system here in America... that's what they all said right before they grabbed the power.


Just FYI: America's poor, people who are living in "poverty" by the US standarts would be considered "rich" in a socialist society that I grew up in. Most people here, in the US truly don't have a concept of what real poverty is like, just ask any one who grew up in a socialist country, no matter which one...be it USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China, East Germany - all the same, we have seen how destructive and inhumane socialism really is.


[size=78%]What you and people who believe like you don't take into account is human nature.  Under any social system the same type of people rise to the top and become rulers of countries. They all possess similar leadership qualities: driven, ruthless, among others.[/size]
[size=78%] Once in power they stay in power for life under a socialist system which by definition is not democratic. Show me one socialist country in the world history where this hasn't been true. Any "true believers" like yourself who believe in fairness and justice usually get killed or put away to prisons at the first sign of descent. Only people who are completely devoted to the "great, beloved leader" are allowed to live and prosper. A capitalist democratic system has checks and balances in place in a form of constitution that doesn't allow for such power grab to occur.[/size]
[size=78%]Unless you can radically change human nature, which can not be done, socialism will always wind up being a dictatorship.[/size]

[size=78%]Think about this, you are talking about socialism being fair. But how fair is it to a hard working person who is driven to succeed, who wants to better his/her life and insure a better life for his/her children, who works hard to take away the fruits of his labor and share them with a lazy, apathetic person with no desire to work or better themselves, who would rather get drunk or high than work hard to better themselves and their lives. Socialism assumes that every one will give a 100% of their work, talents and then divide the fruits of their labor evenly. However reality is that it is not a natural state for a human being (or any species for that matter). There will always be  a group of driven people who work hard and the other group who are just the opposite. How fair is it to take away the earnings from the hard working people and give them to the other group just to make things equal? You will create a lot of dissatisfaction and descent among the driven group and will have to get rid of the ones who make trouble. You can't change human nature no matter how much propaganda you subject them to and will have to find ways to suppress descent and dissatisfaction with not being able to get ahead financially. This always happans under the socialist system.[/size]






Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 06, 2012, 12:15:42 AM
Quote
Socialism by definition can not be democratic because no other party can be allowed to exist.

Untrue.  Socialism is about economic equality.  Marx and Engels wrote about socialism (a stage toward communism) in terms of economics.  They did not explain how it would be organized.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 06, 2012, 12:27:35 AM
any kind of equality is unnatural in the world where to survive equals being the fittest :)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 06, 2012, 03:49:48 AM
any kind of equality is unnatural in the world where to survive equals being the fittest :)

You sound like Nietzsche...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 06, 2012, 04:01:19 AM
Untrue.  Socialism is about economic equality.  Marx and Engels wrote about socialism (a stage toward communism) in terms of economics.  They did not explain how it would be organized.


I myself see a difference between Concepts...

Capitalism - Corporatism - Socialism = Economic forms of a Society.

Authoritarian - Religious - Democratic = Ways society elects or not elect people to run said society.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 06, 2012, 04:39:18 AM

The United States has been a rather Democratic Socialist country at many times in history. That is the only democratic and Socialist country I know of.


Plenty of 'em strewn across EU.

You seem to be swinging your bat a bit wildly..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on April 06, 2012, 06:27:11 AM
So does Ed.  :P
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 06, 2012, 10:43:01 AM
any kind of equality is unnatural in the world where to survive equals being the fittest :)

Humans create the worlds they live in.  Everything is possible with intellect and reason.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 06, 2012, 11:01:15 AM

Humans create the worlds they live in.  Everything is possible with intellect and reason.
Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao all had intellect and they all had their reasons ;-)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 06, 2012, 11:04:06 AM
So did the drafters of the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 06, 2012, 11:10:42 AM

Humans create the worlds they live in.  Everything is possible with intellect and reason.

..or power and wealth.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 06, 2012, 01:14:16 PM
The bottom line is that in the last 100 years socialism was establishes in different countires with very different cultures. It failed miserably everywhere. And when elements of socialism were introduced in Western European countries and here in the US those socialist policies are largely responsible for driving them and us to insolvency and economic crisis.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 06, 2012, 01:20:44 PM
So how do you account for Canada, which has cradle to grave publicly funded healthcare, free education, old age supplements, etc.?  It was the only country which did not suffer an economic meltdown in 2008 (though bumps), and its economy is currently in growth mode?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 06, 2012, 01:34:04 PM
So how do you account for Canada, which has cradle to grave publicly funded healthcare, free education, old age supplements, etc.?  It was the only country which did not suffer an economic meltdown in 2008 (though bumps), and its economy is currently in growth mode?
Probably because Canada is a capitalist country that implemented only 3 social programs while maintaining the free market system. A true socialist society like the one I grew up in is a utopia that can't work unless every person in that country is honest, hard working and selfless, which is an absurdity.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 06, 2012, 01:39:02 PM
The USSR was not a socialist country.
 
The U.S. is not a purely "capitalist" country.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 06, 2012, 03:32:25 PM
The USSR was not a socialist country.
 
The U.S. is not a purely "capitalist" country.
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist??? Are you saying they lied to us!?!?! :))))
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on April 06, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist??? Are you saying they lied to us!?!?! :))))
Mislabelling 8). They could be prosecuted for that ;):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6uLfermPU
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 07, 2012, 07:06:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrcxJXCCAw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrcxJXCCAw&feature=related)


http://rt.com/news/communists-nato-bases-protests-507/ (http://rt.com/news/communists-nato-bases-protests-507/)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 07, 2012, 09:19:55 AM
Pathetic. The media already began their aggressive campaign for Obama's re-election. Considering few, if not none, leverage they can throw against the growing dissatisfaction about this idiot's present administration, they resort to the ol' trick in the book, race and class warfare.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46981884/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46981884/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/)
 
So much vital information are kept out missing of this tradegy...for one, had I been a black, hooded, 17 year old walking in a complex and someone approached me and asked what the heck was I doing there, I could've easily told the guy,
 
"Walking to my old man's crib, dawg. What's your cover?"
 
On the flip-side of this, looking at the two subjects involved here, I just can't see Trayvon having his way with George to the point he was bashing his head (George's) against the pavement.
 
This should be a simple case of homicide, or not. Not about race and certainly not about politics.

Bottom line...the media started the frenzy so watch it unfold all the way to November.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 07, 2012, 10:04:06 AM
GQ,

Unfortunately in a 'no tolerance' world, add 'hate crime' aspects, election year antics and it all indeed gets out of whack.

The cops clearly told the hobby cop to back off until the real guys came.  I also doubt the little guy was capable of beating up the big guy with a gun.  Two experts are pretty clear about the help cries.

A lot went wrong here and yes the courts should work it out.

I must admit though that the racial divide in the US is still quite stark.   A few years back was driving with my family to the airport in VA.. got a bit lost without navigator and found myself in a part of town where I felt very alone and vulnerable.  The folks helped me just fine though and gave me good directions.. they did seem to get a chuckle about me appearing though.

I can imagine the divide I felt is shared by quite a few.  The law may proclaim equality, but the common man on either side may not really feel it.

This kid may well be a part of an increase in 'justifiable homicides' noted by some reporters http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-3256-analysis_stand_your_ground_states_have_more_shootings.html

I think the pressure from part of the community to investigate these homicides more carefully and thoroughly could well be justified.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 07, 2012, 11:08:09 AM
Armed Neo-Nazis Now Patrolling Sanford, Say They Are "Prepared" For Post-Trayvon Martin Violence

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/heavily_armed_neo-nazis_patrol.php (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/heavily_armed_neo-nazis_patrol.php)

George Zimmerman Video Shows Little Evidence of a Broken Nose, Doctor Claims

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-case-doctor-sees-evidence-george-zimmerman/story?id=16055412#.T4CB7tXy_To (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-case-doctor-sees-evidence-george-zimmerman/story?id=16055412#.T4CB7tXy_To)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 07, 2012, 12:31:31 PM
the lazy people who don't produce stuff. driving our taxes up..

they should just die!  right guys?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=whlEY1DAidw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=whlEY1DAidw)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 07, 2012, 12:40:36 PM
Darth,

you are just as radical as the radicals you complain about.

Think about it.

It's easy to copy and paste from your favorite pundit source.  Learn to think your own thoughts and post them here for discussion.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 07, 2012, 12:49:11 PM
Darth,

you are just as radical as the radicals you complain about.

Think about it.

It's easy to copy and paste from your favorite pundit source.  Learn to think your own thoughts and post them here for discussion.

thanks!

well you guys talk about these "non-producers",, so i thought they needed a face...

these are the people they are talking about... right?


Let discusses this this video...

should we tax more to pay for social programs, or should we not?

edit:   i post links to support my ideals.  debating is a processes... some times you got to set the other persons argument up to fail...


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 09, 2012, 08:40:12 PM
 http://youtu.be/SR8Y7tO8yrI (http://youtu.be/SR8Y7tO8yrI)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 11, 2012, 02:02:17 PM
I think Newt is almost done...
When a 500 dollar check bounces you know you have issues.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17680254 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17680254)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 12, 2012, 02:07:17 PM
The Buffett Rule Explained
What's the deal with our current tax system?

Under the current U.S. tax system, a number of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a significant proportion of middle class families. Warren Buffett, for example, pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, and that’s not fair.

A full 22,000 households that made more than $1 million in 2009 paid less than 15 percent of their income in income taxes — and 1,470 managed to pay no federal income taxes on their million-plus-dollar incomes, according to the IRS.

And, the very wealthiest American households are paying nearly the lowest tax rate in 50 years— some are paying just half of the federal income tax that top income earners paid in 1960. But the average tax rate for middle class families has barely budged. The middle 20 percent of households paid 14 percent of their incomes in 1960, and 16 percent in 2010.
What is the Buffett Rule?

The Buffett Rule is simple principle that everyone should pay their fair share in taxes. No household making more than a $1 million should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay. For the 98 percent of American families who make less than $250,000, taxes should not go up.
How would it make sure everyone pays their fair share?

The Buffett Rule would limit the degree to which the best-off can take advantage of loopholes and tax rates that allow them to pay less of their income in taxes than middle-class families.

Anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead—not just a few. And at time when we need to pay down our deficit and invest in the things that help our economy grow and keep our country safe—education, research and technology, a strong military, Medicare and Social Security—giving tax breaks to millionaires simply doesn’t make sense.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule?utm_source=email152c&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=taxes (http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule?utm_source=email152c&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=taxes)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 12, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
Darth,
 
I thought you were smarter and would see that this is a political gimmick.   
 
I asked you before to take a few minutes and to examine facts and not listen to the political rhetoric of our leader.  Quickly, I will do it for you.  Last year the deficit was about $1.3 trillion.  The Buffet rule would raise an additional $5 billion of tax revenue per year.  So it represents a 0.4% improvement.  That is the same as telling an obese person that all they have to is leave each day is leave three french fries uneaten on their plate.
 
I will explain it for the last time.  Democrats want to tax more so that they can spend more.  Republicans want to save the country from bankruptcy.  Wealthy people will be proud to pay more taxes once they see the nation taking a positive direction to restrain spending.  If you do not understand this, I see no reason to read your posts  any more. 
 
There are "growth incentive" reasons why the Buffet rule is not good.  And this is Obama's best answer for the nation's budget deficit?  It must be considering how many times he has proposed it in his speeches.   The simple math should be enough to show you that Nero Obama is just playing his fiddle.  If you fall for this, you are being duped.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 12, 2012, 05:11:55 PM
Darth,
 
I thought you were smarter and would see that this is a political gimmick.   
 
I asked you before to take a few minutes and to examine facts and not listen to the political rhetoric of our leader.  Quickly, I will do it for you.  Last year the deficit was about $1.3 trillion.  The Buffet rule would raise an additional $5 billion of tax revenue per year.  So it represents a 0.4% improvement.  That is the same as telling an obese person that all they have to is leave each day is leave three french fries uneaten on their plate.
 
I will explain it for the last time.  Democrats want to tax more so that they can spend more.  Republicans want to save the country from bankruptcy.  Wealthy people will be proud to pay more taxes once they see the nation taking a positive direction to restrain spending.  If you do not understand this, I see no reason to read your posts  any more. 
 
There are "growth incentive" reasons why the Buffet rule is not good.  And this is Obama's best answer for the nation's budget deficit?  It must be considering how many times he has proposed it in his speeches.   The simple math should be enough to show you that Nero Obama is just playing his fiddle.  If you fall for this, you are being duped.

Gator we are already bankrupt,, that's why we run massive deficits every year...

It's not about balancing the budget,,, It's about fairness...
Why should you pay less of a percentage of your income when you make 1,000,000 than when you do at 100,000??

50K = 16% of income taxed
100K = 19%
175K = 23%
1,000,000 + = 18%
In fact some pay no federal income tax at all!!!
Basic Math Gator, That is my point...


People don't hire people because their taxes are lower, They hire people when they have a job that needs to be done...

We will balance the budget by Raising taxes on everyone and slashing the military...


Basic Capitalism,,,,,

Lets play monopoly!!!!

we start with 10 poor player all equal...

let the game play for a bit...

you now have 2 rich players 3 middle class players and 7 poor players...

the poor players cant afford to stay at your hotel so their wealth/capital is transferred to the middle class and rich players...

let the game play for a bit...

you now have 1 super rich player 2 rich players 4 middle players and 3 people out of the game....

Now the middle class players can't afford to stay at your hotel,,, the wealth/capital is transferred to the rich and super rich...

Let the game play some more...

you now have 1 super rich and 3 rich players.. every one else is out.. lets call them the poor.. so we now have 4 players of wealth and 6 poor players...

Now the the rich battle it out until their is one player who owns every thing...

Game over.. we end the game with 1 mega rich and 9 poor....

Now if we only had a progressive income tax to redistribute wealth...
It's the only way to keep the game going or it ends... That's real life. 

If we are to give tax breaks for the rich it should be only for creating American jobs in this country,,, That's it!!!



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 12, 2012, 07:37:19 PM
For Muzh, who shares my political leanings -

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/W/i/3/i-voted-republican-sign.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 12, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
Boethius
 You gotta be kidding me!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 12, 2012, 08:12:05 PM
No, Muzh and I are political kindred spirits. :)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 12, 2012, 08:17:57 PM
LOL Boethius!
 
Considering the Democrats had held office almost 12 of the 20 years on that silly sign, I say yeah she had some bitchin' to do....
 
Besides of course when she changes the sign, or was she using invisible ink? This stupid OWS crowd is a great example when you do silly policies like unemployment compensation extension. People would rather sit at home and not seek work since they get $450/wk doing stupid things. Like photo-shopping rally signs so other folks actually starts using them to promote their agenda. LOL, pretty funny if you think about it....
 
Doped and Chained, baby!
 
 
     
(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1686/owse.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/72/owse.jpg/)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 12, 2012, 08:25:02 PM
It took Clinton two terms to balance the budget, and Bush less than one to put it back into deficit.  So, I don't think you can blame the Democrats. :)

But, I'm glad you like the sign.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 12, 2012, 08:37:14 PM
It took Clinton two terms to balance the budget, and Bush less than one to put it back into deficit.  So, I don't think you can blame the Democrats. :)

But, I'm glad you like the sign.

Clinton, the moderate that he is/was did exactly what we need to do to balance the budget today like he did during his administration...abolish social welfare and giveaways, big government.... Even he was fully aware what was wrong in his own party line's agenda.
 
 :P
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on April 12, 2012, 08:50:08 PM
It took Clinton two terms to balance the budget, and Bush less than one to put it back into deficit.

Don't think this is the way it works in USA.

Something about only Congress can establish fiscal policy, etc.

Presidents can only try  to veto.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 12, 2012, 09:32:12 PM
End welfare!!!

Provide jobs,, plenty of stuff that needs to be done...

Why pay unemployment or welfare when every single town/city needs work done..
infrastructure and beautification projects .....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 12, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
End welfare!!!

Provide jobs,, plenty of stuff that needs to be done...

Why pay unemployment or welfare when every single town/city needs work done..
infrastructure and beautification projects .....


It's below their dignity, just like menial jobs are for FSUW.   ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 12, 2012, 09:50:05 PM
Darth,

Can you believe it?  Here we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum and we agree on something.  However, I beat you to it.  I wrote and editorial in the local newspaper saying the exact same thing about 30 years ago.   You would not believe the uproar it caused and the name calling that resulted!   ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 13, 2012, 01:16:27 AM
Gator we are already bankrupt,, that's why we run massive deficits every year...

It's not about balancing the budget,,, It's about fairness...
Why should you pay less of a percentage of your income when you make 1,000,000 than when you do at 100,000??

50K = 16% of income taxed
100K = 19%
175K = 23%
1,000,000 + = 18%
In fact some pay no federal income tax at all!!!
Basic Math Gator, That is my point...


People don't hire people because their taxes are lower, They hire people when they have a job that needs to be done...

We will balance the budget by Raising taxes on everyone and slashing the military...


Basic Capitalism,,,,,

Lets play monopoly!!!!

we start with 10 poor player all equal...

let the game play for a bit...

you now have 2 rich players 3 middle class players and 7 poor players...

the poor players cant afford to stay at your hotel so their wealth/capital is transferred to the middle class and rich players...

let the game play for a bit...

you now have 1 super rich player 2 rich players 4 middle players and 3 people out of the game....

Now the middle class players can't afford to stay at your hotel,,, the wealth/capital is transferred to the rich and super rich...

Let the game play some more...

you now have 1 super rich and 3 rich players.. every one else is out.. lets call them the poor.. so we now have 4 players of wealth and 6 poor players...

Now the the rich battle it out until their is one player who owns every thing...

Game over.. we end the game with 1 mega rich and 9 poor....

Now if we only had a progressive income tax to redistribute wealth...
It's the only way to keep the game going or it ends... That's real life. 

If we are to give tax breaks for the rich it should be only for creating American jobs in this country,,, That's it!!!
Do I really want to get involved in this?
OK, let's talk shop. No political BS.

The 18% you are referring to is income from dividends and capital gains – both of which were previously taxed as corporate income. Half-truth at best, disingenuous at the other end.
The current federal and state combined is 39.2%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-corporate-tax-rate-poised-171800370.html
So, let's find the real rate that WB pays.
Basic math, how much does a corporation have to earn to pay WB a $100 dividend?

Business people also do not hire when they have no clue what their tax rates will be in the short term. By short term I mean 2-3 years. It is impossible to plan in some industries, some require even longer.
Meanwhile, the "Prez" has not only villainized business, he has created an environment of uncertainity. View it from a business owners standpoint and you will understand.

Raising taxes would be like offering a "junkie" more dope.
Why the military and what parts need to be cut?

You know Capitalism and Monopoly have different meanings?

Interesting game.
That's why it's called Monopoly and not Capitalism.
You believe the government would make better choices than you?
Maybe they will invest your money in another Solyndra; the game's over real quick. Or, perhaps, invest in off-shore drilling in Brazil, that sure created a lot of jobs in America.

We have a progressive income tax, simple math.
We also have something called anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies.
Let's start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Those evil Republicans.
The conflict between Teddy Roosevelt, another evil Republican, and J.P. Morgan is also worth noting.

Tax breaks if the rich create jobs....
Now we're cooking with heat.
How about we start with the Corporate Tax rate as my first year accounting instructor said in 1980?
Why would Obama want to lower the rate to 28%?
What would that do to WB's dividends? Increase? Decrease?
Beware of Buffett's buffet, if it smells like sh!t don't eat there.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 13, 2012, 01:28:30 AM
For Muzh, who shares my political leanings -

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/W/i/3/i-voted-republican-sign.jpg)
Another satisfied customer from the Barney Frankth school of Fannie and Freddie. :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 13, 2012, 03:53:19 AM
Do I really want to get involved in this?
OK, let's talk shop. No political BS.

The 18% you are referring to is income from dividends and capital gains – both of which were previously taxed as corporate income. Half-truth at best, disingenuous at the other end.
The current federal and state combined is 39.2%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-corporate-tax-rate-poised-171800370.html
So, let's find the real rate that WB pays.
Basic math, how much does a corporation have to earn to pay WB a $100 dividend?

Business people also do not hire when they have no clue what their tax rates will be in the short term. By short term I mean 2-3 years. It is impossible to plan in some industries, some require even longer.
Meanwhile, the "Prez" has not only villainized business, he has created an environment of uncertainity. View it from a business owners standpoint and you will understand.

Raising taxes would be like offering a "junkie" more dope.
Why the military and what parts need to be cut?

You know Capitalism and Monopoly have different meanings?

Interesting game.
That's why it's called Monopoly and not Capitalism.
You believe the government would make better choices than you?
Maybe they will invest your money in another Solyndra; the game's over real quick. Or, perhaps, invest in off-shore drilling in Brazil, that sure created a lot of jobs in America.

We have a progressive income tax, simple math.
We also have something called anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies.
Let's start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Those evil Republicans.
The conflict between Teddy Roosevelt, another evil Republican, and J.P. Morgan is also worth noting.

Tax breaks if the rich create jobs....
Now we're cooking with heat.
How about we start with the Corporate Tax rate as my first year accounting instructor said in 1980?
Why would Obama want to lower the rate to 28%?
What would that do to WB's dividends? Increase? Decrease?
Beware of Buffett's buffet, if it smells like sh!t don't eat there.


1) I am really against Large corporations... I think we would be better of with more small business, I also think they would produce more jobs than corporations can... Sure one small business's does not add 1,000 jobs but 100 small business will...

2) TR would consider most of the large corporations trusts these days. No business should be to large to fail, except the government...

3) People who make all their money from stocks need to pay more.. I really dislike that the stock market is a for of legalized gambling. Gambling could be considered a Social evil...

to calmissile

We should not force people to work, but unless they produce something of value to society than why should we support them?


The way I see it we have a surplus of labor in this country that is not working..
We also have a surplus of Capital in this country in the hands to rich Americans that is not working...

So we either get rid of the labor.. Death camps.  very bad idea!!
or
We redistribute the wealth to get more people working. this could be done through a progressive tax system. It's fair and does not require open class war. But we just can't do that. We must build factories to produce more goods so the capital does not simply end up in china.. Since it is not profitable to do this in many industries we need to use government backed worker cooperatives to fund and build these factories.

We need to hold our high labor standards to the countries we do business with.
If they use child labor we need to stop doing business with them. We must make sure their companies play by the same rules as ours.. 

EDIT:
Corporate tax rate is different than personal income tax..
Remember after citizen united corporations are people!!
they get their own taxes.. My family business is a corporation which my dad owns 100% of the stock.
The yearly board meetings that are required by law are very short!! lol
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on April 13, 2012, 05:50:26 AM

Clinton, the moderate that he is/was did exactly what we need to do to balance the budget today like he did during his administration...abolish social welfare and giveaways, big government.... Even he was fully aware what was wrong in his own party line's agenda.
 
 :P
I guess I must be like Rip VanWinkle and slept through his administration.  I totally missed him abolishing welfare, giveaways and ending big government.   I sure never knew we didn't have any big government during his administration.    Although I think the good things that happened then were more a product of a robust economy based on the growth of computers and the changes that microprocessors enabled that increased product demand, I do think he did a pretty good job and I would be honored to smoke his used cigars whereever they had been.  If I had to list good Presidents over the last half century Reagan would be at the top of my list followed by Clinton. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on April 13, 2012, 06:12:59 AM
In fact some pay no federal income tax at all!!!
Basic Math Gator, That is my point...

Lets play monopoly!!!!
Basic Capitalism

Now if we only had a progressive income tax to redistribute wealth...
It's the only way to keep the game going or it ends... That's real life. 

If we are to give tax breaks for the rich it should be only for creating American jobs in this country,,, That's it!!!
Sounds more like basic Communisim to me or at least Socialism.   My suggestion is that you move to Cuba where the ideas of Marx et all are still followed that everyone can share in their poverty equally.  If you get into what Basic Capitalism really is then it rewards those who work hard, create, produce and add value to their lives and their country not those who sit home watching the boob tube and keep checking their mailnbox every 30 minutes to see if their welfare check has arrived.
If we are to give tax breaks for the rich it should be only for creating American jobs in this country,,, That's it!!!
I am at a bit of a loss as to why you quote this and then complain in other posts because the tax breaks that are designed to create jobs lower the taxes for those who have the lower tax rates because of the tax breaks that create jobs.   I do personally believe that the capital gains tax should be at the lower rate for the first $ 100,000 of capital gains and then should increase progressivly to the standard tax rate.  This would go a long way to protecting the slob who worked all his life and added to his 401K and wants to live a decent life in retirement and tax guys like Buffet who have more money than they know what to do with at a more realistic rate.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on April 13, 2012, 06:26:23 AM
Under the current U.S. tax system, a number of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a significant proportion of middle class families. Warren Buffett, for example, pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, and that’s not fair.

Warren Buffett's secretary makes about $400K per year.  That makes her part of the 1% that you rail against.  And with a $400K income, she pays a higher percentage in taxes than you do.  Where's the fairness there?
 
Should we lower her tax rate?  Or raise yours?
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on April 13, 2012, 06:52:50 AM
My, what a bunch of reactionary nonsense being spewed here.

Boe, right now I'm keeping my distance.

It is like talking existentialism with a born again.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 13, 2012, 07:29:35 AM
I now understand why Obama ignores the heart of the problem and instead focuses on a 0.05% solution.  There are many voters such as represented here who do not make a critical examination and instead drink the Kool-Aid. 
 
Yes, that Obama knows how to lead a nation.  Divert attention away from his record and instead blame Bush and the wealthy.   Meanwhile keep pushing us towards a social welfare state.
 
Does anyone disagree that in many respects we are on the same path as the failed social welfare state of Greece, just 10 or so years behind?  Every Greek is adversely affected by the country's default.  Guess what group is most adversely affected in Greece.  Young people such as you Darth.  Do not believe me?  Look at Spain who is next in line behind Greece.  Unemployment in Spain is 24%, and among young workers who still live with their parents, it is over 40%.  Imagine if 4 out of 10 of your friends had no job.
 
The difference between Greece and the USA is that we are so large we can monetize the debt and thereby bring down the whole world a few notches while we slip many notches.   Or we could address the source of our debt problem, namely spending and jobs.  Doing the latter will require leadership, a proven turnaround guy.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on April 13, 2012, 07:32:54 AM
I now understand why Obama ignores the heart of the problem and instead focuses on a 0.05% solution.  There are many voters such as represented here who do not make a critical examination and instead drink the Kool-Aid. 
 


You have no clue how correct you are.  8)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 13, 2012, 07:57:52 AM
You have no clue how correct you are.  8)

I know what you are implying.  I try to limit myself to a critical examination of facts.  Heck, I almost voted for Obama because our country certainly needed some changes and I thought he would be best.  I changed my mind when I felt Obama was a phony, saying anything to get elected and then doing something else. 

While you are staying out of this, I am trying to understand why Obama hides his record prior to entering his office.  Perhaps you can help me understand his reasoning. 
 
I am not talking about where he was born because I believe he has earned his right to run for office.   I am not talking about his Social Security number either. 
No, I am talking about some other steps that make him seem like a phony.  Why do all the schools Obama attended unanimously  refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence  concerning Obama’s presence in their institutions?
 
I will ignore the schools.  Let us focus on his claimed qualifications as an attorney bother me because I worked as a licensed professional and I have respect for such professions.   Is the following true (I don't know one way or the other):
 
1.  Obama, former editor of the Harvard  Law  Review, is no longer a “lawyer” (http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/).    He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that   he “fibbed” on his bar application (http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/barack-obama-illinois-bar-application-obama-lied-obama-provided-false-information-il-bar-application-bar-complaint-filed-attorney-registration-and-disciplinary-commission-chicago-illinois-6060/).

2.  Michelle Obama   “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993, supposedly to avoid a charge of insurance fraud.  Voluntarily surrendering is not a good action.  It usually suggests you are guilty but plead to a deal.

3.  A senior lecturer is one thing.    A   fully ranked law professor is another.  According to the Chicago   Sun-Times, “Obama did NOT ‘hold the title’ of a University of Chicago   law school professor”. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html) Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law   professor at the University of Chicago.

4. The University of   Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama   (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a title   Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for   the school confirmed in 2008.

5.   “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha  Ferziger  Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in  Law at  the University of Chicago School of Law.

6.      The  former  Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution  recently  during his State of the Union Address.  Unfortunately, the  quote he  cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the  Constitution.   In the State of the Union Address,   President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity,   drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we   are all created equal.”   The promises are not a   notion, our founders named them unalienable rights.  The document is  our  Declaration of Independence and it reads:  We hold these truths to  be  self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed  by  their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are   Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 
And this is  the  same guy who claims to be a constitutional attorney?   And who lectures the Supreme Court?   He did it moments later in the same speech.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 13, 2012, 08:12:48 AM
I guess I must be like Rip VanWinkle and slept through his administration.  I totally missed him abolishing welfare, giveaways and ending big government.   I sure never knew we didn't have any big government during his administration.    Although I think the good things that happened then were more a product of a robust economy based on the growth of computers and the changes that microprocessors enabled that increased product demand, I do think he did a pretty good job and I would be honored to smoke his used cigars whereever they had been.  If I had to list good Presidents over the last half century Reagan would be at the top of my list followed by Clinton.

Wake up TG! It's 2012!   ;)
 
Technically, you're right, but blame that on Bill, "...I promised to “end welfare as we know it,” . Abolish seem a bit of a stretch as reform is likely the better term. Such are DC politico lingo.
 
Abolished as we know it.
 
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html?_r=1)
 
>>....The results: child poverty dropped to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest rate since 1979, and in 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest level in four decades. Overall, 100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class during our eight years as in the previous 12. Of course the booming economy helped, but the empowerment policies made a big difference.
 
Regarding the politics of welfare reform, there is a great lesson to be learned, particularly in today’s hyper-partisan environment, where the Republican leadership forces bills through Congress without even a hint of bipartisanship. Simply put, welfare reform worked because we all worked together. The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country.
 
The recent welfare reform amendments, largely Republican-only initiatives, cut back on states’ ability to devise their own programs. They also disallowed hours spent pursuing an education from counting against required weekly work hours. I doubt they will have the positive impact of the original legislation....<<<
 
 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, 1996
    Even the title of the Law has such a nice 'ring' to it.  *Personal Responsibility*. Such an alien term to millions of Americans and the (SLSA) Social Leeching Society of America.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on April 13, 2012, 09:53:19 AM
Granted there were some good things going on in America and in the economy at that time.  My point was more that I personally think it was not so much because of the actions Clinton took as it was that he didn't do much to destroy the country.    We had a robust econony more because of computers and microprocessors than because of government actions.    Prosperity can be affected by many things.   For example the economy in Russia has been pretty decent but much of that is because of oil and if there was no oil in Russia the economy there would be in the toilet or close to it.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 13, 2012, 10:20:01 AM
I now understand why Obama ignores the heart of the problem and instead focuses on a 0.05% solution.  There are many voters such as represented here who do not make a critical examination and instead drink the Kool-Aid. 

Par for the course Gator.. works for either side.
 
Quote
Yes, that Obama knows how to lead a nation.  Divert attention away from his record and instead blame Bush and the wealthy.   Meanwhile keep pushing us towards a social welfare state.
 

Much of politics is about principles, the common man that is part of a majority can understand such.  When folks thrown into prisoners have better healthcare than the common citizen, something is wrong.  It's a principle..

Quote
Does anyone disagree that in many respects we are on the same path as the failed social welfare state of Greece, just 10 or so years behind?  Every Greek is adversely affected by the country's default.  Guess what group is most adversely affected in Greece.  Young people such as you Darth.  Do not believe me?  Look at Spain who is next in line behind Greece.  Unemployment in Spain is 24%, and among young workers who still live with their parents, it is over 40%.  Imagine if 4 out of 10 of your friends had no job.


Apples and oranges.  The fiscal aspects of Greece entering in the EU monetary system were well known but ignored at the time.  Both Greece and Spain and even Italy have huge 'black market' economies that allow them to thrive even though official figures cannot incorporate it on their official balance sheets.  Welcome to the Med.  Sure, throw Greece, Spain and Italy out of the EUR... it will do them nothing but good.. that's the real challenge.  Need food for thought? Just compare un employment in Spain with their debt......
 
Quote
The difference between Greece and the USA is that we are so large we can monetize the debt and thereby bring down the whole world a few notches while we slip many notches.   Or we could address the source of our debt problem, namely spending and jobs.  Doing the latter will require leadership, a proven turnaround guy.

No, the difference between Greece and et al is that true consumer debt is limited.  Compare the average household credit card debt and you'll get an idea of what is really going on.

The US IMHO has only begun to address the debt problem at a very high level.  There are a few years of turbulence going forward, but household debt will be the deciding factor in the end.  In this respect, problems in EU may end up being a winning factor in the end.  Whether or not the US will end up winning in the end will be directly correlated with banks being able to write off bad debt.  We're talking a  huge amount that is almost equal to government debt.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 13, 2012, 02:33:20 PM

Warren Buffett's secretary makes about $400K per year.  That makes her part of the 1% that you rail against.  And with a $400K income, she pays a higher percentage in taxes than you do.  Where's the fairness there?
 
Should we lower her tax rate?  Or raise yours?

balance the budget,, raise both of ours at a progressive rate...
slash the military budget until we get the finances in order.

we could just have a nice fair flat tax but,, as the American saying goes
"you can't get blood from a stone"

the people on the bottom need a higher percentage of their income to survive...
i bet the poor pay a far larger share of their income in taxes?
we are forgetting about a lot of other taxes..
like taxes on gas or sales tax...

in new york we pay taxes on gas that are suppose go for fixing the roads but the ny government spent the money... now we are in trouble.
lets look at who is in government? how many come from the working class??

I now understand why Obama ignores the heart of the problem and instead focuses on a 0.05% solution.  There are many voters such as represented here who do not make a critical examination and instead drink the Kool-Aid. 
 
Yes, that Obama knows how to lead a nation.  Divert attention away from his record and instead blame Bush and the wealthy.   Meanwhile keep pushing us towards a social welfare state.
 
Does anyone disagree that in many respects we are on the same path as the failed social welfare state of Greece, just 10 or so years behind?  Every Greek is adversely affected by the country's default.  Guess what group is most adversely affected in Greece.  Young people such as you Darth.  Do not believe me?  Look at Spain who is next in line behind Greece.  Unemployment in Spain is 24%, and among young workers who still live with their parents, it is over 40%.  Imagine if 4 out of 10 of your friends had no job.
 
The difference between Greece and the USA is that we are so large we can monetize the debt and thereby bring down the whole world a few notches while we slip many notches.   Or we could address the source of our debt problem, namely spending and jobs.  Doing the latter will require leadership, a proven turnaround guy.

main difference is we print paper money that is backed by nothing... if another country such as china became the world reserve currency we would be in a lot of trouble...

i think more small business's would be good for the country than a few large ones..

Sounds more like basic Communisim to me or at least Socialism.   My suggestion is that you move to Cuba where the ideas of Marx et all are still followed that everyone can share in their poverty equally.  If you get into what Basic Capitalism really is then it rewards those who work hard, create, produce and add value to their lives and their country not those who sit home watching the boob tube and keep checking their mailnbox every 30 minutes to see if their welfare check has arrived.
If we are to give tax breaks for the rich it should be only for creating American jobs in this country,,, That's it!!!
I am at a bit of a loss as to why you quote this and then complain in other posts because the tax breaks that are designed to create jobs lower the taxes for those who have the lower tax rates because of the tax breaks that create jobs.   I do personally believe that the capital gains tax should be at the lower rate for the first $ 100,000 of capital gains and then should increase progressivly to the standard tax rate.  This would go a long way to protecting the slob who worked all his life and added to his 401K and wants to live a decent life in retirement and tax guys like Buffet who have more money than they know what to do with at a more realistic rate.

i agree,, i never said we should all be paid the same... some people do work harder than others...

companies do not add jobs because of tax breaks.... they hire because they have a jobs that needs to be done...

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on April 13, 2012, 07:32:39 PM

companies do not add jobs because of tax breaks.... they hire because they have a jobs that needs to be done...

They always have potential  jobs to be done.  Taxes can change the projected profit analysis to either make  the project a go or nix the project.

Right now, I am selling parcels of land because of the temporarily lower capital gains rate.  I wouldn't be selling otherwise.

Government lowers the tax rate; I sell; construction starts; unemployed construction workers start to work; materials are bought; unemployed lumber mill workers start to work, etc., etc.

Even with my temporarily lowered tax bill, I am still paying much more than my fair share;  given that close to half the people pay zero income tax.  And yet these same people get to vote for a congress that can give them more handouts financed by actual taxpayers.

Not talking about taking benefits away  from the elderly and those who really cannot support themselves due to some type of real disability.  No one begrudges helping these folks.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 13, 2012, 08:14:12 PM
They always have potential  jobs to be done.  Taxes can change the projected profit analysis to either make  the project a go or nix the project.

Right now, I am selling properties because of the temporarily lower capital gains rate.  I wouldn't be selling otherwise.

Government lowers the tax rate; I sell; construction starts; unemployed construction workers start to work; materials are bought; unemployed lumber mill workers start to work, etc., etc.

Are these homes for speculative resale or homes for families who need homes now?

If you were building to make a buck I can see how taxes might influence you to build, but if you need a home you need a home. A lot of markets must be flooded Not sure low taxes will help those areas out...

The Amish have been moving into my area last few years. They have bought up most of the homes.. So now if you want some were to live you got to hire us,, :)

We do a lot of business on a few private lakes... prices their are going up all the time. 500K to 1mil+,,, We get a lot of city folk now, most are real nice to work for.. Any one looking for a lake house?  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=6D76Yl2NP5E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=6D76Yl2NP5E)

Look no Skyscrapers!! lol

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 13, 2012, 10:55:22 PM
So now we have it - Obama versus Romney. Let us pray, but don't forget to vote!!! My wife is not a political person and her attitude is that her vote won't mean anything. But I'm gonna make sure that she participates in the political process in November if I have to drag it to the voting booth!
Remember, if Obama wins we can kiss America as it once was, good bye, if not forever, then at least for the next 30 or 40 years.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on April 14, 2012, 04:05:48 AM
Even the title of the Law has such a nice 'ring' to it.  *Personal Responsibility*. Such an alien term to millions of Americans and the (SLSA) Social Leeching Society of America.

Did you ever notice that the worse the law, the better "Ring" the name of it has.  The one you mentioned, "No child left behind,  VAWA, etc.   Probably the reverse it true as well.  If they ever come up with a law "Destroy America and its way of life" that will probably be the law that corrects all that is wrong with the country. ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 14, 2012, 04:13:55 AM
So now we have it - Obama versus Romney. Let us pray, but don't forget to vote!!! My wife is not a political person and her attitude is that her vote won't mean anything. But I'm gonna make sure that she participates in the political process in November if I have to drag it to the voting booth!
Remember, if Obama wins we can kiss America as it once was, good bye, if not forever, then at least for the next 30 or 40 years.

What happens if you drag her to the polls and she votes for Obama?  ;)

Just picking on ya...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 14, 2012, 06:20:58 AM
What happens if you drag her to the polls and she votes for Obama?  ;)

Just picking on ya...
she is smart and she grew up in the FSU so socialism is not an option for her ;-) just saying
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 14, 2012, 11:13:15 AM
she is smart and she grew up in the FSU so socialism is not an aoption for her ;-) just saying

But Obama is a wall street/ insurance corporatist!

Their is no way he is a socialist or communist...

If he was a Socialist he would be in my party, not the democrats. At least until we kicked him out for collision with big corporations and the insurance industry.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: happyandstable on April 14, 2012, 11:21:18 AM
To be totally correct here the FSU was never a socialist state. It was a communist state. There is a big difference between the two.  ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 14, 2012, 11:37:55 AM
To be totally correct here the FSU was never a socialist state. It was a communist state. There is a big difference between the two.  ;D

It was a Authoritarian Communist State, That employed State Capitalism...  >:(
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: happyandstable on April 14, 2012, 11:42:08 AM
It was a Authoritarian Communist State, That employed State Capitalism...  >:(

    Sure you did not mean to do this (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/mad0233.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/free-emoticons-anger.html)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 14, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
    Sure you did not mean to do this (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/mad0233.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/free-emoticons-anger.html)


No that's the the USA if we don't fix things or if the radical right wing types ever get in power..

 (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/wp-content/uploads/mad0233.gif) (http://www.emoticonsfree.org/free-emoticons-anger.html)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 14, 2012, 12:52:23 PM

Did you ever notice that the worse the law, the better "Ring" the name of it has.  The one you mentioned, "No child left behind,  VAWA, etc.   Probably the reverse it true as well.  If they ever come up with a law "Destroy America and its way of life" that will probably be the law that corrects all that is wrong with the country. ;D

TG,

you are a prophet.  One day it will come down to exactly that.

Unlike many other countries the US has not been required to rebuild in the last few hundred years.  The results of stagnation and consolidation of power and wealth is showing.

Only a matter of time when discontent in any political system reaches a critical mass.

There are advantages to being able to start from scratch rather than keep building on the old heap.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 14, 2012, 01:39:59 PM
TG,

you are a prophet.  One day it will come down to exactly that.

Unlike many other countries the US has not been required to rebuild in the last few hundred years.  The results of stagnation and consolidation of power and wealth is showing.

Only a matter of time when discontent in any political system reaches a critical mass.

There are advantages to being able to start from scratch rather than keep building on the old heap.

We can only hope this does not come in a form of increased Fascism/corporatism..

The idea that we are still a true democracy is absurd. Your voice can only be heard if you have the money to back it. This shows by the fact that See below... It does not surprise me in the least that these are the people who pay the least taxes. Taxes that go to support their wars of corporate interest. But it's the lower class who fights and dies in these wars of American imperialism. If the sons and daughters of the wealthy had to fight I am sure they would think twice before starting another war. But as it is they want the poor and whats left of the middle class to do the fighting and pay for the debt they have accumulated since WWII. Not only that but they want tax breaks to send more jobs overseas. Complete craziness!!!!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/03/93358/congress-where-44-percent-are.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/03/93358/congress-where-44-percent-are.html)

One point Ron Paul has that I agree 100% with is the fact that if we want to end terrorism, we need to stop supporting our own terrorism. No more south American or African backed coupes and end our support of the Zionist state if Israel. Let me be clear, we should support the Jewish people in Israel. Zionism is wrong just like Naziism is wrong in fact they are based on the same ideology. Hitler after all was the biggest supporter of Zionism before WWII. The Zionist in the middle east even offered Hitler a Alliance during WWII. I never understood why they treated the Palestinians the way they do until i read about the truth. 

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html)
 

 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 14, 2012, 10:11:34 PM

1) I am really against Large corporations... I think we would be better of with more small business, I also think they would produce more jobs than corporations can... Sure one small business's does not add 1,000 jobs but 100 small business will...

2) TR would consider most of the large corporations trusts these days. No business should be to large to fail, except the government...

3) People who make all their money from stocks need to pay more.. I really dislike that the stock market is a for of legalized gambling. Gambling could be considered a Social evil...

EDIT:
Corporate tax rate is different than personal income tax..
Remember after citizen united corporations are people!!
they get their own taxes.. My family business is a corporation which my dad owns 100% of the stock.
The yearly board meetings that are required by law are very short!! lol

What would Obamacare do to small businesses?
Any particular Large corporation you dislike?
The last I saw regarding the percentage of those employed by small business was just over 50%. I believe it was closer to 80% in the 1980s.
What has killed small businesses?

Would TR really feel that way? You may want to look at that conflict more closely.
How much power does Bill Gates have? He is the richest of the rich as was J.P. Morgan at that time.
I'm also pretty sure TR wouldn't have Buffett (2nd) and Soros (7th I think) over for tea and crumpets.

So, you dislike the stock market, OK.
They need to pay more? More than just above 50% because in the worse case scenario that is what they pay.

How is personal tax different than corporate?
The money still goes to same place.  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 15, 2012, 03:59:31 PM
I'm elated to know even nations of the Americas aren't duped by all this 'Hope and Change' BS either...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on April 15, 2012, 10:44:42 PM
Living in a country where the LOWEST tax rate is 35%, I would love to have your troubles...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 16, 2012, 04:00:47 AM
Shadow,

Doesn't the 35% include social security and healthcare?

If so you're getting a good deal IMHO.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on April 16, 2012, 05:49:11 AM
Shadow,

Doesn't the 35% include social security and healthcare?

If so you're getting a good deal IMHO.
The amount is divided in to the social security fund as well as other general government funds, but health care is a minimal of USD 200 a month extra.
By a system of amounts-not-to-be paid and tax deduction the average joe falls down to paying about 25% to 30% in reality. But the higher-ups need a more inventive system as the progressive tax system rises rather quickly to 52%.
Which is why they flee in to (international) corporate structures which brings it down to again about 30%.
The minimum wage (which is equal to the family social security) pays 13%, excluding health care. As this means a minimum wage actually earns below social security, behold one of the problems employers face...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on April 16, 2012, 06:00:53 AM
To be totally correct here the FSU was never a socialist state. It was a communist state. There is a big difference between the two.  ;D
We were taught that we were living in a socialist society building a communist society. It all sounded beautiful in theory while the reality was pretty horrible.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 16, 2012, 08:29:55 AM
The amount is divided in to the social security fund as well as other general government funds, but health care is a minimal of USD 200 a month extra.
By a system of amounts-not-to-be paid and tax deduction the average joe falls down to paying about 25% to 30% in reality. But the higher-ups need a more inventive system as the progressive tax system rises rather quickly to 52%.
Which is why they flee in to (international) corporate structures which brings it down to again about 30%.
The minimum wage (which is equal to the family social security) pays 13%, excluding health care. As this means a minimum wage actually earns below social security, behold one of the problems employers face...

Don't know if it is also that way in NL, but at least in Germany the healthcare system also pays the employee their salary after 6 weeks when an employee is sick or hospitalized long term.  This works out to be a perk for the employer as well by reducing risk.  Also 'calling in sick' requires a doctor's certification in most cases which gives the employer some kind of control that the employee was actually sick.

There are a lot of pluses on both sides, but yes a price is involved.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 16, 2012, 08:41:20 AM
Living in a country where the LOWEST tax rate is 35%, I would love to have your troubles...

You must examine all taxes, not just Federal Income Tax (FIT).  For example, I pay more in real estate taxes than I do in FIT.  A portion of  personal income is from corporate dividends and is currently sheltered because it has already been taxed by the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world.
 
We do have a sales tax of purchases; however our rate is 7% vs. a much higher VAT for you.
 
The Buffet rule is just an appetizer for the government.  The big government feast will be on the middle class and is next.  Obamacare and AMT will be part of that.
 
It sure is complicated.  Too complicated.  A flat tax rule would certainly help and produce more revenue.  But why raise revenue if the government keeps racing ahead with spending?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on April 16, 2012, 08:49:04 AM
Don't know if it is also that way in NL, but at least in Germany the healthcare system also pays the employee their salary after 6 weeks when an employee is sick or hospitalized long term.  This works out to be a perk for the employer as well by reducing risk.  Also 'calling in sick' requires a doctor's certification in most cases which gives the employer some kind of control that the employee was actually sick.

There are a lot of pluses on both sides, but yes a price is involved.
Unfortunately a line of socialist governments have created a system that is not as easy for employers as in Germany. Employers have to obtain an insurance from private insurance companies, or run the risk of one year full payment of salaries in case of illness.
As far as asking for a doctor's certification that is seen as an invasion of privacy and there for strictly forbidden.

Germany does have a different system, but has a higher tax rate as the difference between gross and nett is 50% after deducting social security.
Belgium has a low taxrate for lower wages, but increaser rapidly for higher ones. On the other hand, social security and healh care are pretty cheap.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on April 16, 2012, 08:55:33 AM

You must examine all taxes, not just Federal Income Tax (FIT).  For example, I pay more in real estate taxes than I do in FIT.  A portion of  personal income is from corporate dividends and is currently sheltered because it has already been taxed by the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world.
 
We do have a sales tax of purchases; however our rate is 7% vs. a much higher VAT for you.
 
The Buffet rule is just an appetizer for the government.  The big government feast will be on the middle class and is next.  Obamacare and AMT will be part of that.
 
It sure is complicated.  Too complicated.  A flat tax rule would certainly help and produce more revenue.  But why raise revenue if the government keeps racing ahead with spending?
VAT is at 19%, might be raised to 21% as in Belgium and Germany soon.
As for real estate taxes, they are very unlikely to be lower considering how many people complain here.  If I am correct a yearly 1% is the norm, though it differs by which city you are living in with the big cities being the highest collectors.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 16, 2012, 09:09:18 AM
As for real estate taxes, they are very unlikely to be lower considering how many people complain here.  If I am correct a yearly 1% is the norm, though it differs by which city you are living in with the big cities being the highest collectors.

Florida is about 3+% at the high end, dependent upon how long you have owned the property.  Then again, we have no state income tax in Florida as we receive much tax revenue on tourist expenditures.  Texas has no state income tax because of oil revenue.  California has all the taxes plus expensive property values.
 
Nothing certain in life except death and taxes.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on April 16, 2012, 09:24:32 AM

Florida is about 3+% at the high end, dependent upon how long you have owned the property.  Then again, we have no state income tax in Florida as we receive much tax revenue on tourist expenditures.  Texas has no state income tax because of oil revenue.  California has all the taxes plus expensive property values.
 
Nothing certain in life except death and taxes.
Now that sounds higher but... is the value also indexed every 3 years, keeping the tax up to date with the market value  ?  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 16, 2012, 06:39:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8O7V-WxWQ&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8O7V-WxWQ&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 16, 2012, 09:22:40 PM
 
So Obama's Father Served in WWII?
 
 
 
Obama's father served in WW II, really?  It goes from sad to disgusting.
How many more lies will he have to tell before the  mainstream media starts calling him on them? This might help explain why there was little support in the halls of government [where it counted, anyway] for the Stolen Valor effort. 'Stolen Valor' would have made it a crime to wear military uniforms and or devices not earned.... Another slap in the face to U.S. Veterans.
 
Obama said his father served in WW II.
He said so in a speech. Here is an 18 second video: CNN News clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw
Is he a compulsive liar? Why were there no reporters who checked these statements and called him on this? They did for everyone else. Why not him?
Like it or not, here are the facts:
 
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born: 4/4/36 Died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9 1/2 yrs old when it ended.
Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: January 2,1935 Died: 3/2/87 at the age of 52.
He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended. He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.
Watch the video. RIGHT OUT OF HIS MOUTH!!!
And the media doesn't say anything. If you doubt it, Google both of these guys.
It appears this guy doesn't know how to tell the truth -- or he doesn't care about telling the truth -- or perhaps he doesn't know when he isn't telling the truth (which is also a very scary angle). Talk about STOLEN HONOR!!! Had this been Bush, the Media would still be on it!
The CNN clip of Obama is surprising. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this lie wasn't uncovered, questioned, or debated before the Nov. 2008 election. Oh well, he must have just "forgotten" the facts, again. Or perhaps he really doesn't even know the difference between truth and fabrication?
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on April 17, 2012, 08:46:15 AM
Not to support Obama . . . but is it possible he was speaking of his grandfather, his mother's father?

Yes, I know he says father, but perhaps he was in habit of calling his grandfather, father.  It happens.

Perhaps this has already  been checked out and disproven also; i.e. that his grandfather served in WWII.




Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 17, 2012, 08:53:15 AM
That probably is the case.
With the exception of the time he was in Indonesia, as a child, Obama's maternal Grandfather was, de facto, his father.  He even looks like his Grandfather.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on April 17, 2012, 09:52:33 AM
http://www.romneyexposed.com/
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on April 18, 2012, 07:55:43 PM
!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJtaOO2etc&feature=player_embedded#!

Notice at the start how the Pres is checking out the curly redhead.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on April 18, 2012, 08:35:49 PM
Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em he beat him?
Quote
Mitt Romney is facing a fight for the White House and some conservative pundits are predicting it is going to get dirty.
Charles Krauthammer a Fox News contributor, made the prediction that “you’ll have to shower several times a day” up until November’s General Election.

Oddly enough making stuff up is a Fox News favorite and the network has been attacking President Obama for three years. Certainly, Krauthammer can’t expect the Obama campaign to take it lying down and give Romney any advantage especially after the bills the GOP have been passing in Congress. The GOP attacks on the HealthCare Reform bill have been fierce and steady, hitting Obama’s greatest achievement.
(http://www.politicolnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Charles_Krauthammer.jpg) (http://www.politicolnews.com/2012-the-dirtiest-campaign-youll-see-fox-news/d0047142_frame58-tif/)
Romney has much to worry about, however his own past flip flops makes him a very insecure candidate, one whom his own party are having to hold their noses to vote for in the Republican nomination.
Negative campaigns can work, and we’re getting a taste of it right now” said Krauthammer today on the Bill O’Reilly Show. The hypocrisy of his statements however show that the negativity has actually come from the republican party in their attacks on legislation affecting women and minorities the most. From Wisconsin to Virginia the failed laws on vaginal probes has made the GOP look and feel ridiculous to the public.
Outrageous laws such as muzzling doctors in Pennsylvania from discussing franking chemicals with their patients who are damaged by them, utter and sheer anti-human laws!
The advice to Romney to face his competitor head on is not exactly Romney’s style after his failures in the past to secure the nomination or even a VP role in McCain’s win in 2008.
After the circus performed by the GOP candidates for one year now, that has usurped air time on CNN and Fox News it is time for Obama’s campaign to assume the narrative and fire back at the extraordinary attacks on his first term. It has been a “dirty four years” from Republicans attacking President Obama’s every move, every detail and every bill has been shot down by the GOP. The fight even affect the country’s credit rating in a battle royal over the debt ceiling causing a crisis for the US credit rating for the first time in history!
If Mitt Romney has any chance at all in beating Obama he has to look at his own past history not because the prediction that Obama will go rogue on Romney.
Most recently, Mitt Romney asked for the endorsement of a right wing fanatical gun advocate like Ted Nugent, shooting himself in the foot again. Mitt Romney’s repeat performances of gaffs, flip-flops and his non-disclosure of Iran oil investments in his tax returns -the Obama campaign will not have to work very hard.
 
Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/2012-the-dirtiest-campaign-youll-see-fox-news/#ixzz1sSAspdGz (http://www.politicolnews.com/2012-the-dirtiest-campaign-youll-see-fox-news/#ixzz1sSAspdGz)


Oh, more on Scytl.........

Quote
There are no Americans on the Board of Directors of Scytl—but CEO Pere Valles once lived and worked in Barack’s old stomping grounds, Chicago.

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/what-is-scytl-why-should-you-be-very-very-concerned


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on April 18, 2012, 09:36:04 PM
So Obama's Father Served in WWII?
 


I don't like Obama (at all) however 


I think he was referring to his maternal grandfather
Stanley Dunham who raised him from age ten forward
in Hawaii, he was a veteran of WWII
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 18, 2012, 09:52:22 PM
I think he was referring to his maternal grandfather
Stanley Dunham who raised him from age ten forward
in Hawaii, he was a veteran of WWII


You might be correct.   I do not like any of the candidates, but am still hung up on why would a presidential candidate ask the voters to put their trust in him and then spend millions to keep his records sealed such as his birth certificate, school transcripts, etc.  This alone makes no sense  to me!

If you can believe the stories on line about a trial back east, the lawyer and the judge agreed that his birth certificate is a fake and was computer generated.   I don't have time to do a forensic analysis like others have done, but if this is true then I would not believe anything he says and certainly would not want him to be president of the US.  If the stories are fake about the court trial I have not found a source yet that indicates it.

There are reasons enough to not vote for Obama based on his policies and leftest leanings, but I cannot understand why he does/did not simply release this information long ago and put the issues to bed.  Makes no sense to me unless he is truly hiding something.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 18, 2012, 10:10:44 PM

I don't like Obama (at all) however 


I think he was referring to his maternal grandfather
Stanley Dunham who raised him from age ten forward
in Hawaii, he was a veteran of WWII

From shortly after birth until age five, then when he returned from Indonesia.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 19, 2012, 01:54:26 PM
Barry don't who his daddy is? :o
Didn't he write a book entitled "Dreams from my father"?
http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/1400082773
He even misspells Frantz Fanon.
American president Barack Obama cites Fanon as an intellectual influence in Dreams from My Father. The passage [pages 100-101]: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night,in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated."
What a scholarly work.
Add Navy "corpse" man, good God, what a genius.
This is the one that really got me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uLnMWsbE8s
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t.

If you are still on the fence about who to vote for try this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/B0057D8RL4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334869036&sr=1-1
It's a quick read.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 19, 2012, 02:01:32 PM
Dreams From My Father was not meant to be a scholarly work.
 
It is a good read.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 19, 2012, 02:12:08 PM
Dreams From My Father was not meant to be a scholarly work.
 
It is a good read.
Usually one remembers how to spell the name of the person one considers an intellectual influence.
Have you read anything by Fanon?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on April 19, 2012, 02:12:16 PM
then spend millions to keep his records sealed such as his birth certificate, school transcripts, etc.  This alone makes no sense  to me!


Why would he spend millions of dollars to do this? These records are not "sealed" per se, but they cannot be released to the general public. I could not walk into any university and demand that they give me somebody's transcripts and it does not matter if they are the President or a janitor.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on April 19, 2012, 02:20:05 PM
Usually one remembers how to spell the name of the person one considers an intellectual influence.
Have you read anything by Fanon?


True, it is a pretty big mistake, but the draft of the book was certainly reviewed and corrected by many editors, copy editors and the like between the final draft and the publishing of the book. Anybody anywhere along the chain could have changed the Frantz to Franz and when rereading a text, quite often you see what you think is there and not what is actually there on the paper  :)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 19, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
If there was anything wrong with his birth certificate the "Hill-Billarys" would have knocked him out a long time ago.
Transcripts are private as are medical records.
Yeah, he could release them if he wanted but doesn't this keep your eye off the real issues by leaving it open?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 19, 2012, 02:24:48 PM

True, it is a pretty big mistake, but the draft of the book was certainly reviewed and corrected by many editors, copy editors and the like between the final draft and the publishing of the book. Anybody anywhere along the chain could have changed the Frantz to Franz and when rereading a text, quite often you see what you think is there and not what is actually there on the paper  :)
Possibly but how long has the book been out now?
You may find this interesting:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html
Becareful what you put your name on?  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 19, 2012, 02:28:32 PM
Usually one remembers how to spell the name of the person one considers an intellectual influence.
Have you read anything by Fanon?

No, but I've read Dreams From My Father.  I don't recall Obama claiming Fanon was a huge intellectual influence.  As I recall, that was when he was at Occidental, and it was about discovering who he was as an African American (i.e. how society saw him) in 1979-1981.  He also pretty much says that in that period of his life, he was an angry jerk.
 
As for American Thinker, well, Obama was given the opportunity to write a book about anything, because he was the editor/president of the Harvard Law Review.  That was a tradition, i.e., that the president write a book.  Most wrote legal texts, but Obama chose to do something different.  So, I really doubt it was ghost written.  At the time, Obama was a nobody law student.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on April 19, 2012, 02:32:45 PM
Possibly but how long has the book been out now?
You may find this interesting:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html)
Becareful what you put your name on?  ;)


Interesting!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 19, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
Can you name two other famous leaders in the world who wrote their autobiography when they were a nobody? 
 
5, 4, 3, 2, 1   Time's Up
 
Hitler and Stalin

I am not say he is similar to these men, yet he may share some things. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 19, 2012, 03:48:21 PM
Dreams From My Father is not really an autobiography.  It is a memoir.  For example, many of the individuals he describes (other than family members and his Columbia roommate) are compilations of individuals.  Obama says so in the foreward to the book.
 
I'd say it is more an "exploration" of who he was, how the lack of his father in his life played a role in that, and how learning about his father's life helped change his perspective.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 19, 2012, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from Misha,

Why would he spend millions of dollars to do this? These records are not "sealed" per se, but they cannot be released to the general public. I could not walk into any university and demand that they give me somebody's transcripts and it does not matter if they are the President or a janitor.

You missed the point!  Of course you cannot ask for someone elses medical records, that is not the issue!  We all know that.

The point is that he is asking the trust of American voters and has not been willing to release any of his records that Proves he is qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of presidency.
Would you vote for someone for president that waits years to release his birth certificate?  Give me a break!  Somehow I doubt Canadians would just brush it off as "who cares"?

As to the comment about diversion, I had not thought about that.  Perhaps it is a good strategy.  In spite of it, knowing whether the current document is a fake once and for all, could have the potential of Obama loosing many of his supporters.





Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 19, 2012, 04:13:08 PM
Dreams From My Father is not really an autobiography.  It is a memoir.  For example, many of the individuals he describes (other than family members and his Columbia roommate) are compilations of individuals.  Obama says so in the foreward to the book.
 
I'd say it is more an "exploration" of who he was, how the lack of his father in his life played a role in that, and how learning about his father's life helped change his perspective.
Helped change his perspective or did it build one for him?
It should be noted Ayers also misspelled the name.
Try the Dinesh D'Souza book. Here's brief part with correction.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_print.html
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 19, 2012, 04:18:34 PM

Interesting!
As are these.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obama_ayers_and_the_knowledge.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_the_best_revolutions_are.html
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 19, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
Helped change his perspective or did it build one for him?
It should be noted Ayers also misspelled the name.
Try the Dinesh D'Souza book. Here's brief part with correction.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_print.html (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_print.html)

It changed his perspective, as a young man, on who he was/is. 
 
More conspiracy theories, LOL.  You know, Ayers has sarcastically claimed he wrote the book and wants the royalties.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 19, 2012, 04:39:00 PM
Sorry, I'm not laughing.  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 19, 2012, 04:53:59 PM
It's about as logical as all the other conspiracy theories, that he was born in Kenya, that he's a "secret Muslim" (odd, would it not be, for a man whose parents were both atheists), that he is a citizen of Indonesia, that he never attended Occidental or Columbia, etc., etc., etc.
 
No matter what is debunked, something new will pop up.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 19, 2012, 05:26:19 PM
   In contrast, Obamacare was a 100% liberal plan.

You mean 100% for profit big insurance
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on April 19, 2012, 05:50:15 PM
It's about as logical as all the other conspiracy theories, that he was born in Kenya, that he's a "secret Muslim" (odd, would it not be, for a man whose parents were both atheists), that he is a citizen of Indonesia, that he never attended Occidental or Columbia, etc., etc., etc.
 
No matter what is debunked, something new will pop up.


As my old (dead)  grandpappy, Graveman, used to say.. you just can't trust those Kenyan born Indonesian atheistic secret militant Muslims, and especially those ones who never attended Occidental or Columbia...


I think he's actually the Enzyte guy, with pigment augmentation! but it has been covered up to pump up the stock value..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on April 19, 2012, 05:59:16 PM
You mean 100% for profit big insurance


However you slice it, when the cost of individual provided medical insurance, without the slightest exaggeration, exceeds the monthly cost of a damn mortgage, something is seriously wrong with the system.  Band-aids are not going to help.. we need a complete and total do over...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 19, 2012, 06:03:59 PM
Boethius

I take it you are not buying the analysis that indicates his long form birth cerificate was computer generated, rather than a scanned image of the document?

I am not sure one way or the other yet, but what would your attitude be if it was clearly proven that it was a manufactured document?

Also, what rational explanation could you give for someone running for the president of the US to not want to release something as fundamental as his birth certificate?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on April 19, 2012, 06:11:58 PM
...You [Misha] missed the point!  Of course you cannot ask for someone elses medical records, that is not the issue!  We all know that.

The point is that he is asking the trust of American voters and has not been willing to release any of his records that Proves he is qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of presidency.
Would you vote for someone for president that waits years to release his birth certificate?  Give me a break!  Somehow I doubt Canadians would just brush it off as "who cares"?...

Just for interest's sake, Doug, have you been so worried that you've chased up the Birth Certificates of any previous Presidents?  You've had a few over the years whose merit I would seriously question - maybe they were also born in Kenya and had fake Birth Certificates as well?
 
GIVE IT A REST!!!  :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
 
Considering that all the polls I've seen reported indicate that Romney is hated by more than twice as many people as Obama, and that his approval rating is about half of Obama's, you guys are going to keep complaining whatever the result of the election.
 
Just as a side-issue, based on those figures, it seems strange that no US posters (that I can recall, anyway) have admitted to being Obama supporters.  There seem to be a LOT of Republicans, though.  Statistically, this bell curve is very lopsided.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 19, 2012, 06:35:07 PM
Just for interest's sake, Doug, have you been so worried that you've chased up the Birth Certificates of any previous Presidents?

No, I have never had a reason to question it.  However I do believe that there was a question about McCain at one point but I do not remember him or any other presidential candidate refusing to release records that relate to his birthplace.

 I would expect ANY presidential candidate to release records such as these.  Why would they not?

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 19, 2012, 06:45:27 PM
Just as a side-issue, based on those figures, it seems strange that no US posters (that I can recall, anyway) have admitted to being Obama supporters.

I think your observation is correct.  Strange isn't it?  Perhaps the polling data you are seeing is not valid or skewed.  It seems that the majority of Obama supporters on this forum are foreigners. :)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 19, 2012, 07:38:18 PM

Considering that all the polls I've seen reported indicate that Romney is hated by more than twice as many people as Obama, and that his approval rating is about half of Obama's, you guys are going to keep complaining whatever the result of the election.


It is close, actually, across the nation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57415623-503544/obama-romney-in-dead-heat-cbs-news-new-york-times-poll-finds/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57415623-503544/obama-romney-in-dead-heat-cbs-news-new-york-times-poll-finds/)
 
However, national polls mean nothing.  With our electoral college system, the election boils down to a few swing states such as Florida and Ohio.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on April 19, 2012, 09:01:09 PM
Liberal logic of the day:   
 
"Apparently, I’m supposed to be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than by what Barack Obama does with mine."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 19, 2012, 09:12:44 PM
Boethius

I take it you are not buying the analysis that indicates his long form birth cerificate was computer generated, rather than a scanned image of the document?

I am not sure one way or the other yet, but what would your attitude be if it was clearly proven that it was a manufactured document?

Also, what rational explanation could you give for someone running for the president of the US to not want to release something as fundamental as his birth certificate?

One of my links (the LA Times one) notes that a government official in Hawaii stated he was present when the long form was pulled from government records.  So that would have to be one heck of a conspiracy.  But, so that you don't have to go back, I'll provide another

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hawaiian-official-confirms-obama-delivered-by-doctor/ (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hawaiian-official-confirms-obama-delivered-by-doctor/)


There was also an announcement of Obama's birth in both major Honolulu papers in August, 1961.  Given this is very easy to verify, there is little doubt Obama was born in Honolulu.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on April 19, 2012, 09:54:20 PM
Just as a side-issue, based on those figures, it seems strange that no US posters (that I can recall, anyway) have admitted to being Obama supporters.

I think your observation is correct.  Strange isn't it?  Perhaps the polling data you are seeing is not valid or skewed.  It seems that the majority of Obama supporters on this forum are foreigners. :)

LOL.  I am actually indifferent to who wins the election, but I recognize Obama faced a very difficult time when he took office.  I have lived through those tough times.  Canada had them much earlier, particularly in Alberta, where I live, when oil prices collapsed.  We faced personal tax rates close to 50% as we eliminated the annual deficit, and it wasn't pretty, but in the end, it was worth it.  So, I know how long it takes to turn things around.

But, I do know, virtually, a lot of Obama supporters.  One woman is a Texan, and claims it's lonely to be a lifelong Democrat there.  Another is in San Francisco.  One couple live in Md (both work in government in DC, one is a big "mucky muck", the other in IT), another couple in Colo, and the list goes on.

My American cousins are Baptists in Idaho, very conservative but for the black sheep brother.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 19, 2012, 10:27:48 PM
I wish I could be indifferent.  It is the worse set of choices I can remember in my lifetime.  I guess it might come down to who is the least of the liars!  Since both parties are responsible for screwing up America over the past 40 years, and their is no credible third party candidate, it's a tough choice.  The Republicans are likely to continue to favor big business, offshore jobs, no tarrifs, and bailouts to the corporations that should fail and fold.   On the other hand we have the socialists that want to continue growing government and giving entitlements to the non-productive segments of the population.

I guess the question, is which set of policies can we recover from (if ever) the soonest.  Until we have a third party that represents the middle class, I can only see a further slide into the shitter!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 19, 2012, 10:58:42 PM
Can you name two other famous leaders in the world who wrote their autobiography when they were a nobody? 
 
5, 4, 3, 2, 1   Time's Up
 
Hitler and Stalin

LOL. How timely!

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/19/11288862-peoria-bishop-compares-obamas-actions-to-stalin-hitler?lite

Quote
I am not say he is similar to these men, yet he may share some things.

...and so according to Bishop Jenky.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 19, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
I guess Godwin's Law applies not only to the internet, but real world as well.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 19, 2012, 11:47:33 PM
....
This is the one that really got me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uLnMWsbE8s&feature=player_embedded


If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t.

The opening line on this video spoke about his uncle. " I have 'a' uncle..." LOL, the first thought to cross my mind was, 'he couldn't possibly be speaking about uncle Omar, was he?

Then when he proceeded to cite how his uncle went up to a house and stayed there for 6 months, I then realize it all makes sense. Uncle Omar (Onyango Obama) was long wanted by the US Immigration and it would explain why he would be in hiding for a while.

 :P
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on April 19, 2012, 11:49:12 PM
I guess Godwin's Law applies not only to the internet, but real world as well.

BC-

I told you the media circus parade had long arrived in town and is about to march through Ditzy Lane. Hang on folks, this one's going to be a dandy...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 20, 2012, 03:47:13 AM
Liberal logic of the day:   
 
"Apparently, I’m supposed to be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than by what Barack Obama does with mine."


Socialist Logic of the day

I don't care what he does with his money,
But he better start paying his fair share of the taxes!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on April 20, 2012, 07:03:50 AM

Just for interest's sake, Doug, have you been so worried that you've chased up the Birth Certificates of any previous Presidents?  You've had a few over the years whose merit I would seriously question - maybe they were also born in Kenya and had fake Birth Certificates as well?
 
GIVE IT A REST!!!  :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
 
Considering that all the polls I've seen reported indicate that Romney is hated by more than twice as many people as Obama, and that his approval rating is about half of Obama's, you guys are going to keep complaining whatever the result of the election.
 
Just as a side-issue, based on those figures, it seems strange that no US posters (that I can recall, anyway) have admitted to being Obama supporters.  There seem to be a LOT of Republicans, though.  Statistically, this bell curve is very lopsided.

Kiwi, being from another country that is not the center of the universe USA, it is understandable you cannot grab the essence of the issue. The following is an introduction and a Q&A for an event to be held tonight. It might give you a little reference. I'm planning on attending this.
 
 Juan Gonzalez to speak at Sanctuary for Independent Media  Juan Gonzalez, columnist for the New York Daily News (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22New+York+Daily+News%22) and founder and co-anchor of the syndicated television and radio program "Democracy Now!", will be in Troy Friday to talk about his new book.
 
"News for All the People: The Epic Story of Race and the American Media" (Verso; $29.95; 456 pages) is indeed epic, tracing the development of American media from the first newspaper of the New World (launched in 1690 in Boston) to today's Internet, specifically looking at efforts by minorities to run their own newspapers and broadcast stations.
 
The book, coauthored with media reform activist Joseph Torres (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Joseph+Torres%22), argues that U.S. media have a long history of inflaming racial tensions. Examples include the 1835 anti-abolitionist riots in Utica, which were incited and publicized by newspapers throughout the state, including the Argus in Albany. Where oppression in the past may have meant destroying the printing press, as the Georgia Guard (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Georgia+Guard%22) did with the first American Indian-owned newspaper, the Cherokee Phoenix in 1835, today it more often takes the form, the authors suggest, of media outlets' failure to hire, promote and fairly pay minority employees.
 
Gonzalez and Torres detail how newspapers turned from family-run organizations into mega-corporations in the second half of the 20th century. They argue that today's rapid decline in newspaper readership is due not to the rise of the Internet, as is commonly believed, but to shareholders' desire for ever-increasing profits and the companies' failure to build cash reserves that would see them through economic downturns.
 
The real future of media, "News for All the People" suggests, is in the Internet. In a recent email interview Gonzalez noted that individual bloggers have shown their enormous capacity to get out the news that others wish to repress, citing successes in Iran, Egypt, Syria and right here in the U.S., with the racially charged case in Jena, La., and the Occupy Wall Street (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Occupy+Wall+Street%22) movement. But there's no guarantee, he says, that this freedom will last, "unless ordinary citizens make their voices heard and press Congress for a free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet."
 
Q: Do you see any problems in how the mainstream media presents incidents like the Trayvon Martin (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Trayvon+Martin%22) shooting or the recent Tulsa shootings?
 
A: The main problem is that too many people, thanks to so much of the media coverage in the aftermath of Barack Obama (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Barack+Obama%22)'s election, swallowed the shallow view that America entered a post-racial age with his ascension to the White House. If anything, his election has ignited a new period of racial intolerance, one that has gradually taken hold over the past four years. I have been stunned at some of the blatantly biased vitriol that has permeated much of the anger at Obama and the opposition to his policies.
 
Q: What do you think of the term "the liberal media"?
 
A: The "liberal media" myth, like most stereotypes, contains a kernel of truth, but ends up being a huge distortion of a complex reality. The class divide in our media system is far more defining than the left-right political divide. Most journalists in the commercial media have become somewhat divorced from the daily problems of ordinary Americans. They therefore give far less attention and coverage to the "other" America, those less privileged and less powerful. And they give disproportionate attention and coverage to the 1 percent celebrities, successful businessmen, powerful government figures, and so forth.
 
Q: How do conservative talk show hosts like Don Imus (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Don+Imus%22) or Rush Limbaugh (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=entertainment&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Rush+Limbaugh%22) — who often stir up racial tensions — fit with the history of U.S. media?
 
A: Partisan and inflammatory news media have a long and checkered history in this country, from early newspapers portraying Native Americans and Africans as threats to white society, to the horrendous press coverage of Reconstruction governments in the post-Civil War South, to stirring up lynchings and race riots in the early 1900s, to talk radio in the 1990s, and now to talk cable.
 
Q: In What do you see happening to the newspaper in, say, 20 years? Will we still have physical newspapers to read over our morning coffee?
 
A: Physical newspapers will soon become what they were during colonial times — intelligence sheets for those few who could afford to pay an extra high price for them. The rest of us will be getting our news through the new mass digital devices. Unfortunately, the very form of all those devices, as was true of the early telegraph, will require shorter and shorter stories, less in-depth coverage of events, because few of us have the patience to read thousands of words, scrolling from screen to screen full of text on portable devices over the Internet.
 
Elizabeth Floyd Mair is a freelance writer living in Guilderland. Reach her at elizabethfloydmair@gmail.com.
 
http://www.timesunion.com/entertainment/article/Juan-Gonzalez-to-speak-at-Sanctuary-for-3495268.php#ixzz1saabdr6W

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 20, 2012, 04:04:56 PM
It's about as logical as all the other conspiracy theories, that he was born in Kenya, that he's a "secret Muslim" (odd, would it not be, for a man whose parents were both atheists), that he is a citizen of Indonesia, that he never attended Occidental or Columbia, etc., etc., etc.
 
No matter what is debunked, something new will pop up.
You would consider D'Souza's book a conspiracy theory?
What exactly is the conspiracy?
Is anyone who questions Obummer a conspiracy theorist?
Born in Kenya?
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
So, if Stanley Ann was abroad, did she meet the last requirement?
More information with a list of other people, mainly Republicans, who have been questioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
Like I already have said the "Hill-Billarys" would have caught this.

A Muslim? See Jeremiah Wright. Which would you rather be associated with?
Militant Black ideology or a group who says Christ was not divine...
If you want both there is always the Nation of Islam better known as "what happened to Malcom X." :D
Citizen of Indonesia? Didn't they remove a statue of him recently?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/02/controversial-obama-statue-in-indonesia-removed-from-park-after-protests/1

Billy Boy has one in Kosovo. Kosovo - Chechnya II, how wonderful. :puke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpUUamLpVaw&noloop=1
This would be a more appropriate statue.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/Finklestink/clinton_memorial1.jpg)
A slight adjustment in size and it could be put in the "oral" office.
School records? Hey, the people voted him in, enough said.
Ask no questions and he'll tell no lies.
And if they do ask, send Billy Boy in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7vkWiFUOFg
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Kokopelli on April 20, 2012, 04:19:56 PM
The opening line on this video spoke about his uncle. " I have 'a' uncle..." LOL, the first thought to cross my mind was, 'he couldn't possibly be speaking about uncle Omar, was he?

Then when he proceeded to cite how his uncle went up to a house and stayed there for 6 months, I then realize it all makes sense. Uncle Omar (Onyango Obama) was long wanted by the US Immigration and it would explain why he would be in hiding for a while.

 :P
I wasn't gonna go there.  ;D
BO can't help who he is related to but he can help who he hangs with.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on April 20, 2012, 04:50:26 PM
Ha-ha, I am glad I don't choose to wrestle with the demons some of you guys wrestle.  What a waste of time, energy, and  :cluebat: thought.


Any of the OB haters have any thoughts of the feeder system to the Secret Service?  What is that culture like lately--is the liberal media really making up the stuff we are seeing the military do these days with their time abroad?  Maybe time, energy, and thought could best be spent on how to stop the humiliation of America by the American military abroad.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 20, 2012, 05:28:45 PM
SFandEE

First of all, we Americans do not see we are being humiliated.  This kind of behavior among men has occurred since the beginning of man and is not likely to change any time soon.  It also has no geographical, national, or political boundaries.  You do not need to look far to see the same activity at conventions of all types including social, political, professional, etc.  Case in point, it even happens at Judicial Conventions in the US.

I agree with you, it is a waste of time to spend a lot of time on arguing about the morals of their behavior.  However in this case, there is a more important issue at stake.  Anyone that has ever received a security clearance in the US has been required to attend the indoctrination classes that explain the risks of putting yourself in a compromising position whereby you might reveal secrets either accidentally or intentionally.  Specific cases are cited whereby married men are compromised by seductive women or other 'unnatural' sex activity that results in blackmail and the release of classified information.  As far as I can see that is the only newsworthy part of the whole story.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on April 20, 2012, 09:23:26 PM
I think it is silly to politicize all this sexual scandals :D   Republicans have their own long list so democrats have. People are people  :D Founding father also had their secrets  ;D

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on April 20, 2012, 09:42:02 PM
I am sure pissing on bodies and posing with corpses as trophies is normal to that culture as well and has been going on pre-history.  We just get to see it represent our culture all over the world these days.  Let's all break into song now, "And I'm proud to be an American, for at least I know I'm free....."



We are a democracy and citizens are responsible for what our nation does, because in theory our government represents our will.  It appears capitalism has bought our democracy and muddled the debate to stupid discussions about birth certificates and communism and demonstrates that those who have "signed up" to defend us are leading us down a moral path that is not acceptable.




Barking about birth certificates and other stupid things just shows a lack of context.  If your thing is Republican bad, Democrat good or Democrat bad Republican good is what you are saying is that the only way your values can work in a nation of over 300 million people is if your party has complete control of the government and no ability to work with people of different values and opinions?  My political way or we're going to crap in the pool and ruin the party.



SFandEE

First of all, we Americans do not see we are being humiliated.  .


Some do, maybe not in your circle of friends or region of the country--if they don't they should be ashamed.  These men are our agents, employees--they honor us when they behave with honor and they shame us when they behave shamefully.  We need better people representing us on the world stage--these people are bad government, because they are bad people.  Not government is bad, because it is bad--too big, too small.  We have bad people working for us.





  On the other hand we have the socialists that want to continue growing government and giving entitlements to the non-productive segments of the population.

Pretty good bet these guys aren't socialists, they are military, but they are leeches, ticks, slobs still the same.  Not productive, taking a paycheck for work they did not do.  So who supports these men as productive ex-military secret service agents?  The capitalists?  The military-industrial complex?  Are they entitled to retirement and health care?  They are thieves, we will have to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to train their replacements, likely their "union" will do everything it can to get them their "earned" benefits of health care and retirement for all the years of honorable service they provided those lazy socialist Americans, protecting them from the bogeyman.  Those who see the world black and white, please buy a mirror and fix your own group first.  OB is not a socialist and the military is full of honorable men and women, it gets old, very, very old hearing poorly thought through rhetoric about your political adversaries when the corruption is pervasive throughout both parties. 




Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on April 20, 2012, 11:24:17 PM
IMO politics is just another smoke screen. The real problem concerning the future has to do with economics.
The baby boomer generation has been spending their future incomes for quite some time now (living off the future).
No political party can change that, it's a done deal.
Pensions have been based in speculation for quite some time and when you speculate there are always two potential directions things can go.
I guess it's just time to pay the piper.
The economic situation can be smoothed over with a good round of inflation, but the behavior must change in order to avoid the cycle again.

Maybe capitalism should be based on cash instead of credit?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 20, 2012, 11:24:53 PM
I am sure pissing on bodies and posing with corpses as trophies is normal to that culture as well and has been going on pre-history.  We just get to see it represent our culture all over the world these days.  Let's all break into song now, "And I'm proud to be an American, for at least I know I'm free....."


Of course such behaviour is deplorable.. as is being exposed to such death and destruction.  Reacting in this manner is often a defense mechanism for the mind that helps to dehumanize the experience.  Anyone who has not had to experience such is very lucky indeed.

As to the Secret Service, boys will be boys from the bottom to the top.  Bad timing though.. they should know better..  80 bucks?.. gotta be kidding.  The woman.. she's probably been whisked off somewhere to relax either at US taxpayer or media expense for paid interviews, hopefully the former.  Ludicrous when one considers a good portion of Congressmen that 'have a good time' themselves on expense accounts of lobbyists.

Such are the ails of a 'no tolerance' society with the added kick of media and political dogging.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on April 20, 2012, 11:26:07 PM
IMO politics is just another smoke screen. The real problem concerning the future has to do with economics.
The baby boomer generation has been spending their future incomes for quite some time now (living off the future).
No political party can change that, it's a done deal.
Pensions have been based in speculation for quite some time and when you speculate there are always two potential directions things can go.
I guess it's just time to pay the piper.

The economic situation can be smoothed over with a good round of inflation, but the behavior must change in order to avoid the cycle again.

Blame it on the pill..  really.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on April 20, 2012, 11:59:11 PM
IMO politics is just another smoke screen. The real problem concerning the future has to do with economics.
The baby boomer generation has been spending their future incomes for quite some time now (living off the future).
No political party can change that, it's a done deal.


And so we have ex-military Boomers on here calling the current US president a socialist/communist when their generation invented entitlements from their children and have done nothing with all their political power to change this.  Even still in talks of reform the Boomer generation requires they not incur one single deviation from the unfunded promises they made to themselves.


Were they squealing about socialism when W gave them their prescription entitlements at no expense to them, but to the 20 and 30 year olds trying to pay for an education system that Boomers had given to them?


They profited off of the debt in their business, as military (employees or contractors), universities, or as federal employees and have done nothing to fix their economic ill will towards the younger US generations.  The best they can offer is that they love their country and let's sing "America the Beautiful"  I should look up and share the video of Mitt singing "America the Beautiful".  What a tool.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4eLx_V5Xkg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4eLx_V5Xkg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 21, 2012, 05:12:09 AM

And so we have ex-military Boomers on here calling the current US president a socialist/communist when their generation invented entitlements from their children and have done nothing with all their political power to change this.  Even still in talks of reform the Boomer generation requires they not incur one single deviation from the unfunded promises they made to themselves.


Were they squealing about socialism when W gave them their prescription entitlements at no expense to them, but to the 20 and 30 year olds trying to pay for an education system that Boomers had given to them?


They profited off of the debt in their business, as military (employees or contractors), universities, or as federal employees and have done nothing to fix their economic ill will towards the younger US generations.  The best they can offer is that they love their country and let's sing "America the Beautiful"  I should look up and share the video of Mitt singing "America the Beautiful".  What a tool.


Well Said!!

As I have told many people Obama is Not a Socialist!
I can guarantee one thing, The next election will be won by a crook.. :'(


Both and mitt and Obama have the same pay masters...
This country is no longer a democracy of the people.

It's a democracy of the dollar bill...
  >:(
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on April 21, 2012, 08:06:01 AM

Such are the ails of a 'no tolerance' society with the added kick of media and political dogging.

this 'no tolerance' is selective... for days they are talking on TV about "secret service prostitution scandal" and just casually mentioned sexual crime problem in the Army that increased and covered up. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 21, 2012, 04:17:06 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/andrew-breitbart-died-heart-failure-coroner-122824951--abc-news-topstories.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/andrew-breitbart-died-heart-failure-coroner-122824951--abc-news-topstories.html)


So they say he just liked to drink?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on April 21, 2012, 05:37:02 PM
What if the  'lesser of two evils' is a scumbag?
Quote

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital Represent Everything You Hate About Capitalism (http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2012-04-19/news/mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-represent-everything-you-hate-about-capitalism/)"Like a lot of private equity firms, Bain managed the company for financial results, not production results," says Foster. "It didn't invest in maintenance or immediate customer needs. All that came second to meeting monthly financial goals."
It would take a few more years of bleeding, but GSI eventually fell to bankruptcy.
The Kansas City mill closed for good; 750 people lost their jobs. Worse, Romney had shorted their pension fund by $44 million. The feds were forced to cover the difference, while workers saw benefits slashed in bankruptcy court.
The battered Georgetown plant and the foundries in Arizona and Minnesota ultimately were bought out of bankruptcy by new companies. Their work forces were halved.
Still, Romney walked away unbruised. All that debt was technically GSI's, not Bain's. Because he'd repaid himself and his investors just months after the purchase, Romney pocketed millions for running the company into the ground.
"They were clever and ruthless enough to pay their own investors back at a really high return rate," says Foster.
This was the beauty of Romney's racket. Even if he killed a company — and he tended to kill them fairly often — he still made out, leaving others to take the hit.

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2012-04-19/news/mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-represent-everything-you-hate-about-capitalism/
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 21, 2012, 06:28:20 PM
tfcrew


What if the  'lesser of two evils' is a scumbag?

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2012-04-19/news/mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-represent-everything-you-hate-about-capitalism/


This is an excellent read.  I read the whole story.  If it is all true, the guy is a scum bag!

Now the real question once again........
If Obama and Romney are the only real choices  which is the least of two evils?
Or another way of looking at it in the long term...........
Can the US survive following more years of the two parties running the US into the toilet?
If so, which party is going to do the least damage to our long term need to recover from all this mess?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 21, 2012, 06:57:22 PM
tfcrew


What if the  'lesser of two evils' is a scumbag?

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2012-04-19/news/mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-represent-everything-you-hate-about-capitalism/


This is an excellent read.  I read the whole story.  If it is all true, the guy is a scum bag!

Now the real question once again........
If Obama and Romney are the only real choices  which is the least of two evils?
Or another way of looking at it in the long term...........
Can the US survive following more years of the two parties running the US into the toilet?
If so, which party is going to do the least damage to our long term need to recover from all this mess?


If Obama wins, it will be his last 4 years no matter what...
He might be more likely to push for real change..

If Mitt wins he will have to listen to his corporate sponsors if he wants to go a full 8 years.

Either way a crook will be in the white house... Time to abandon the 2 party monopoly and start supporting minor parties.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on April 21, 2012, 07:27:02 PM
Either way a crook will be in the white house... Time to abandon the 2 party monopoly and start supporting minor parties.

Probably not going to happen, at least for some time.
The only presidential candidate of a 3rd party that had any significance was Ross Perot.
Only because he was a billionaire was he able to compete.
In spite of his blunders during the campaign, and being attacked by both major parties, he eek-ed out nearly 20% of the popular vote.
I think it showed that America is ready for a new third party that represents middle class America and small business as well.

The problem is that it's not going to happen until we first have major campaign finance reform.
Reform will be fought by both current political parties because they both believe they can 'buy' votes with advertising.  They also know that a 3rd party candidate is unlikely to compete in the money game, and all the more reason to leave it like it is.

The other fight will come from the media that rakes in huge amounts from all the political advertising.  Perhaps the more widespread the internet becomes in our lives,  this could be minimized.

The biggest hurdle is that the two existing parties make the laws, and campaign finance reform in not even on their agenda,  just like tort reform!

It will be interesting to watch the pissing contests over the next few months to see if any important issues come out of the current smokescreen.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on April 21, 2012, 07:40:57 PM
Either way a crook will be in the white house... Time to abandon the 2 party monopoly and start supporting minor parties.

Probably not going to happen, at least for some time.
The only presidential candidate of a 3rd party that had any significance was Ross Perot.
Only because he was a billionaire was he able to compete.
In spite of his blunders during the campaign, and being attacked by both major parties, he eek-ed out nearly 20% of the popular vote.
I think it showed that America is ready for a new third party that represents middle class America and small business as well.

The problem is that it's not going to happen until we first have major campaign finance reform.
Reform will be fought by both current political parties because they both believe they can 'buy' votes with advertising.  They also know that a 3rd party candidate is unlikely to compete in the money game, and all the more reason to leave it like it is.

The other fight will come from the media that rakes in huge amounts from all the political advertising.  Perhaps the more widespread the internet becomes in our lives,  this could be minimized.

The biggest hurdle is that the two existing parties make the laws, and campaign finance reform in not even on their agenda,  just like tort reform!

It will be interesting to watch the pissing contests over the next few months to see if any important issues come out of the current smokescreen.

I still think Ron Paul will run under a 3rd Minor party..

http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-money-race-590/ (http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-money-race-590/)

EDIT:
Ahhhhh The French Left....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17637181 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17637181)



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: newjason on April 21, 2012, 10:11:38 PM
z
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on May 07, 2012, 07:19:00 PM
How Obama might win......

http://usmessageboards.com/showthread.php?t=9332#jobs
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 08, 2012, 06:12:52 AM
How Obama might win......

http://usmessageboards.com/showthread.php?t=9332#jobs (http://usmessageboards.com/showthread.php?t=9332#jobs)

 :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
 
Too bad it is close to the truth.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 08, 2012, 09:42:26 AM
Anyone note the 'OMNEY' logo ?

Switching a couple letters will get you MONEY....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 16, 2012, 08:15:08 AM
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
 
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife
and two small children.
Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife
comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities,
raises the knife, and charges at you...
You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
THINK CAREFULLY AND
THEN SCROLL DOWN:
 
 
Democrat's Answer:
· Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
· What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP?
· Does the man look poor or oppressed?
· Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling?
· Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
· Could we run away?
· What does my wife think?
· What about the kids?
· Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
· What does the law say about this situation?
· Does the pistol have an appropriate safety built into it?
· Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
· Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
· Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
· If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
· Should I call 9-1-1?
· Why is this street so deserted?
· We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.
· Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
· I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
· This is all so confusing!  ............ ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ...

Republican's Answer:
BANG! ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......
Southerner's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!s
Click.... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
Click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!'
'Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?!
Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'
Wife: 'You are NOT taking that to a Taxidermist!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 19, 2012, 09:20:11 AM
Definitely a Democrat!

http://now.msn.com/money/0518-man-30-kids-child-support.aspx

He should date OctoMom.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on May 19, 2012, 01:17:40 PM
I said long ago that the only way to get Obama re-elected is to have a total idiot as opponent. What I can see from over here they seem to do a nice job...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 19, 2012, 01:53:09 PM
I said long ago that the only way to get Obama re-elected is to have a total idiot as opponent. What I can see from over here they seem to do a nice job...

What specifically do you find idiotic about Mitt Romney?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 19, 2012, 02:53:26 PM

What specifically do you find idiotic about Mitt Romney?

http://youtu.be/IGqtLvPk6mo
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on May 19, 2012, 11:17:32 PM
He kept his dog in an "air-tight kennel" on top of his car?  :deadhorse:
 
I'm guessing here that all of his trips with the wife and five kids along for the ride lasted no more than a few minutes - or he regularly replaced the dog!
 
I realise that this commercial was put together by the team working for one of his Senate colleagues who wanted the Republican nomination - will Obama's team stoop to this level come election time?  Will they even need to?
 
This guy has made millions (tens? hundreds?) by buying up businesses, stripping the assets and firing what workers were left.  And this is the guy you want to be President?  Stuff his (or the Party's) policies - is this the kind of man you want to lead your country?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on May 19, 2012, 11:20:31 PM
(http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/310373/874small.png)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on May 19, 2012, 11:49:53 PM

What specifically do you find idiotic about Mitt Romney?
The fact that it seems possible that Obama who was called the worst and least popular president two years ago might actually have a chance.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on May 20, 2012, 12:42:47 AM
He kept his dog in an "air-tight kennel" on top of his car?  :deadhorse:
 
I'm guessing here that all of his trips with the wife and five kids along for the ride lasted no more than a few minutes - or he regularly replaced the dog!
 
I realise that this commercial was put together by the team working for one of his Senate colleagues who wanted the Republican nomination - will Obama's team stoop to this level come election time?  Will they even need to?
 
This guy has made millions (tens? hundreds?) by buying up businesses, stripping the assets and firing what workers were left.  And this is the guy you want to be President?  Stuff his (or the Party's) policies - is this the kind of man you want to lead your country?

I didn't know that about him. Maybe he is the right guy to streamline the government?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 20, 2012, 01:16:48 AM
I'm wary when the Presidential salary is meaningless and acquisition of power is the goal.  Businessman vs Public Servant thing.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/sorry-mitt-romney-good-businessmen-rarely-make-good-presidents (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/sorry-mitt-romney-good-businessmen-rarely-make-good-presidents)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on May 20, 2012, 06:16:44 AM
That Mitt cartoon strip is an adaptation of one from the mid 1950s I remember seeing in US comics as a kid:
Quote
Charles Atlas, born Angelo Siciliano (October 30, 1892, Acri, Italy – December 23, 1972, Long Beach, New York), was the developer of a bodybuilding method and its associated exercise program that was best known for a landmark advertising campaign featuring Atlas's name and likeness; it has been described as one of the longest-lasting and most memorable ad campaigns of all time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Atlas
(http://tomheroes.com/images/charles_atlas.JPG)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on May 20, 2012, 06:54:28 AM
He kept his dog in an "air-tight kennel" on top of his car?  :deadhorse:
 
I'm guessing here that all of his trips with the wife and five kids along for the ride lasted no more than a few minutes - or he regularly replaced the dog!
 
I realise that this commercial was put together by the team working for one of his Senate colleagues who wanted the Republican nomination - will Obama's team stoop to this level come election time?  Will they even need to?
 
This guy has made millions (tens? hundreds?) by buying up businesses, stripping the assets and firing what workers were left. And this is the guy you want to be President? Stuff his (or the Party's) policies - is this the kind of man you want to lead your country?

Actually, most would prefer that he were leading your country. Him and the idiot that currently occupies the office. Unfortunately, our choice of idiots these days are rather limited. If what we have can be called a choice
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on May 20, 2012, 11:54:46 AM
Actually, most would prefer that he were leading your country...

Why should we have to suffer your third-class politicians?  We have enough of our own.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 20, 2012, 04:21:17 PM
I'm wary when the Presidential salary is meaningless and acquisition of power is the goal.  Businessman vs Public Servant thing.

Wary?!? One would think desensitized is more apt from your standpoint considering the Berlusconi effect, BC?   ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 20, 2012, 04:52:58 PM
The fact that it seems possible that Obama who was called the worst and least popular president two years ago might actually have a chance.

To understand why Obama can easily win you must examine Obama's voter base:    unions, government workers, blacks, gays, educated liberals, young women, etc.    They comprise almost 50% of the voters.   The fact that this country's economy is not healthy and needs an overhaul does not bother them.   Obama has lost the Jewish vote, but they will probably stay home rather than vote for a Republican.
 
Actually there are 4-5 swing states that will determine the election.  For example, California will vote Democrat and Texas Republican no matter what happens.  And it matters not if the popular vote were 51-49 or 98-02, the winning candidate would receive 100% of the electoral votes.  Abe Lincoln won the Presidential election in 1860 with only 40% of the popular vote (Lincoln's name was not on the ballot in some states).
 
I reside in a swing state.  Already the campaign has started.   It will become worse, and we have almost six months to go.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 20, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
BC,
 
Selected sound bites of someone who talks frequently in public can make anyone look good or bad.  There are some real doozies circulating on Obama.  No need to show them.  Instead, examine the substance of the man.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 20, 2012, 04:57:56 PM
I'm wary when the Presidential salary is meaningless and acquisition of power is the goal.  Businessman vs Public Servant thing.

Show me please a politician who is driven by the salary he/she makes vs. power and ego (especially in the case of Obama incapable of anything other than being a politician).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on May 20, 2012, 05:47:36 PM
Actually, most would prefer that he were leading your country. Him and the idiot that currently occupies the office. Unfortunately, our choice of idiots these days are rather limited. If what we have can be called a choice

+1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on May 20, 2012, 06:43:12 PM

Why should we have to suffer your third-class politicians?  We have enough of our own.

You are voicing your opinion freely enough as to which one you think we should have. Why don't you just take them both?  ;D Personally, I wouldn't care which country had them, just as long as it wasn't mine.

kiwi, is it a bit ironic that I don't even know who your leaders are? There is a reason for that.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 20, 2012, 07:44:25 PM

To understand why Obama can easily win you must examine Obama's voter base:    unions, government workers, blacks, gays, educated liberals, young women, etc.    They comprise almost 50% of the voters.   The fact that this country's economy is not healthy and needs an overhaul does not bother them.   Obama has lost the Jewish vote, but they will probably stay home rather than vote for a Republican....

You're leaving out the beef of their base...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/12/chart-of-the-week-1-in-5-americans-are-dependent-on-government/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/12/chart-of-the-week-1-in-5-americans-are-dependent-on-government/)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all)

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/16-statistics-which-show-that-the-number-of-americans-dependent-on-the-government-is-at-an-all-time-high (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/16-statistics-which-show-that-the-number-of-americans-dependent-on-the-government-is-at-an-all-time-high)


Who the heck needs to be innovative, ambitious, industrious when the State can just make things free and easy for you.

Besides, the O-clown have Buffet, Gates, Soros, and Winfrey's billion to flood the media with some more Hope and Change BS.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on May 20, 2012, 10:47:46 PM
You are voicing your opinion freely enough as to which one you think we should have. Why don't you just take them both?  ;D Personally, I wouldn't care which country had them, just as long as it wasn't mine.

All you Republicans have made it very clear that you think Obama has about the same level of trustworthiness as the proverbial rattlesnake - thankfully, I don't live in your country so I don't have to worry on a personal level.  Now, when I see Mr Corporate Invader as the alternative, I'm wondering why you don't leave town if they are both so bad.

kiwi, is it a bit ironic that I don't even know who your leaders are? There is a reason for that.

Yes - you're the one person on earth who has never heard of Google.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 21, 2012, 05:43:56 AM

To understand why Obama can easily win you must examine Obama's voter base:    unions, government workers, blacks, gays, educated liberals, young women, etc.    They comprise almost 50% of the voters.   The fact that this country's economy is not healthy and needs an overhaul does not bother them.   Obama has lost the Jewish vote, but they will probably stay home rather than vote for a Republican.
 

You're leaving out the beef of their base...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/12/chart-of-the-week-1-in-5-americans-are-dependent-on-government/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/12/chart-of-the-week-1-in-5-americans-are-dependent-on-government/)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all)

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/16-statistics-which-show-that-the-number-of-americans-dependent-on-the-government-is-at-an-all-time-high (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/16-statistics-which-show-that-the-number-of-americans-dependent-on-the-government-is-at-an-all-time-high)


Who the heck needs to be innovative, ambitious, industrious when the State can just make things free and easy for you.

Besides, the O-clown have Buffet, Gates, Soros, and Winfrey's billion to flood the media with some more Hope and Change BS.

Isn't all this a part of democracy?  After all, even the slaves and women were enfranchised.

Do I detect a bit of whine?

It is quite intriguing though that in a way democracy embraces a balancing act in society between the haves and have nots.

The Romans used a tactic called Bread and Circuses to appease the masses.. and the more I watch election shenanigans the more I see a modern day variant developing.


Show me please a politician who is driven by the salary he/she makes vs. power and ego (especially in the case of Obama incapable of anything other than being a politician).

Gator,

Here is an article that might help understand my thoughts a bit better.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/how_was_rome_governed.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/how_was_rome_governed.htm)

The parallels in history are quite visible..


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on May 21, 2012, 06:39:15 AM

All you Republicans have made it very clear that you think Obama has about the same level of trustworthiness as the proverbial rattlesnake - thankfully, I don't live in your country so I don't have to worry on a personal level.  Now, when I see Mr Corporate Invader as the alternative, I'm wondering why you don't leave town if they are both so bad.

This quote kiwi just confirms that you don't know as much as you think you know  ;D Obama should have to stand on his record. Of course he didn't on his first time around while you and the rest of the world were wetting your panties and fawning all over him. Hopefully, it'll be different this time. I am no Romney supporter but, he will get my vote of the lesser of two evils. If there was ever a government that needed a raiding, it's this one.
 
Quote
Yes - you're the one person on earth who has never heard of Google.

This quote just shows that you are in denial. I wouldn't waste the time to google your leaders because they are irrelevant. They don't matter thus I have no need to know.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on May 21, 2012, 07:47:07 AM
This quote just shows that you are in denial. I wouldn't waste the time to google your leaders because they are irrelevant. They don't matter thus I have no need to know.
Fair enough. I guess the last leader from my country (Netherlands) that got any fame in the US was prime-minister Kok.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 21, 2012, 08:15:33 AM

Here is an article that might help understand my thoughts a bit better.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/how_was_rome_governed.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/how_was_rome_governed.htm)

The parallels in history are quite visible..

Obama is not Caesar, yet he wants to be.   Compromise has always been part of American government.  When Reagan was elected President with a majority in the Senate and House, he could have roughshod the Democrats and get his programs fully implemented.  He did not.  Instead he sat down with Tip O'Neil  and reached a compromise.  It was not 50-50, but maybe 60-40 as the Democrats still got something. 
 
This is not the case with Obama.   A President should lead the country, the entire country, and not just his fellow party members.   The country is deeply divided today.  That is not good.
 
What has happened when America has not compromised?  The Civil War is the most notable result.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 21, 2012, 08:20:56 AM
Isn't all this a part of democracy?  After all, even the slaves and women were enfranchised.

Do I detect a bit of whine?

It is quite intriguing though that in a way democracy embraces a balancing act in society between the haves and have nots.

The Romans used a tactic called Bread and Circuses to appease the masses.. and the more I watch election shenanigans the more I see a modern day variant developing.

Of course it is, BC. I don't really have any problem with the entire election process but the concern I do have with the ever-increasing reliant to the state is it's erosive threat to this nation's innovative minds.

But whine? Hardly. I actually enjoy the circus show.

But I'll tell you what concerns me. There's no denying *most* of ALL the things our global community use to function in our world today came from the innovative minds of Americans, and it is no coincidence that America's social system has always been different than everyone else. That's a fact.

I do believe the process of rewarding progressive minds (capitalism) is a much better system than any 'social system' known to man. We do not even have to dive into this reality to deep for clarity to understand that. Look around you right now and tell me how many of the things that surrounds you came from the innovative minds of Americans.

Nationals from all over the global community, for decades/centuries, LEAVE the comfort of their respective systems just to get a chance to live in ours. That's also a fact.

Turning this country and it's system to be as insignificant as everyone else's because of the aspirations of the malignant few for a free meal and a free ride in life is mind-boggling. I believe clowns like Obama IS a threat to this system. The increase of social dependents in this country, coupled with the ever-growing problem and political support of illegal immigrants, is ever slowly changing this nation for the worst.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 21, 2012, 08:34:16 AM
The issue for the election should be the economy.  A "perfect storm" is approaching America and we have already seen examples of its devastation in Europe.  To lead us, I believe we need someone who is a turnaround expert (that is what Mitt did as a highly successful businessman).   
 
We do not need the "amateur" (to quote Clinton) in office today.  His four years in office have done nothing but made the hole deeper.  And he shows no signs that he will change the direction.
 
What does he need to do?  I believe we have a general model to follow in Europe.   Yes Europe.  Don't laugh. Not the EU but the country of Sweden.  Amid the economic crises in Europe, Sweden has been a success according to my Swedish friend and reports. 
 
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/swedish_model_produces_economi.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/swedish_model_produces_economi.html)
 
This belief that we can have our cake and eat it too must stop.   The free lunch concept must stop.  The pain will not be small and will be shared by all. 
 
In addition I personally believe Obama is a phony.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on May 21, 2012, 09:26:08 AM
Fair enough. I guess the last leader from my country (Netherlands) that got any fame in the US was prime-minister Kok.

I remember Kok. Why I am not sure. Your former Prince Bernhard has proved to be the most influential of the leaders from The Netherlands if I recall but, I think you've missed my point. :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 21, 2012, 09:27:01 AM
Of course it is, BC. I don't really have any problem with the entire election process but the concern I do have with the ever-increasing reliant to the state is it's erosive threat to this nation's innovative minds.

But whine? Hardly. I actually enjoy the circus show.

But I'll tell you what concerns me. There's no denying *most* of ALL the things our global community use to function in our world today came from the innovative minds of Americans, and it is no coincidence that America's social system has always been different than everyone else. That's a fact.

I do believe the process of rewarding progressive minds (capitalism) is a much better system than any 'social system' known to man. We do not even have to dive into this reality to deep for clarity to understand that. Look around you right now and tell me how many of the things that surrounds you came from the innovative minds of Americans.

Nationals from all over the global community, for decades/centuries, LEAVE the comfort of their respective systems just to get a chance to live in ours. That's also a fact.

Turning this country and it's system to be as insignificant as everyone else's because of the aspirations of the malignant few for a free meal and a free ride in life is mind-boggling. I believe clowns like Obama IS a threat to this system. The increase of social dependents in this country, coupled with the ever-growing problem and political support of illegal immigrants, is ever slowly changing this nation for the worst.

GQ,

Good discourse..

Yes I can agree with this, but try to turn things around a bit..  (as an aside, think of folks like Marconi, Einstein and a number of others who also contributed to advancements in technology)  There was a period where the US was very adept at research and transforming technology and other intellectual property into products that customers wanted, worldwide.  I remember even in the 70's and 80's the best audio equipment was from US firms.

The problem is that thereafter, actually building the products was shifted overseas, to Japan, China, Korea etc.  Not so bad one can say, but at the same time each of these countries learned every step of the way and managed to acquire all the necessary knowledge to DIY.  Firms like Apple have amassed great fortunes with 'Designed in USA', built in China.. so much so that their direct competition are whom?... other US companies?  No.  Instead of these companies concentrating on increasing the bottom line to invest in financial markets, they instead should have been setting up assembly lines in the US.  Instead of just sitting on hundreds of billions, sitting in overseas banks they should have reinvested at home.  Instead they want a tax break to bring cash back home.  Investing at home would not have cost them a dime in taxes but instead they set up 'foreign' shell companies instead.

It costs around 180 bucks to build an iphone or ipad.. Maybe 250 if it was made in the US.

Did this not lead to 'brain drain'?  Heck, why push education in highly technical fields when only a few designers are needed.  No domestic demand.. The Chinese and Koreans are smart and what the heck, everyone needs a burger flipped at home.  The smart jobs were sent overseas leaving minimum wage back home.  Now even if someone wants to build a product in the US there aren't enough highly skilled engineers and programmers available.

Now what's really quirky is that if you take a look at each of these countries, you will find all the things you so vehemently despise...  like socialized healthcare, even communism for heaven's sake....  and guess who is paying for it all?  You do, every time you go shopping.

So instead of good healthcare for US citizens, you give it away to folks overseas.

Just think about it a bit.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on May 21, 2012, 11:29:58 AM
GQ,

Good discourse..

Yes I can agree with this, but try to turn things around a bit..  (as an aside, think of folks like Marconi, Einstein and a number of others who also contributed to advancements in technology)  There was a period where the US was very adept at research and transforming technology and other intellectual property into products that customers wanted, worldwide.  I remember even in the 70's and 80's the best audio equipment was from US firms.

The problem is that thereafter, actually building the products was shifted overseas, to Japan, China, Korea etc.  Not so bad one can say, but at the same time each of these countries learned every step of the way and managed to acquire all the necessary knowledge to DIY.  Firms like Apple have amassed great fortunes with 'Designed in USA', built in China.. so much so that their direct competition are whom?... other US companies?  No.  Instead of these companies concentrating on increasing the bottom line to invest in financial markets, they instead should have been setting up assembly lines in the US.  Instead of just sitting on hundreds of billions, sitting in overseas banks they should have reinvested at home.  Instead they want a tax break to bring cash back home.  Investing at home would not have cost them a dime in taxes but instead they set up 'foreign' shell companies instead.

It costs around 180 bucks to build an iphone or ipad.. Maybe 250 if it was made in the US.

Did this not lead to 'brain drain'?  Heck, why push education in highly technical fields when only a few designers are needed.  No domestic demand.. The Chinese and Koreans are smart and what the heck, everyone needs a burger flipped at home.  The smart jobs were sent overseas leaving minimum wage back home.  Now even if someone wants to build a product in the US there aren't enough highly skilled engineers and programmers available.

Now what's really quirky is that if you take a look at each of these countries, you will find all the things you so vehemently despise...  like socialized healthcare, even communism for heaven's sake....  and guess who is paying for it all?  You do, every time you go shopping.

So instead of good healthcare for US citizens, you give it away to folks overseas.

Just think about it a bit.

You are 100% correct in your assessment.  We Americans bitch about the problem but only a small percentage understand the causes.  What should we expect from high school graduates that know nothing about economics or world history.  Even the fiscal conservatives that have been drinking the Rush Bimbo cool-aid for years still think that unrestricted capitalism is the best economic system.  We live in a global economy, we cannot regulate anything for the good of the country, etc etc.  Well, it has caught up with us!  Now the question..... is it possible to reverse the process and revert to what worked previously.   Many have doubts that it can be done,  we may be past the tipping point.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 21, 2012, 11:40:53 AM
BC,
 
Are you advocating protectionism instead of free trade?!   If you are, virtually every mainstream economist will disagree with you.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on May 21, 2012, 12:04:14 PM
The issue for the election should be the economy.  A "perfect storm" is approaching America and we have already seen examples of its devastation in Europe.  To lead us, I believe we need someone who is a turnaround expert (that is what Mitt did as a highly successful businessman).   
 
We do not need the "amateur" (to quote Clinton) in office today.  His four years in office have done nothing but made the hole deeper.  And he shows no signs that he will change the direction.
 
What does he need to do?  I believe we have a general model to follow in Europe.   Yes Europe.  Don't laugh. Not the EU but the country of Sweden.  Amid the economic crises in Europe, Sweden has been a success according to my Swedish friend and reports. 
 
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/swedish_model_produces_economi.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/swedish_model_produces_economi.html)
 
This belief that we can have our cake and eat it too must stop.   The free lunch concept must stop.  The pain will not be small and will be shared by all. 
 
In addition I personally believe Obama is a phony.
Sweden has a social welfare system that exceeds the Netherlands.
They have free healthcare.
Cigarettes cost USD 10 for a pack of 24.
A liter of Vodka costs USD 30 (cheap vodka not the good stuff).
A liter (no not  gallon) of gas costs USD 3.00
Income tax is as stated on average of 33%, top income tax is 56%

I sincerely doubt that the US citizens will agree to this without revolution.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 21, 2012, 12:38:58 PM

I sincerely doubt that the US citizens will agree to this without revolution.

 :D  True.  Yet, there is a revolution already underway, in the opposite direction, as a natural reaction to the socialist steps taken by Obama and those before him. 

IMO the Tea Party is just as wrong as Obama.   If the Tea Party had the power of the democrats, we would still be a divided nation.   
 
Rather than one  extreme or the other, we should blend conservative economics and liberal social policy together.  That is what I mean by the Swedish model.   Maybe the whole country would get behind it. 
 
Yes, it would be radical, and we would never hit the numbers you quote, yet I believe a man such as Mitt would take steps in that direction.  After four years, we can see Obama's direction very well.   
 
Quote
Income tax is as stated on average of 33%, top income tax is 56%

True but the marginal rate had been 90% or so.  The point is that Sweden had a severe recession and instead of giving rescue money to government employees, auto workers, cash for clunkers, and other government rescues, Sweden lowered taxes.   People who made the money decided how to spend the tax savings.  The tax savings found its way into the economy efficiently without requiring government programs.
Before this, my friend made some money overseas, and spent it all on "experiences" rather than bringing it home, hiding some for future "experiences."  After this change he brought home more of his earnings.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 21, 2012, 12:51:21 PM
BC,
 
Are you advocating protectionism instead of free trade?!   If you are, virtually every mainstream economist will disagree with you.

Free trade? Nothing at all wrong with that.

There is however something wrong with tax loopholes, unbalanced revenue vs spending and systematic raping of an entire economy.

You mentioned Sweden..

Maybe look again?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG/800px-Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG)

Would this level of taxation be supportable in the US political climate?  Certainly not.

In fact it might be a good example.. Higher taxation IMHO forces companies to reinvest.  In the US it's simply easier to invest in financial markets at low taxable rates than it is to truly invest in the domestic economy to build with brick and mortar.

Obama has at least attempted to address these factors.. close the loopholes, implement fair taxation but at the same time provide incentives for 'made in USA' along with other aspects such as education which I believe is the cornerstone in the long run.

It took a decade to recover from the Great Depression.. and Obama did say it would take longer than his first term to recover from the financial crisis he inherited so I consider all the flap more along the lines of an impatient world demanding instant satisfaction.

These things take time and a stable course.  Romney will not provide that as his goal is to simply undo anything done until now without a hint as to what a feasible plan is.

OMG.. is healthcare that scary?...  Yes it is for one of the few, if not only industrialized nation that does not have such and insists on paying twice the going rate for medical care.  And Romney wants to take two steps back?  Of course he does... that would ruin the healthcare business that seems to be running the nation....

Let me ask one question.... what stroke of brilliance was it that made Romney so much better than he was in 2008 when he ran and lost against McCain?  If McCain was the Republican Party's best bet back then this guy must have reinvented himself into the new wheel of the century.. or?  Yes, he is a successful businessman but I'm not hearing much at all about companies Bain took over that ended up being blinding successes as in adding humongous numbers of jobs, a gazillion new products that are in global demand and increase government tax revenue..

At the moment he's just a Republican re-run.. maybe even regurgitate.. I would not be the least surprised if Palin shows up on the ticket.. lol... But please do illuminate the dark corners of my mind.. make me a fan.  Where's the beef??
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on May 21, 2012, 01:00:28 PM
Gator you are correct with your assessment of why the Swedish economy did well.
Similar as much as people have credited the oil price, Russia has taken the right measures as well to overcome the crisis, which is why they are doing well now.
My inlaws were still working a couple of years ago, as the gap between salary and pension was pretty high, even for state Doctors. However, as the pensions were doubled the gap becamse much less and they decided to take full benefit. They were not the only ones, and this created a lot of jobs for younger people.
Several other measures were taken that led to higher State expenses and a budget deficit, one of the first in a long time. But the effect of stimulating the economy did work.

Sweden als managed to have the courage to cut taxes and rise debt at a time when the opposite seemed more logical. The effect was clear.

I do not advocate unlimited Government spending, rather the contrary. A Government is working with pubic funds and there for should be even more thoughtful and efficient as a corporation. But things like rising the pension age or lowering the pensions is stopping creation of jobs, and fighting unemployment is one of the most important factors in getting the economy running.
A person who receives welfare relies on taxpayers (Government) for their income. If this person get a job, he becomes a contributor.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 21, 2012, 03:08:23 PM
BC,   You are wise in many ways but in this case something has crawled up your ass all the way to your brain.  It would be impossible to debate with someone who believes Obama's party had nothing to do with the Great Recession, who believes the many steps taken during Obama's four years were in the proper direction, etc.   We are simply so far apart that we would annoy each other.   Suffice it to say, in the words of Bill Clinton, Obama is an "amateur."
 
Shadow,   I appreciate your views.   You understand taxes, government spending 'stimulus' and the like.  The Dutch have  been very good international businessmen for centuries.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 21, 2012, 03:43:22 PM
Gator,

Have I ruffled a few feathers?

Was actually looking forward to hearing about Romney's many business achievements that would be transferrable and add substance to his somewhat awkward campaign for the presidency.

Obama somehow created the mess before being elected?

Sorry I just dont get it... and I think that's also the problem many will have come election day.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on May 21, 2012, 05:26:47 PM
A Government is working with pubic funds...
Taxing the oldest profession on earth :D?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 21, 2012, 06:01:28 PM
GQ,

Good discourse..

Yes I can agree with this, but try to turn things around a bit..  (as an aside, think of folks like Marconi, Einstein and a number of others who also contributed to advancements in technology)  There was a period where the US was very adept at research and transforming technology and other intellectual property into products that customers wanted, worldwide.  I remember even in the 70's and 80's the best audio equipment was from US firms.

The problem is that thereafter, actually building the products was shifted overseas, to Japan, China, Korea etc.  Not so bad one can say, but at the same time each of these countries learned every step of the way and managed to acquire all the necessary knowledge to DIY.  Firms like Apple have amassed great fortunes with 'Designed in USA', built in China.. so much so that their direct competition are whom?... other US companies?  No.  Instead of these companies concentrating on increasing the bottom line to invest in financial markets, they instead should have been setting up assembly lines in the US.  Instead of just sitting on hundreds of billions, sitting in overseas banks they should have reinvested at home.  Instead they want a tax break to bring cash back home.  Investing at home would not have cost them a dime in taxes but instead they set up 'foreign' shell companies instead.

It costs around 180 bucks to build an iphone or ipad.. Maybe 250 if it was made in the US.

Did this not lead to 'brain drain'?  Heck, why push education in highly technical fields when only a few designers are needed.  No domestic demand.. The Chinese and Koreans are smart and what the heck, everyone needs a burger flipped at home.  The smart jobs were sent overseas leaving minimum wage back home.  Now even if someone wants to build a product in the US there aren't enough highly skilled engineers and programmers available.

Now what's really quirky is that if you take a look at each of these countries, you will find all the things you so vehemently despise...  like socialized healthcare, even communism for heaven's sake....  and guess who is paying for it all?  You do, every time you go shopping.

So instead of good healthcare for US citizens, you give it away to folks overseas.

Just think about it a bit.

 BC-
 
 The global market today is not anything like it was in the 70s-80s.
 
 Apple sold 100 million iPhones worldwide, so that $70 difference in the price is not insignificant. You are better arguing the margin of the final purchase price of these items vs cost, which is far larger than the $70 bucks. $350/unit at 100 million sold is where the beef is. Outsourcing this item isn't where the problem is because if you take stock at how many people benefit from companies like Apple i.e. retail store, delivery UPS, chain, phone companies, long-shoring, Port employees, US-owned Freightliners, Customs, underground utility companies, etc...it's easy to see how Apple have an expotential effect in this country's economy yet so very easy to overlook. Wipe Apple out of the market and you'll have affected millions of jobs in the US.
 
 As for intellectual property, we gave Japan/SK et al technologies post-WWII to steam roll their respective economies and all it really created was a competitive market. Cars, videos, appliances, TVs, etc...That's not where the problem is either. Toyota, Honda, VW, et al have their factories in the US, employing US workers albeit none of them belong to the Union. US Taxpayers had to lose billions of dollars bailing out the Union, yet in the same period ~ those foreign companies employing US employees in their US-based factories were turning a profit.
 
 60 minutes did a report recently about the 'potential' technological thievery the current outsourcing market is doing to our country. I don't buy that either. China can buy a dozen iPhones and take it apart and determine it's nuts and bolts just as easily as taking a blueprint from Apple and manufacture it. Besides, if that is worrisome, then they ought to take stock of what makes up the student bodies at every top universities in this country. That's where they need to lay their concerns, if they feel so warranted.
 
 California boasts one the biggest economies in the world, much less the country. Yet, despite insane taxation, despite revenues from all the economic-based markets, tourism, entertainment, technology, etc...it has the worst economy of the 50 states. We have state income tax, we have state sales tax, we have sin taxes galore, property tax, tax, tax tax and it is freaking 'broke'. Most every city, most every county offices. Why? Because what they take in is far outweighed by what they put out. How so you asked? Our statewide social programs. California boast the most number of illegal aliens in this country along with having to support the highest number of socially-dependent citizens in the land.
 
 Here's another tidbit for you. Migrant workers flood our southern borders every single day in the tens of thousands everyday.
 
 Davis-Bacon, Prevailing wages, Union rates in California (in my industry) is roughly as follows: Field superintendent $90/hr, Grade Checkers $87.00/hr, Equipment operators $87/hr, Unskilled labor $55/hr. Now given the 'option' to hire Chinese at China's wage rate, assuming their workmanship is up to par and all things being equal ~ any sensible business person won't have to think twice on what needs to do.
 
 This whole thing isn't that simple, but at the same time, it really isn't that complicated either.
 
 As for socialized healthcare. it isn't that I *despise* it. It was implemented on the pretense it was what Americans wanted and needed DESPITE the great majority of Americans felt otherwise. It was politically crammed down our collective throats.

Additionally, do not for a minute assume China is providing socialized healthcare to it's entire population because of the business it generate from the US. Maybe to 20% of it's entire population, yes, but not anywhere near beyond that.
 
 It used to be this country's motto was *United we Stand, Divided we Fall*. No longer. Divided We Stand, United we Fall..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on May 21, 2012, 06:07:38 PM
This quote kiwi just confirms that you don't know as much as you think you know  ;D

Please enlighten me - which part of my earlier post is incorrect?
 
Obama should have to stand on his record. Of course he didn't on his first time around while you and the rest of the world were wetting your panties and fawning all over him. Hopefully, it'll be different this time. I am no Romney supporter but, he will get my vote of the lesser of two evils. If there was ever a government that needed a raiding, it's this one.

I had never heard of Obama until he basically appeared from nowhere to leave Hillary Clinton in his dust.  Please explain how anyone could "stand on his record" the first time round (in any sort of election)?  If they haven't been there already, it would seem somewhat difficult.  Or are you simply referring to what they have done elsewhere, like robber baron Romney?
 
This quote just shows that you are in denial. I wouldn't waste the time to google your leaders because they are irrelevant. They don't matter thus I have no need to know.

Typical response from the "ugly American" - the USA is all that matters, so why should I care about any other country?  Oh gosh Mary-Jane, you mean there is more than one country in the world?  Sheesh...we get a month or so of rational, reasoned ("normal") responses from you, then something sets off your inner demons again.  Just maybe, if you saw other parts of the world in real life (not including visiting your in-laws), instead of ignoring what's further away than your letterbox, you might understand why so many people outside the USA are so happy not to be American!
 
Like I've said before, I really appreciate the contributions you make here...most of the time!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on May 21, 2012, 06:28:37 PM



Two things that really suck about the USA....



(http://davemansworld.com/smilies/republican-vs.-democrat.gif)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on May 21, 2012, 07:08:05 PM

Please enlighten me - which part of my earlier post is incorrect?

Most all of it, except for maybe the part that you don't live in the USA of which I have no first hand knowledge. First of all, I am not a republican. I understand you'd love to rathole me into your generalizations of Americans. Sorry that doesn't work out for you. Second, you have no idea what I think of Obama, please don't think you do or attempt to think for me  ;D
 
Quote
I had never heard of Obama until he basically appeared from nowhere to leave Hillary Clinton in his dust.  Please explain how anyone could "stand on his record" the first time round (in any sort of election)?  If they haven't been there already, it would seem somewhat difficult.  Or are you simply referring to what they have done elsewhere, like robber baron Romney?

Exactly. He had no record except for a year and a half of being a freshman Senator and a career of a Chicago community organizer. THAT was his record. He had as much experience of running a world power country as I do. I wouldn't vote for me either. Robber baron....LOL. Are you against making money kiwi? Is profit forbidden in your utopia? Really, stop sounding like a hack if you wish to be taken seriously.
 
Quote
Typical response from the "ugly American" - the USA is all that matters, so why should I care about any other country?  Oh gosh Mary-Jane, you mean there is more than one country in the world?  Sheesh...we get a month or so of rational, reasoned ("normal") responses from you, then something sets off your inner demons again.  Just maybe, if you saw other parts of the world in real life (not including visiting your in-laws), instead of ignoring what's further away than your letterbox, you might understand why so many people outside the USA are so happy not to be American!
 
Like I've said before, I really appreciate the contributions you make here...most of the time!

Enough of the name calling already. Were your feelings hurt that badly? Name calling is the first sign of defeat in a logical, reasonable debate and a sign that you are not capable. You couldn't begin to comprehend my inner demons, none of which are associated with politics or political debate and you are no internet psychologist. Don't go there. I will however venture to guess  my world travels exceed yours, exponentially.

You feel inadequate because your country is insignificant on the world stage. I get that. It's okay, everybody can't be first. It has no bearing on your personal inadequacies. Those are all yours. I am not angry and have no bone to pick with you or anyone else. However, when I see those, especially a foreigner with no dog in the hunt, intend to crown who you think should be president of the US well, I feel compelled to inject. Never mind from a knowitall with bad information. Deal with it or not. It's your problem, your choice
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 21, 2012, 08:17:56 PM
Crazy! Now even the Vatican is putting their 2 cents in in this silly election, LOL.




http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)


I caught a joke by Jimmy Kimmel not too long ago...he said, "There's a term even for a president like Barrack Obama, and let's hope to God nothing changes that!"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on May 21, 2012, 08:30:04 PM

All you Republicans Texans have made it very clear that you think Obama Rick  Perry has about the same level of trustworthiness as the proverbial rattlesnake - 
As stated earlier, Obama is not a leader...he wants to be a celebrity.
Santorum said that Romney would be the worst repubican to run against Obama and then endorses him the next day.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 21, 2012, 08:34:55 PM
 

Have I ruffled a few feathers?

Nope.  I find it inane to attack a candidate for his record when the incumbent essentially had no record prior to taking office.  I stand corrected.  The incumbent has been in office for 3 1/2 years.  He now has a record.  The result:   more debt, fewer jobs and lower home prices than in 2008.  Other results:  class warfare; his signature initiative Obamacare will soon be thrown out by the Supreme Court, etc. 
 
Quote

Was actually looking forward to hearing about Romney's many business achievements that would be transferrable and add substance to his somewhat awkward campaign for the presidency.

His accomplishments are many, yet one word says it all, turnaround.  America needs a turnaround.  That was Romney's forte.  In turning around a company, please note that Romney endeavored to work with the existing management of acquired companies.  Romney's approach differs from many leveraged buyouts that are more akin to hostile takeovers.  Please read about it if you intend to vote.

Other aspects of Romney's record.  While Governor of Massachusetts, he eliminated a projected deficit.   And he took over a financially troubled Winter Olympics and guided it to a success. 

Quote
Obama somehow created the mess before being elected?


I did not say that.  I said "It would be impossible to debate with someone who believes Obama's party had nothing to do with the Great Recession...."   

To refresh your mind long removed from the American scene, the crisis started a long time ago when Democrats (Obama's Party) thought it important that low income people should own a home, creating the concept of subprime mortgages as a vehicle to accomplish this.   After that initiative there was enough blame for everyone to share, Republican and Democrats.
 
Quote
Sorry I just dont get it... and I think that's also the problem many will have come election day.

Many will indeed line up to vote for the cow whose teat they have been sucking all their lives, not caring that the cow is weak and growing weaker.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on May 21, 2012, 08:36:44 PM
As stated earlier, Obama is not a leader...he wants to be a celebrity.
Santorum said that Romney would be the worst repubican to run against Obama and then endorses him the next day.

IMHO, Santorum was right and it wasn't in his endorsement. The whole Bain Capital thing is going to be a drag on Romney. Even though he is the most liberal candidate the republicans offered. I didn't think there was a more liberal republican than GWB but, I am afraid I was wrong
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on May 22, 2012, 12:18:46 AM
Vote for whoever will repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act and pass a new Glass-Steagal act. and get our banking system under control again.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 22, 2012, 12:50:35 AM
 
Nope.  I find it inane to attack a candidate for his record when the incumbent essentially had no record prior to taking office.  I stand corrected.  The incumbent has been in office for 3 1/2 years.  He now has a record.  The result:   more debt, fewer jobs and lower home prices than in 2008.  Other results:  class warfare; his signature initiative Obamacare will soon be thrown out by the Supreme Court, etc. 
 
His accomplishments are many, yet one word says it all, turnaround.  America needs a turnaround.  That was Romney's forte.  In turning around a company, please note that Romney endeavored to work with the existing management of acquired companies.  Romney's approach differs from many leveraged buyouts that are more akin to hostile takeovers.  Please read about it if you intend to vote.

Other aspects of Romney's record.  While Governor of Massachusetts, he eliminated a projected deficit.   And he took over a financially troubled Winter Olympics and guided it to a success. 
 
I did not say that.  I said "It would be impossible to debate with someone who believes Obama's party had nothing to do with the Great Recession...."   

To refresh your mind long removed from the American scene, the crisis started a long time ago when Democrats (Obama's Party) thought it important that low income people should own a home, creating the concept of subprime mortgages as a vehicle to accomplish this.   After that initiative there was enough blame for everyone to share, Republican and Democrats.
 
Many will indeed line up to vote for the cow whose teat they have been sucking all their lives, not caring that the cow is weak and growing weaker.

Gator,

Of course a lot of salt is thrown around in elections.  Obama did overstep with halving the deficit in his first term and closing Guantanamo.  Yes he has a record now but all in all, more of a disaster it is not.  One war wound down and another soon.  Some form of healthcare reform, I would have hoped for more but as you state it's all a compromise and that counts even within one party.  The economy recession has been over for a while now so don't know why so many pundits keep mentioning it.  Yes more work to be done for sure but that is one promise that was not made - to fix the economy in one term.

As for Romney's accomplishments, did a bit of research and his record in his home state is a bit fuzzy, levies on businesses and increased license fees, a 2002 carryover capital gains tax he had nothing to do with that filled a huge hole, internet sales tax, gas tax, shifting some financial burdens from state to towns and allowing them to raise property taxes instead of him.  His health care program is notable,  I liked the provision that defines 'affordable insurance'.  He did though have a hard time with the state legislature - most of his veto's were overturned   Yes he can say it was a 'turnaround' but it included some creative accounting / shifting and increased taxes.  His vetoes did seem to align with current campaign policy, so much so that their purpose might well have been just 'for the record' as his sights were aimed a the presidency with MA as a stepping stone.

I did misread your comment about 'Obama's party' but I don't believe that lax lending practices was the goal.  The banking business saw an opportunity, took it then gambled.  I doubt what happened was planned by either party but instead some politicians likely gained.

As to Bain's accomplishments I find very little.. do feel free to point me to some of their positive achievements aside from ending up on the better end of the stick financially.

Yes, the governments teat is being sucked dry, big business has had their fill for a while now so maybe it's time that the rest get a sip or two.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on May 22, 2012, 04:04:59 AM
Most all of it, except for maybe the part that you don't live in the USA of which I have no first hand knowledge. First of all, I am not a republican. I understand you'd love to rathole me into your generalizations of Americans. Sorry that doesn't work out for you. Second, you have no idea what I think of Obama, please don't think you do or attempt to think for me  ;D

My apologies for the inference taken from so many of your posts.  Does that then make you a Democrat?  Nobody here has ever mentioned a third party (I'm assuming that the "Tea Party" doesn't count).  I thought you had made it patently clear what you thought of Obama, along with many other members of this forum.  I wouldn't dream of trying to think for you !  :cluebat:
 
Exactly. He had no record except for a year and a half of being a freshman Senator and a career of a Chicago community organizer. THAT was his record. He had as much experience of running a world power country as I do. I wouldn't vote for me either.

Nobody has any experience of running a world power country until they get elected - unless they get a second term.  Just because someone has had years of being a Senator or Governor does not necessarily mean that they will be a good President.  They may - but, then again, they may be totally useless on the biggest stage.
 
Robber baron....LOL. Are you against making money kiwi? Is profit forbidden in your utopia?

Am I against making money?  Of course not, but I'm not thrilled when the person in question causes the loss of thousands of jobs while doing so.  Your job is presumably safe from such a scenario.
 

Enough of the name calling already.  Really, stop sounding like a hack if you wish to be taken seriously.

And you accuse me of name-calling?
 
Were your feelings hurt that badly? Name calling is the first sign of defeat in a logical, reasonable debate and a sign that you are not capable..

My feelings weren't hurt at all.  However, I get sick of people like you being so sure that the USA is the only country that matters.  I can't help it if you haven't previously encountered the term "ugly American."  Look it up, then you might realise why I used it.
 
You couldn't begin to comprehend my inner demons, none of which are associated with politics or political debate and you are no internet psychologist. Don't go there. I will however venture to guess  my world travels exceed yours, exponentially.

I have no wish to arouse your inner demons, whatever they may be.  Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words, given your response.  It's just that you have this knack of every so often blowing off at something which most people seem quite prepared to let go without comment, even though they may inwardly be muttering or cursing about that particular thing.  As far as world travel goes, the point would be moot unless you're an international airline pilot, in which case I will quite happily concede the point.  But, even if you have travelled more than me (which neither of us could possibly know), so what?

You feel inadequate because your country is insignificant on the world stage.

What a condescending piece of shit!
 
I get that. It's okay, everybody can't be first. It has no bearing on your personal inadequacies. Those are all yours. I am not angry and have no bone to pick with you or anyone else. However, when I see those, especially a foreigner with no dog in the hunt, intend to crown who you think should be president of the US well, I feel compelled to inject. Never mind from a knowitall with bad information. Deal with it or not. It's your problem, your choice

Why would you think that I have "personal inadequacies?"  Because I come from an "insignificant" country?  As usual, you totally miss the point because you haven't properly read what I wrote - which, to reiterate, is basically "why would you want a man such as Romney to be your President?" when he has brought so much heartache to so many people in his rise to where he is today?  I don't intend to "crown" anyone - I just find it weird that such a person should garner such support.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on May 22, 2012, 06:29:54 AM

My apologies for the inference taken from so many of your posts.  Does that then make you a Democrat?  Nobody here has ever mentioned a third party (I'm assuming that the "Tea Party" doesn't count).  I thought you had made it patently clear what you thought of Obama, along with many other members of this forum.  I wouldn't dream of trying to think for you !  :cluebat:
   
Nobody has any experience of running a world power country until they get elected - unless they get a second term.  Just because someone has had years of being a Senator or Governor does not necessarily mean that they will be a good President.  They may - but, then again, they may be totally useless on the biggest stage.
 
Am I against making money?  Of course not, but I'm not thrilled when the person in question causes the loss of thousands of jobs while doing so.  Your job is presumably safe from such a scenario.
 
 
And you accuse me of name-calling?
 
My feelings weren't hurt at all.  However, I get sick of people like you being so sure that the USA is the only country that matters.  I can't help it if you haven't previously encountered the term "ugly American."  Look it up, then you might realise why I used it.
 
I have no wish to arouse your inner demons, whatever they may be.  Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words, given your response.  It's just that you have this knack of every so often blowing off at something which most people seem quite prepared to let go without comment, even though they may inwardly be muttering or cursing about that particular thing.  As far as world travel goes, the point would be moot unless you're an international airline pilot, in which case I will quite happily concede the point.  But, even if you have travelled more than me (which neither of us could possibly know), so what?
 
What a condescending piece of shit!
 
Why would you think that I have "personal inadequacies?"  Because I come from an "insignificant" country?  As usual, you totally miss the point because you haven't properly read what I wrote - which, to reiterate, is basically "why would you want a man such as Romney to be your President?" when he has brought so much heartache to so many people in his rise to where he is today?  I don't intend to "crown" anyone - I just find it weird that such a person should garner such support.

I don't believe I could write a post that proves my point any clearer than this one does.

 :ROFL:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 22, 2012, 10:29:54 AM
Hey guys, we're really treading on thin ice here with the heated exchanges..  Normally such threads are taboo around here so lets keep the discourse civil and drop the name calling so there is a chance it doesn't get shut down.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on May 22, 2012, 12:32:33 PM
Fair enough
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on May 23, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KV-RqPtT2PU
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on May 23, 2012, 05:39:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KV-RqPtT2PU (http://www.youtube.com/embed/KV-RqPtT2PU)

Very interesting!  I know he's taking the piss, but there actually seem to be a couple of good ideas in there.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on May 24, 2012, 03:40:32 AM
Sweden has a social welfare system that exceeds the Netherlands.
They have free healthcare.
Cigarettes cost USD 10 for a pack of 24.
A liter of Vodka costs USD 30 (cheap vodka not the good stuff).
A liter (no not  gallon) of gas costs USD 3.00
Income tax is as stated on average of 33%, top income tax is 56%



And Norway has a social welfare system that exceeds Sweden as well as full employment for those that wish to work. There is a reason the Swedes go in large numbers to Norway to work, just go to Oslo and see how many Swedes work there, especially in the service sector.
Cigarettes here, USD 15, a bottle of Stoli USD 50. But near free healthcare. Income tax was for me 24% last year. 5 weeks of vacation. For June, the regular salary is cut and we instead get holiday money equal to 12% of the income the previous year which in my case is about 8000 dollars. So taxes and prices are high yes, but income reflects that and even though there is constant discussions over the level of the welfare state vs. individualism, the living standard for the middle class is very good. There are billionaires in Norway too, just not nearly as many billions per billionaire as in most countries.


I sincerely doubt that the US citizens will agree to this without revolution.



Given the complete picture, I doubt it. But continue the present policy of decimating the middle class and there will be a revolution IMHO.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 24, 2012, 04:37:25 AM

Given the complete picture, I doubt it. But continue the present policy of decimating the middle class and there will be a revolution IMHO.

Plutocracy?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on May 24, 2012, 04:41:37 AM
Plutocracy?


+ 1. Yes, I fear so.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 24, 2012, 05:19:35 AM

+ 1. Yes, I fear so.

In that case the revolution started in 2008..  guess we'll have to see if there is enough momentum to carry it through 2012.

I also think many are catching the 'drift' and are getting tired of it.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on May 24, 2012, 05:41:27 AM
In that case the revolution started in 2008..  guess we'll have to see if there is enough momentum to carry it through 2012.

I also think many are catching the 'drift' and are getting tired of it.


Must come to a point of critical mass of opposition at some point. How many times can regular folks be fooled by slogans of "hope" and "change" I wonder. Won't hold my breath just yet as even on this forum some sincerely believe that yet another insider billionaire will make a difference. Maybe it's necessary to hit rock bottom in order to really start from scratch again?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 24, 2012, 05:53:17 AM
Maybe it's necessary to hit rock bottom in order to really start from scratch again?

Indeed..  In fact I think that is what should have happened in the crash.

Band-aids are becoming very expensive.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: erikmagenta on May 24, 2012, 10:59:15 AM

And Norway has a social welfare system that exceeds Sweden as well as full employment for those that wish to work. There is a reason the Swedes go in large numbers to Norway to work, just go to Oslo and see how many Swedes work there, especially in the service sector.
Cigarettes here, USD 15, a bottle of Stoli USD 50. But near free healthcare. Income tax was for me 24% last year. 5 weeks of vacation. For June, the regular salary is cut and we instead get holiday money equal to 12% of the income the previous year which in my case is about 8000 dollars. So taxes and prices are high yes, but income reflects that and even though there is constant discussions over the level of the welfare state vs. individualism, the living standard for the middle class is very good. There are billionaires in Norway too, just not nearly as many billions per billionaire as in most countries.

 


Given the complete picture, I doubt it. But continue the present policy of decimating the middle class and there will be a revolution IMHO.

Yes the Wall Street protestors would not be doing that if there was a thriving middle class and they all had good jobs.  In order for that to happen capital which has left this country by the billions and trillions to go to India and China must come back and be invested here.  I doubt if that will ever happen under Obama.  Romney is clearly the better choice in my opinion.  Obama is trying to criticize his record at Bain Capital.  Hmmmmmm?  A record of 78% success?  A record of success at running the Olympics as well.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on May 24, 2012, 04:31:29 PM
I think it's time we give in and go with the flow... let's ship the damn government to India....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: erikmagenta on May 24, 2012, 04:49:34 PM
I think it's time we give in and go with the flow... let's ship the damn government to India....

No, let's privatize the government, and ship the damn politicians to India!!! :clapping:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on May 24, 2012, 04:50:58 PM
I am curious if anyone disagrees with this non partisan analysis of the debt crisis in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on May 24, 2012, 04:55:15 PM
Vote for whoever will repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act and pass a new Glass-Steagal act. and get our banking system under control again.

Please supply some details and rationale for those of us not familiar with the acts.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 24, 2012, 06:00:30 PM
I am curious if anyone disagrees with this non partisan analysis of the debt crisis in the US.


I agree that we must address the debt issue now.  And I agree that everyone's ox must be gored.
 
Some fiscal restraint and tax increases are scheduled to take place in 2012-2013.  These are referred to collectively as the "fiscal cliff." 
 
An austerity and fiscal restraint program will likely harm our fragile recovery, adding to the debt problem.  We are on the horns of a dilemma.  We really need a good President.
 
Here is the summary of a CBO report about this issue, released two days ago.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43264 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43264)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on May 24, 2012, 06:42:09 PM

I agree that we must address the debt issue now.  And I agree that everyone's ox must be gored.
 
Some fiscal restraint and tax increases are scheduled to take place in 2012-2013.  These are referred to collectively as the "fiscal cliff." 
 
An austerity and fiscal restraint program will likely harm our fragile recovery, adding to the debt problem.  We are on the horns of a dilemma.  We really need a good President.
 
Here is the summary of a CBO report about this issue, released two days ago.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43264 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43264)

With the current congress, would it really make any difference who is president?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on May 24, 2012, 08:36:10 PM
if a guy falls between average and bum, and he's fine with that, then i guess socialism and obama might make sense for him.

under socialism, average and below are generally 'net takers'.  and when average and below courts a RW, he can point to the comfy social safety net as part of his 'sales pitch'... a safety net that is paid for by 'net givers'.

but most RW aren't interested in the socialist dreamer or the 'occupy' deadbeat.  this type of man is perceived by RW as weak and an unreliable provider.

hope this info is useful to those men seeking a RW!!!


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 24, 2012, 11:25:44 PM
With the current congress, would it really make any difference who is president?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/24/MN6J1ONAKT.DTL

So both candidates want to freeze the student loan rates for another year but still can't get it done for political reasons / agenda so it sure looks like there is indeed little difference.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on May 25, 2012, 01:04:28 AM
Please supply some details and rationale for those of us not familiar with the acts.

Here is some basic info from Wikipedea:
 
"
The Banking Act of 1933 (Pub.L. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law_(United_States)) 73-66, 48 Stat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 162, enacted June 16, 1933) was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation) (FDIC) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and imposed banking reforms, several of which were intended to control speculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation).[1] It is often referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Glass) (D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))) of Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Virginia), and Representative Henry B. Steagall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_B._Steagall) (D) of Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama%27s_3rd_congressional_district).
The term Glass–Steagall Act, however, is most often used to refer to four provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.[2] Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted these provisions to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act) in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, many commentators argued Glass-Steagall was already “dead.”[4] Most notably, Citibank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank)’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Smith_Barney), one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass-Steagall Act.[5]
Many commentators have stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass-Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis).[6][7][8] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass-Steagall Act.[15] Commentators, including the American Bankers Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bankers_Association) in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.[16]"
 
Of course note that the ABA is claiming that this is good news and contributed to the fixing of the crisis, but as far as I am concerned fixing out of control speculation is not cured with more wild speculation. and are we out of the woods yet?   I don't think so....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on May 25, 2012, 01:06:06 AM
Here is a good bedtime story!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on May 25, 2012, 01:20:20 AM
Excerpts from: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/smallbusinessissues/a/Glass-Steagall-Act.htm (http://bizfinance.about.com/od/smallbusinessissues/a/Glass-Steagall-Act.htm)
 
"One of the arguments for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was that the banking industry was losing market share to securities firms. Another was that the securities activities the banks were seeking were low risk by their nature and could provide diversification for the banks. Obviously, the types of risky, exotic securities like credit default swaps had not been thought of at that time."
 
"When 2008 came and the Great Recession occurred, the FDIC increased its depositor insurance amount to $250,000 from $100,000 per bank per depositor to increase consumer confidence. That limit will expire at the end of 2013 and will revert back to $100,000."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on May 25, 2012, 01:24:37 AM
Here is also a good read:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/credit-default-swaps_b_1067152.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/credit-default-swaps_b_1067152.html)
 
"You may recall that credit default swaps were the prime instrument in the nearly $200 billion collapse of AIG, which had to be bailed out by the U.S. government. AIG, the world's largest insurance company, in effect wrote insurance against sub-prime securities going bad, but without setting aside reserves against that risk.
Reserving against possible loss is the fundamental pillar of the insurance business. AIG could get away with breaking that rule because industry has successfully lobbied for a loophole holding that a swap was not quite insurance, not quite a security, not quite illegal gambling -- it conveniently fell between the cracks."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 25, 2012, 07:47:00 AM
Here is a good bedtime story!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo)

I still remember Pelosi loudly caling out Bush to give up those cool billions from TARP and hand it over to none other than Ron Gettlefinger, who comfortably arrived in Washington in their respective private jets. Remember that silliness?

Then once the stupid fungus got settled in the white house, he then added billions more both to Chrysler and GM that was slated to Ford who ultimately decided they didn't want any part of. If that isn't enough, he decided to rape the taxpayers even more by his billion dollar giveaway which he named 'Cash for Clunkers'..$3,000.00 for a heap of useless scrap metal that doesn't run? *WE*, the US taxpayers, paid that much just so GM/Chrysler can sell their cars?

To this day, they haven't paid any of the taxpayer's monies back, but according to them, they have and that's damned good enough for that fungus in the white house.

Here's the ad:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbXpV0aqEM4

Here's the truth about that ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOaS2SymjQ4&feature=related

As for your link...pay close attention to cushy Ron's discreet declaration @ 3:10 of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4rowuNrJso

All things being equal, GM's move to set-up house in China may be controversial, but can you really blame them? It is potentially the biggest market anywhere in our galaxy at this time. After all, doesn't the people of USA 'own' GM at this point under the leadership of the white fungus? Besides, isn't that why Clinton signed that trade agreement with China, and his urging to introduce China to the WTO, to begin with?

Here's Dan Atkerson's vid back in 2010 trying so hard to 'hide' the fact GM need China's market to help them remain 'competitive' in the highly competitive global auto market. see: at 2:10 of the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ltWXdKeqL0

If not GM, then who? Heck, to be perfectly honest about it. Hundai and/or Kia would've been perfect for the role (who, IMO, is currently the best automaker right now behind only VW). 2 birds with one stone. Help SK's economy prosper even more and these 2 countries can renew their long lost admiration for one another which would've help unifying that other region in the peninsula.

As bad as this nearly 100 billion giveaway to GM/Chrysler is, it's nothing compared to the AIG white house fungus charity. Remember that Chris Dodd 'lost' memo about the bonuses? Well, at the time it was a huge mess (it still is), but little did we know, they knew, AIG knew 200 blllion dollars will never find it's way 'back home'. Great supporting role for Geithner on that puppy.

Yeah, Bernanke can win an Oscar for portraying the really angry Treasury Secretary role in "Let's Rape America with Hope and Change"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 25, 2012, 07:55:10 AM
Here is also a good read:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/credit-default-swaps_b_1067152.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/credit-default-swaps_b_1067152.html)
 
"You may recall that credit default swaps were the prime instrument in the nearly $200 billion collapse of AIG, which had to be bailed out by the U.S. government. AIG, the world's largest insurance company, in effect wrote insurance against sub-prime securities going bad, but without setting aside reserves against that risk.
Reserving against possible loss is the fundamental pillar of the insurance business. AIG could get away with breaking that rule because industry has successfully lobbied for a loophole holding that a swap was not quite insurance, not quite a security, not quite illegal gambling -- it conveniently fell between the cracks."

The real core of the Great Recession is Clinton's signing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

I agree crony Capitalism is pretty raunchy, but if you fail to see all the recent events leading to the decimation of America can be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then yes, vote for bigger government. Vote for Socialism later this year. Give that fungus a chance to finish what he had started.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 25, 2012, 08:40:49 AM
The real core of the Great Recession is Clinton's signing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

I agree crony Capitalism is pretty raunchy, but if you fail to see all the recent events leading to the decimation of America can be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then yes, vote for bigger government. Vote for Socialism later this year. Give that fungus a chance to finish what he had started.

I sincerely doubt that the purpose of the law was the Great Recession.  Instead it seems intent was to lessen trading restrictions thinking big banking would get it right. 

Instead of being responsible and following intent, all was done in the name of circumvent.

I really don't know what is scarier, government or the top echelons of business.  For both ethics be damned.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on May 25, 2012, 10:12:09 AM
I really don't know what is scarier, government or the top echelons of business.

what a foolish and naive question.
 
has a business ever killed 6 million jews?... or wiped out millions within the soviet union?... or committed genocide across africa... or forced chinese women to abort their babies... or how about started any world wars?
 
like i said... foolish and naive.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 25, 2012, 10:29:11 AM
I sincerely doubt that the purpose of the law was the Great Recession.  Instead it seems intent was to lessen trading restrictions thinking big banking would get it right. 

Instead of being responsible and following intent, all was done in the name of circumvent.

I really don't know what is scarier, government or the top echelons of business.  For both ethics be damned.

The 'purpose' of the law? Just as the Community Reinvestment Act by Carter and Clinton, didn't mean to market homes to people who couldn't possibly afford it, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act)

...which was originally enacted in 1977, and expanded in the 90s, which led to the early 1980's recession and early 1990 banking creative financing. By the mid-1990s, Clinton once again regurgitated Carter's ambition, and the rest is history as I hope many ought to know by now.

I was searching an original campaign vid that was used to support McCain bavk in the '08 election but it was controversially 'taken' down. This is the one replaced it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzWrnUezDOU&feature=related

...and speaking about McCain, I used to like this guy but because he acted like a stooge in the recent Libya invasion by suggesting and lobbying for the US to take part in that silliness by asking for attack drones to be deployed on the onset of that Libyan *Freedom* movement  :rolleyes: , but no more..

...all roads to hell is paved with dubiously political good intention$ i.e. United Nations.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 25, 2012, 10:55:39 AM
With the current congress, would it really make any difference who is president?

Huge difference.   It is called leadership.   
 
American government is about compromise.   Reagan was elected president and his Republican Party had control of both the House and Senate.  Did he ramrod his policies down the throat of the Democrats?  No.  He met with the liberal Tip O'Neill, the second longest running Speaker of the House.   Together they reached  a compromise for  legislative initiatives.   The compromise was about 60-40 in favor of conservative policies, yet the liberals got some of what they wanted.   The liberals were not ignored.   
 
Reagan represented all Americans.   Reagan went on to accomplish much in his 8 years, including the collapse of the evil empire, the USSR.
 
Have you seen similar leadership by Obama?     The answer is no.   
 
Fact: all the American presidents recognized as the "best" had party control of Congress.  Do you believe Obama will be considered one of the best Presidents?  It is not a time for amateurs.  We need a leader. 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 25, 2012, 11:20:47 AM
BC,

GQ is correct in that the Great Recession starting in 2008 had its roots in the  Community Reinvestment Act.   Over time it greatly increased the volume of subprime mortgages.
 
Yet it took far more than that for the collapse.  The lending institutions lobbied for and received less regulation (e. g., repeal of the Glass Steagal Act as Glyden described), enabling them to assume more risk.  Government lending enterprises were pressured to take on more risk.   And with derivatives and credit default swaps, risk was leveraged.  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve did not take away the punch bowl when the party became too lively.   
 
Let us not forget one important fact.   Americans decided it was acceptable to assume more debt, "... with the ratio of debt to disposable personal income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_personal_income) rising from 77% in 1990 to 127% at the end of 2007, much of this increase mortgage-related."  It  created a bubble.  All bubbles eventually pop.
 
There is enough blame to go around for everyone.
 
Once we got into the mess, our government undertook many initiatives.  Probably the best was TARP as it did save the financial community from collapse.  Can you imagine ATMs not functioning?  After that, few policies did anything other than increase our debt.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 25, 2012, 11:25:03 AM
If that isn't enough, he decided to rape the taxpayers even more by his billion dollar giveaway which he named 'Cash for Clunkers'..$3,000.00 for a heap of useless scrap metal that doesn't run? *WE*, the US taxpayers, paid that much just so GM/Chrysler can sell their cars?

Don't be too harsh about "Cash for Clunkers."  It removed from our highways about 75% of the "Obama for President" bumper stickers.   :ROFL:

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 25, 2012, 11:28:20 AM

I really don't know what is scarier, government or the top echelons of business. 

Business leaders are appointed to represent the business owners.   Government leaders are elected to represent the welfare of the public.  Huge difference.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on May 25, 2012, 11:31:02 AM
    Government leaders ...

Key word.
Where are they?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 25, 2012, 11:35:55 AM

Don't be too harsh about "Cash for Clunkers."  It removed from our highways about 75% of the "Obama for President" bumper stickers.   :ROFL:

Now that's a chuckle I'll take in stride Gator :)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on May 25, 2012, 11:57:32 AM

what a foolish and naive question.
 
has a business ever killed 6 million jews?... or wiped out millions within the soviet union?... or committed genocide across africa... or forced chinese women to abort their babies... or how about started any world wars?
 
like i said... foolish and naive.
Arms business is responsible for all of this.
Oil business has wiped out millions of animals, and a nice number of people.
Nuclear business has caused ilness around the globe.
Medical business has killed as many as it has cured.

A business is not ethical in any way. And that is a good thing, do not get me wrong.
After all the Dutch made good money during the 80-year war, when they produced and sold bullets to Spain. Spain used these bullets to shoot the Dutch...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: erikmagenta on May 25, 2012, 12:36:55 PM
Arms business is responsible for all of this.
Oil business has wiped out millions of animals, and a nice number of people.
Nuclear business has caused ilness around the globe.
Medical business has killed as many as it has cured.

A business is not ethical in any way. And that is a good thing, do not get me wrong.
After all the Dutch made good money during the 80-year war, when they produced and sold bullets to Spain. Spain used these bullets to shoot the Dutch...

But of course, all of those businesses could have been regulated by the government, right??   :cluebat:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 25, 2012, 03:30:24 PM
Obama continues to attack Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital in private equity.  How about Obama's record in public equity

President Obama's administration has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses.    Many of those investments have been failures,  "leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions."  We are talking about far more than the $535 million pissed away on Solyndra.   

From the Washington Post:
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html)
 
Who do you want watching your tax money?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 25, 2012, 03:32:12 PM
Medical business has killed as many as it has cured.

What?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on May 25, 2012, 04:43:38 PM

what a foolish and naive question.
 
has a business ever killed 6 million jews?... or wiped out millions within the soviet union?... or committed genocide across africa... or forced chinese women to abort their babies... or how about started any world wars?
 
like i said... foolish and naive.

It was neither foolish nor naive.

Business leaders have always been intertwined with these conflicts.  Did businesses kill millions during WWII?  Well, IG Farben manufactured  Zyklon B gas, which was used to kill those individuals, and funded Mengele's experiments.  That company was renamed Bayer after WWII.


Siemens built the gas chambers (with slave labourers).

Standard Oil was one of only three companies in the world that could produce tetraethyl lead gas, used to fly planes.  They supplied the Nazies with the gas throughout the war.

Ford supplied the Nazis and the Allies with vehicles throughout WWII.

Allianz insured Auschwitz, and paid life insurance benefits of Jewish Holocaust victims directly to the Nazis.

There is a whole book which explores IBM's role in the Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust)

De Beers is currently involved in a controversy as they demand land be cleared in the traditional Bushman lands in Botswana.  They have continued their business interests, notwithstanding findings their actions are leading to genocide.

There is also an interesting book on the connection between Wall Street and the Bolsheviks -
http://www.amazon.com/Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Antony-Sutton/dp/089968324X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/182-0327913-3639778 (http://www.amazon.com/Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Antony-Sutton/dp/089968324X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/182-0327913-3639778)

The Abir Congo Company played a major role in the deaths of 20 to 40 million Congolese. It was responsible for major human rights violations, often using slave labour by "taxing" Congolese villagers, and torturing, often to death, those who failed to meet quotas.

Cargill did not have a particularly illustrious history in Bhopal.

I could go on and on . . .
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on May 25, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Standard Oil was one of only three companies in the world that could produce tetraethyl lead gas, used to fly planes. They supplied the Nazies with the gas throughout the war.
Bo, I don't know where you obtained that piece of info, but IMHO it's wildly inaccurate :-\:
Quote
Tetraethyllead (common name tetraethyl lead), abbreviated TEL, is an organolead compound with the formula (CH3CH2)4Pb. Its mixing with gasoline (petrol) as an inexpensive additive beginning in the 1920s allowed octane ratings and thus engine compression to be boosted significantly, increasing power and fuel economy.
Considering that German chemical research and industries were at the forefront since the late 1800s, I doubt very much that Germany had to rely on US supplies for a comparatively simple product best known universally as the antiknock agent.
Quote
TEL is produced by reacting chloroethane with a sodium–lead alloy.
4 NaPb + 4 CH3CH2Cl → (CH3CH2)4Pb + 4 NaCl + 3 Pb
Among other things, German chemists developed synthetic rubber and other substitutes for unavailable raw materials during WWII, so the process was well within their technical capabilities ;).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on May 25, 2012, 08:17:52 PM
This link provides at least some of the answers.  A very interesting read

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_04.htm
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on May 25, 2012, 08:43:41 PM
This link provides at least some of the answers.  A very interesting readhttp://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_04.htm
Yes. It says that Standard Oil gave the Germans the technology for TEL - not the product itself, as reported in Bo's quote - and the latter swapped theirs for buna (synthetic rubber).   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on May 25, 2012, 08:53:57 PM
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/%20http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg)   (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/%20http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg)

   That company was renamed Bayer after WWII.

One of Bayer's products...

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/%20http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg)
 
  (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/%20http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Bayer_Heroin_bottle.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on May 26, 2012, 01:24:47 AM
But of course, all of those businesses could have been regulated by the government, right??   :cluebat:
The main thing is that businesses are not innocent of crime. To believe business would do any better in controlling a country as a government is pretty naieve. You only have to watch  some movies to understand the results.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on May 26, 2012, 03:23:47 AM
The main thing is that businesses are not innocent of crime. To believe business would do any better in controlling a country as a government is pretty naieve. You only have to watch  some movies to understand the results.

Movies?

Recent history is much better..

Just because some action or loophole may be legal does not mean it is ethical.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on May 26, 2012, 05:12:59 AM
One of Bayer's products...
Clearly NOT a post-WWII product ;).
Quote
Well, IG Farben manufactured Zyklon B gas, which was used to kill those individuals, and funded Mengele's experiments. That company was renamed Bayer after WWII.
Quote
Foundation of IG Farben
IG Farben was founded on December 25, 1925, as a merger of the following six companies:
BASF
Bayer
Hoechst (including Cassella and Chemische Fabrik Kalle)
Agfa
Chemische Fabrik Griesheim-Elektron
Chemische Fabrik vorm. Weiler Ter Meer
...
Break-up and liquidation
Due to the severity of the war crimes committed by IG Farben during World War II, the company was considered to be too corrupt to be allowed to continue to exist. The Soviet Union seized most of IG Farben's assets located in the Soviet occupation zone (see Morgenthau Plan), as part of their reparation payments. The Western Allies however, in 1951, split the company up into its original constituent companies. The four largest quickly bought the smaller ones. Today Agfa, BASF, and Bayer remain, Hoechst having in 1999 demerged its industrial chemical operations to Celanese AG and merged its life-sciences businesses with Rhône-Poulenc's to form Aventis.

Part of Hoechst was afterwards Celanese AG, while another part of the company was sold in 1997 to the chemical spin-off of Sandoz, the Muttenz (Switzerland) based Clariant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben

After WWII, Bayer concentrated on pharmaceuticals, BASF (once Badische Anilin- und Soda-Fabrik) on chemical products.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 26, 2012, 07:46:25 AM
Yeah, speaking of naive and foolish, LOL...I suppose a person can snort TIDE detergent (Weapon of Mass Detergent) all day long, or drink gasoline to wash down their dinner, to prove businesses kill people..

Those evil bastards. I never realize those inanimate canned products, produced by those evil bastard businesses, could've easily attacked me to death from under the sink. It's good I first stumbled upon RWD, phew...I feel safe now.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on May 26, 2012, 07:51:12 AM
The point is not the product, but that, as BC said, business leaders are not ethical.

The wheels of the Nazi machine, as just one example, would not have turned so easily, if industry had not supplied them, willingly, with the tools they needed.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 26, 2012, 08:27:37 AM
But it is the 'product' if we really want to split pea about this. Economics is the thrust that drives most of our progressive/regressive existence. Certainly we can make a case for colonization, alcohol distilleries, cigarettes, etc...

Quote
The wheels of the Nazi machine, as just one example, would not have turned so easily, if industry had not supplied them, willingly, with the tools they needed.

Well yes, sure...but in the same sense one can easily say that should implicate Hormel Foods as guilty of crimes against humanity in the same degree, no?

Bottom line in all of this, there's should always be 'government' regulating, or not, these incidences/businesses.

Speaking of which, (I don't know how this is anywhere else), LA and Sta Monica just recently passed a law that bans all plastic bag products usage in the 'name' of environmental protection. Sounds good on the surface, but then they say this law, based on their estimate, generates the city $25 million/year to not have to deal with plastic bags in our landfills. Additionally, they will start charging us $0.10/ea for every paper bags required to 'bag' our purchases whether they're groceries or general goods, which was said to generate approximately another $30-40 million/yr.

$65 million LOL. It cost the city at least 10x that by 'housing' a few million illegal immigrants and multi-generational social dependent dimwits in our society. Environmental protection, LOL.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: erikmagenta on May 26, 2012, 09:46:47 AM
Businesses and Governments often work hand in hand.  It's doubtful if the German companies listed would have made the products they did during WWII without the insistance of an evil regime, at the point of a gun so to speak. 

I would not say that the relationship between the US Government and Haliburton are the same as mentioned above, and yet Haliburton has greatly benefitted from the war in Iraq.

It's somewhat naive to say that businesses deliberately make products that are going to kill people (unless they are an arms manufacturer and then it's a given).  As the poster GQ just pointed out, any product can be missused.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on May 26, 2012, 10:42:58 AM
It's somewhat naive to say that businesses deliberately make products that are going to kill people (unless they are an arms manufacturer and then it's a given).  As the poster GQ just pointed out, any product can be missused.
This is why there should be a balance between Government and business.
A Goverment is going to make the rules and ensure that they are followed.
A Business is going to make as much money as they can within those rules.
If both do their job, the Government gets money through taxes, and everyone is happy.
If the Government starts to be a business, they are going to be less trusted in making rules, as they will try to maximize their profits as well.
If the Business is given Government tasks, they lose efficiency as they have to think not only about playing but also about making the field.

In cases where the business is not supposed to create profit but has other goals, it can be running with government influence or control. Mostly such a business is accused of being inefficient and burning tax money.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 26, 2012, 03:10:31 PM
The point is not the product, but that, as BC said, business leaders are not ethical.

Broad statement.  How many business leaders are unethical?  All?   Most?  Half?  Significant but less than half?  Some?   Few?
 
Quote

The wheels of the Nazi machine, as just one example, would not have turned so
easily, if industry had not supplied them, willingly, with the tools they
needed.


What should have Mr. Bayer, Mr. Volkswagen, Mr. Krupp, et al done when Hitler asked them to supply military arms?   What do you believe Hitler would have done if they refused? 
 
I believe they paid a price for their decisions when Hitler lost and German industry was dismantled.  However, this was harming the entire European economy and many companies were rebuilt under the Marshall Plan for the benefit of Europe.  The USSR did not participate in the Marshall Plan and we see what happened in East Germany.. 
 
Many American companies made military arms for Americans.  Should they have refused?
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Boethius on May 26, 2012, 03:51:04 PM
Well, duh, there are good and bad people in every aspect of society.  My point was not that "business is bad" but rather, a riposte to the view that business leaders were never responsible for atrocities.  History shows us where a profit is to be made, even in morally reprehensible conduct, some business leaders will have no compunction in profiting.


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on May 26, 2012, 04:00:02 PM
Well, duh, there are good and bad people in every aspect of society.  My point was not that "business is bad" but rather, a riposte to the view that business leaders were never responsible for atrocities.  History shows us where a profit is to be made, even in morally reprehensible conduct, some business leaders will have no compunction in profiting.

Good point and I agree. Hopefully come November it will no longer be business as usual in DC. ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on May 26, 2012, 04:09:32 PM
The USSR did not participate in the Marshall Plan and we see what happened in East Germany..
Phil, I had a personal experience of that in 1980, as a participant to IBM Italy's 100% Club in what was then West Berlin, which included an afternoon's bus tour to East Berlin through Checkpoint Charlie.

Our tour guide was an East German girl who only spoke English, and during our excursion we Italians of course made condescending remarks about the dinginess of what we were seeing in her part of city (drab buildings, a few Trabant cars, etc. etc.) She obviously got the gyst of it if not the details and was visibly unhappy, so I started a conversion with her on East Germany's situation.

I still remember her saying: "We did not have the benefits of a Marshall Plan" and, in a more hushed voice: "...and our Soviet brothers moved most of our industries to Russia" :(.

Another significant incident concerned my request for an East German 10 mark silver coin - at the time I used to bring them back to my mother as souvenirs of my foreign trips - which of course I'd be paying for in $.

(http://www.coinquest.com/cgi-data/cq_ro/page_image/germany/mark_pfennig_east_germany.jpg)

Her horrified refusal to accede to my request spoke volumes about her fear of possibly being accused of black-market currency deals ;).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 26, 2012, 04:43:47 PM
History shows us where a profit is to be made, even in morally reprehensible conduct, some business leaders will have no compunction in profiting.

You answered "some."  Thank you.   BTW, I agree with "some."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on May 26, 2012, 05:00:05 PM

Another significant incident concerned my request for an East German 10 mark silver coin - at the time I used to bring them back to my mother as souvenirs of my foreign trips - which of course I'd be paying for in $.
(http://www.coinquest.com/cgi-data/cq_ro/page_image/germany/mark_pfennig_east_germany.jpg)
Her horrified refusal to accede to my request spoke volumes about her fear of possibly being accused of black-market currency deals ;) .

Understandable.   Her job was probably very important to her and not one to be risked.   The penalties would have been severe (or she might have been released after giving sex to Stasi officials).
 
If silver, it would be worth more today. 
 
When visiting Moscow in 1987, the official exchange rate was 1 p = $1.50.  I stayed with Dutch friends (agricultural attache) and they were adamant not  to exchange in the black market even though the rate was perhaps 10 p = $1.00.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on May 27, 2012, 04:43:26 AM
...After WWII, Bayer concentrated on pharmaceuticals, BASF (once Badische Anilin- und Soda-Fabrik) on chemical products.

Totally  :offtopic: , but this is one of the best-loved TV commercials ever screened here :
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLs2ud5JZPQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLs2ud5JZPQ)
 
Showing the quality of BASF audio tapes - it won two Clio awards (the advertising industry's Oscar) in 1982 - a Gold Award and Best Director.  It also won a string of other awards, including the 1990 Australian award for Best Commercial of the 1980s - rather ironic considering it was made in New Zealand.
 
For more info, see here - http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/dear-john-basf-commercial-1981 (http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/dear-john-basf-commercial-1981)
 
I used BASF tapes all the time for my broadcasting work.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on June 15, 2012, 07:54:22 AM
In the midst of the recent WH scandal and it's ensuing investigation, to say this is timely is an understatement.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238794-obama-administration-wont-seek-deportation-of-young-illegal-immigrants?lite

"In a major policy change...."

tsk, tsk, tsk...this country is definitely doomed when political ambitions over-ride the purported obligations.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on June 16, 2012, 09:04:58 PM
In the midst of the recent WH scandal and it's ensuing investigation, to say this is timely is an understatement.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238794-obama-administration-wont-seek-deportation-of-young-illegal-immigrants?lite

"In a major policy change...."

tsk, tsk, tsk...this country is definitely doomed when political ambitions over-ride the purported obligations.

Well, if this does not take the cake!  The choice between two evils is getting easier each day.
It's bad enough that the Supreme Court has been actively making law for many years, but now we have the President circumventing the lawmaking branch of government (Congress) and making law himself.

What a slap in the face to all those immigrants that stood in line and played by the rules to gain admission to the US.  I liked the post made in another thread that asks the question as to those that played by the rules.... do they get a refund from the INS?

The White House leaks that endangered our intelligence gathering and created mistrust with our allies is just another one of his incompetent  actions.

I am about 3/4 finished with a new book entitled "The Amateur".  I think it has been on the NYT best sellers list for several weeks.  The stores are having a hard time keeping it on the shelves.  A very interesting read about president Obama and his administration that is not filled with conspiracy stuff.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 17, 2012, 03:08:09 AM
Well, if this does not take the cake!  The choice between two evils is getting easier each day.
It's bad enough that the Supreme Court has been actively making law for many years, but now we have the President circumventing the lawmaking branch of government (Congress) and making law himself.

What a slap in the face to all those immigrants that stood in line and played by the rules to gain admission to the US.  I liked the post made in another thread that asks the question as to those that played by the rules.... do they get a refund from the INS?

The White House leaks that endangered our intelligence gathering and created mistrust with our allies is just another one of his incompetent  actions.

I am about 3/4 finished with a new book entitled "The Amateur".  I think it has been on the NYT best sellers list for several weeks.  The stores are having a hard time keeping it on the shelves.  A very interesting read about president Obama and his administration that is not filled with conspiracy stuff.

Well as I understand it, this decision affects kids that grew up in the US, went to school etc etc, many now leading productive lives and paying taxes.  The kids were brought to the US by their parents so had little choice in the matter.  I don't see anything at all wrong with that.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on June 17, 2012, 07:34:15 AM
I don't have a lot of problems with what was done.  I do have some problem wiht the way it was done and with the real reason for doing it which was votes.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 17, 2012, 08:14:50 AM
I don't have a lot of problems with what was done.  I do have some problem wiht the way it was done and with the real reason for doing it which was votes.

Whats better, somebody doing something or everybody not being able to agree on anything?

I think thats the crux of the matter..

What happened with the bill to extend lower interest rates for student loans?  I think both sides of the aisle agreed on that...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on June 17, 2012, 08:32:08 AM
I don't have a lot of problems with what was done.  I do have some problem wiht the way it was done and with the real reason for doing it which was votes.

Exactly right. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Not least of which is the aggressive fund-raising campaign, financed by the taxpayers, he's been flying about the country this past 6 months.

Here's a good WP article, all in addition to the current mess DC is in, persistent unemployment, rising debts and spending, etc...

"....Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-and-vice-president-one-year-anniversary-signing-recovery-act).”  But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0547573146?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0547573146),” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

 All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67444.html), “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs. ....
"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html



::::Yeah, well, Bush did this....::::: silly rebuttal here _____________________________
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 17, 2012, 09:26:37 AM
Exactly right. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Not least of which is the aggressive fund-raising campaign, financed by the taxpayers, he's been flying about the country this past 6 months.

Here's a good WP article, all in addition to the current mess DC is in, persistent unemployment, rising debts and spending, etc...

"....Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-and-vice-president-one-year-anniversary-signing-recovery-act).”  But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0547573146?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0547573146),” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

 All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67444.html), “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs. ....
"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html



::::Yeah, well, Bush did this....::::: silly rebuttal here _____________________________


GQ,

would you classify such as being a lack of government efforts to help businesses evolve or lack of business ethics?

Yes, that rear view mirror can be damning.

Would it be proper to counter regarding investigations of contracts awarded during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on June 17, 2012, 10:25:36 AM

GQ,

would you classify such as being a lack of government efforts to help businesses evolve or lack of business ethics?

Specifically the companies principal to his '08 campaign chest that ultimately received these huge billion dollar loan guaranties that are now being written off (did you read the article I attached? There's too many coincidences to peg this as non-intentional))?

Quote
Yes, that rear view mirror can be damning.

Would it be proper to counter regarding investigations of contracts awarded during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars?

LOL. This is -oh-so 2008, BC. C'mon you can do better than that. That bandwagon had left town a long time ago. I won't be surprised Obama blames Bush again come election in his fall campaign. He already started to during his find raising here in Irvine.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 17, 2012, 11:04:38 AM
GQ,

Touche...

Yes, politics sucks... And that will never change.

At least Obama applies lube.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on June 17, 2012, 01:41:24 PM
Well as I understand it, this decision affects kids that grew up in the US, went to school etc etc, many now leading productive lives and paying taxes.  The kids were brought to the US by their parents so had little choice in the matter.  I don't see anything at all wrong with that.

You seemed to have missed the point.  Your response seems to be consistent with "the ends justify the means" philosophy.

The point is that we have a constitution and are supposed to operating under the rule of law (as laid out by the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress).  The president is not elected as a King or Dictator.  He is not the lawmaking branch of government, he is expected to administer the government based upon the  laws in affect at the time.

I am not familiar with the immigration laws of Italy or FSU.  What is the response of Italy and FSU countries for those found to have been smuggled into those countries?  Let me know, I am curious.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 18, 2012, 06:15:06 AM
Calmissile,

The Constitution also provides three branches of government that balance each other.  Surely the action that Obama takes is within the power the constitution gives him within the Executive Branch..

As far as I can tell he has not done anything unconstitutional.. or?

Of course there are immigration laws and illegal immigrants here.  I do know that legal immigration is much easier, especially when it comes to family based visa's.

When we married it took about three weeks to get the immigration visa for my wife and daughter, including two weeks delay due to an official on vacation.  Cost just a few bucks.

http://www.africa-news.eu/immigration-news/italy/4224-sanatoria-senate-approves-amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants.html

Quote
Sanatoria (amnesty for illegal immigrants) is most likely on the way. The Senate’s Constitutional Affairs and Justice Commissions have given green light to a measure that will allow irregular immigrants in Italy to be regularized.

Quote
The Senators have gone as far as indicating the procedures to be followed in regularizing immigrant workers. For each irregular worker, the employer will have to pay 1,000 Euros. This would allow the worker to obtain the work permit and the employer to be exempted from sanctions prescribed by the law for hiring illegal workers.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on June 18, 2012, 06:34:59 AM
He [Obama] is not the lawmaking branch of government, he is expected to administer the government based upon the  laws in affect at the time.


Absolutely. That task NOW belongs to the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on June 18, 2012, 07:17:07 AM

Absolutely. That task NOW belongs to the Supreme Court.

You forgot the tongue in cheek icon.   LOL
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 18, 2012, 09:03:56 AM

Absolutely. That task NOW belongs to the Supreme Court.

I don't believe the three branches of government fighting each other for power and control was ever envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

I think they envisioned lively discourse between the branches, but were confident that above all 'We the people' would rule and not 'We the politicians'.

These three words will come back to haunt.

(http://www.discoverynews.org/constitution.jpg)



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: erikmagenta on June 18, 2012, 09:11:47 AM

Boy, you are full of bullshevism.
 
Compare Obama's economic policies to Reagan's policies and you'll find they are almost the same. Maybe you would like something a little bit more fascist? Or is it that you don't like the "negro?"
 
And the other bullshevism about RW, who and what made you an expert? Are you an anthropologist? Have you done some research? If not, I suggest don't be so definite about your statements.

Nice try.  Obama is nowhere near the President that Reagan was.  No, I would like a President who is more willing to follow the Constitution.  Obama is so desperate that he just circumvented Congress in order to try to get more Hispanic votes--by not deporting ones here who came here illegally.  His Attorney General will likely be found guilty of contempt of Congress.  He lost in the Supreme Court in his witch hunt against Arizona.  His mandated big medicine forced medical care for all is not Constitutional.

No doubt you would like a Socialist like him to be even more and more like Uncle Joe (Stalin) and keep chipping away at the US Constitution, and keep taking more and more rights away from the American people.

Romney has a huge record of success in the real world--which is the business world of creating jobs.  Obama could not even run a lemonade stand if givien a chance!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 18, 2012, 09:23:41 AM
Nice try.  Obama is nowhere near the President that Reagan was.  No, I would like a President who is more willing to follow the Constitution.  Obama is so desperate that he just circumvented Congress in order to try to get more Hispanic votes--by not deporting ones here who came here illegally.  His Attorney General will likely be found guilty of contempt of Congress.  He lost in the Supreme Court in his witch hunt against Arizona.  His mandated big medicine forced medical care for all is not Constitutional.

No doubt you would like a Socialist like him to be even more and more like Uncle Joe (Stalin) and keep chipping away at the US Constitution, and keep taking more and more rights away from the American people.

Romney has a huge record of success in the real world--which is the business world of creating jobs.  Obama could not even run a lemonade stand if givien a chance!!

Oh comeon....at least keep the political crap in the correct place...

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=14359.msg303017;topicseen#msg303017
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on June 18, 2012, 10:56:35 AM
Nice try.  Obama is nowhere near the President that Reagan was.  No, I would like a President who is more willing to follow the Constitution.  Obama is so desperate that he just circumvented Congress in order to try to get more Hispanic votes--by not deporting ones here who came here illegally.  His Attorney General will likely be found guilty of contempt of Congress.  He lost in the Supreme Court in his witch hunt against Arizona.  His mandated big medicine forced medical care for all is not Constitutional.

No doubt you would like a Socialist like him to be even more and more like Uncle Joe (Stalin) and keep chipping away at the US Constitution, and keep taking more and more rights away from the American people.

Romney has a huge record of success in the real world--which is the business world of creating jobs.  Obama could not even run a lemonade stand if givien a chance!!

Oh, so when you wipe your ass with the Constitution so we can "help" the fascist in Central America, that is patriotic. Isn't it?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on June 18, 2012, 11:14:31 AM
I don't believe the three branches of government fighting each other for power and control was ever envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

I think they envisioned lively discourse between the branches, but were confident that above all 'We the people' would rule and not 'We the politicians'.

These three words will come back to haunt.

(http://www.discoverynews.org/constitution.jpg)


These days, unfortunately, public interest" is easily overridden by political agendas and ambitions. 'We The People is replaced by "I Your President"....The founding fathers never envisioned a day will come where the residing politician's personal agenda far outweighs the interest of those it governs.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 18, 2012, 11:40:19 AM

'We The People is replaced by "I Your President"....The founding fathers never envisioned a day will come where the residing politician's personal agenda far outweighs the interest of those it governs.

Would that not apply to "I your Congressman" or "I your Supreme Court Justice"

Seems many would like to have the cake and icing too....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on June 18, 2012, 11:52:50 AM
Would that not apply to "I your Congressman" or "I your Supreme Court Justice"

Seems many would like to have the cake and icing too....

Senators, yes...

But generally, those minions are much too busy having affairs and lying about it...and the VPs couldn't stop bobbling their heads nodding 'ayes'...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: erikmagenta on June 18, 2012, 02:55:52 PM

Oh, so when you wipe your ass with the Constitution so we can "help" the fascist in Central America, that is patriotic. Isn't it?

Who are we helping in Central America??
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: erikmagenta on June 18, 2012, 05:03:30 PM

Oh, so when you wipe your ass with the Constitution so we can "help" the fascist in Central America, that is patriotic. Isn't it?

I notice that you are not disputing the fact that Obama could not even run a lemondate stand!!

He has zero business experience!!  He is not even remotely qualified to be President!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on June 18, 2012, 05:50:41 PM
...Romney has a huge record of success in the real world--which is the business world of creating jobs.  Obama could not even run a lemonade stand if givien a chance!!

Romney has a wonderful record of destroying jobs as well.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 18, 2012, 11:11:43 PM
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/the-wrong-resume/
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 20, 2012, 09:32:58 AM
(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/fuller/VoterPurge_fuller.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 20, 2012, 09:34:45 AM
(http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=WT&Date=20120615&Category=COLUMN24&ArtNo=106159784&Ref=AR&MaxW=580)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 20, 2012, 09:37:01 AM
(http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/152/2012/06/14/113507_600.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 20, 2012, 09:38:32 AM
(http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/21/23450_image.gif)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 20, 2012, 09:41:14 AM
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-4fdf6d81/turbine/os-summersking-obama-20120618/600)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 20, 2012, 09:42:04 AM
(http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/files/2012/06/061712c1.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 20, 2012, 10:51:15 AM
Bill,

There is a humor thread for all the cartoons. 

Anything of substance to add?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on June 20, 2012, 11:01:06 AM
The substance is embedded in the cartoons.  Carry on Bill!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 20, 2012, 11:08:38 AM
The substance is embedded in the cartoons.  Carry on Bill!

Aww jeez calmissile... he's got hundreds of these things lined up for when he has nothing productive or original to say..  also fringes on violation of fair use posting so much of the stuff.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on June 20, 2012, 12:38:03 PM
And then he says I rub him the wrong way.  ::)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on June 20, 2012, 03:34:09 PM
Aww jeez calmissile... he's got hundreds of these things lined up for when he has nothing productive or original to say..  also fringes on violation of fair use posting so much of the stuff.

Hundreds?    Your estimate is low.  I am bombarded every day (see below).  The late night shows have several jokes each evening.  Obama humor is everywhere, and it is well deserved. 
 
Obama is taking a beating on every front, not just the economy.  Rarely have I seen a President fall so fast and far in popularity.  Even some liberals are abandoning him because he has broken his liberal promises as well as every other promise he made.  The man's lack of substance is now apparent.  So many questions remain unanswered about his past, questions that were overlooked in 2008 because he offerred hope.  Even I considered voting for him and many of my conservative friends actually did, thinking he would be the inspirational leader America needs.  Most are now anti-Obama.
 
Obama had his opportunity.  Even had the backing of Congress.  What did he accomplish?  Anyone have some examples of accomplishments?
 
This country needs an inspirational leader.  Romney is a highly competent director, but I fear he does not have the personality to be the leader we need.   Nevertheless, he is the better choice by a wide margin.  He will get the economy headed up again. 
 
Will Romney resolve the fiscal problems with a long-term solution?  Very difficult.  Both parties need to get together to accomplish that.  The correct solution IMO will take skin off of everyone.  Will our government accomplish that?  We can hope. 
 
Oddly the Simpson-Bowles fiscal plan is receiving more and more attention.  We discussed it early in this thread (or was it somewhere else).  This was a commission appointed by Obama and then ignored by Obama.   I feel Obama could have been re-elected if he had done something, even small, in the direction of the recommendations.   As the smartest Democrat said, Obama is an amateur.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 20, 2012, 10:50:15 PM
Hundreds?    Your estimate is low.


For sure it is, I could easily post a hundred per day for several days.
I just posted a few that have came out in the last week.


I still think Carter was worse than Obama but Obama isn't done yet and
Romney could definitely lose.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on June 21, 2012, 01:32:20 AM
Obama is taking a beating on every front, not just the economy.  Rarely have I seen a President fall so fast and far in popularity.  Even some liberals are abandoning him because he has broken his liberal promises as well as every other promise he made.  The man's lack of substance is now apparent.  So many questions remain unanswered about his past, questions that were overlooked in 2008 because he offerred hope.  Even I considered voting for him and many of my conservative friends actually did, thinking he would be the inspirational leader America needs.  Most are now anti-Obama.

Yes, I remember also all the "hope" and worship of Obama. Even saw a car here with an Obama bumper sticker and he was compared to Kennedy, even Jesus.
 
Historian and political commentator Webster Tarpley say that the powers that be, like with the recent Bilderberg meeting in Virginia, want to replace Obama with Romney. There's the reason for the anti-obama stuff in the media now, that wasn't allowed before.
 

 
This country needs an inspirational leader.  Romney is a highly competent director, but I fear he does not have the personality to be the leader we need.   Nevertheless, he is the better choice by a wide margin.  He will get the economy headed up again. 

Do you really think so? What if he turns out to be worse than Obama and put Americans into real austerity ala Greece? Real revolt in the streets?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 21, 2012, 02:55:02 AM

Oddly the Simpson-Bowles fiscal plan is receiving more and more attention.  We discussed it early in this thread (or was it somewhere else).  This was a commission appointed by Obama and then ignored by Obama.   I feel Obama could have been re-elected if he had done something, even small, in the direction of the recommendations.   As the smartest Democrat said, Obama is an amateur.

How was it ignored by Obama?  It is clear that there is no consensus within the legislative branch to pass laws, even in these super committee environments...

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on June 21, 2012, 06:08:27 AM
How was it ignored by Obama?  It is clear that there is no consensus within the legislative branch to pass laws, even in these super committee environments...
Obama's Simpson-Bowles commission reported its findings while the Democrats still had control of Congress.   He could have done something.  Instead Obama and Democrats recognized they would lose some popularity by cutting entitlement programs, so they hid their heads in the sand (but did ask for more taxes on the rich).

This was discussed in  yesterday's Washington Post (a liberal rag)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-race-snubbed-obama-deficit-panel-proposals-are-getting-new-attention-_-from-both-sides/2012/06/20/gJQAKJjUqV_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-race-snubbed-obama-deficit-panel-proposals-are-getting-new-attention-_-from-both-sides/2012/06/20/gJQAKJjUqV_story.html)
 
Obama can only blame himself.   American government is about compromise to keep our nation working together.  Our Civil War happened when the opposing parties could not compromise.   Let's examine two Presidents, Reagan and Obama.
 
When Reagan became President, the Republicans also  controlled Congress.  One of his first steps was to sit down with Tip O'Neil (the strongest Democrat) and talk compromise.  It was not a 50-50 compromise because the victorious party always gets most of the spoils.  Nevertheless, it was something about 60-40.  BTW, Reagan got less than be bargained for.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/25/lessons-for-today-from-reagans-1982-deficit-reduction-compromise/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/25/lessons-for-today-from-reagans-1982-deficit-reduction-compromise/)
 
Now contrast that with how Obama got his Obamacare enacted (100-0) and some other initiatives (e. g., GM bailout that gave 95-5 to the unions rather than following American law for bankruptcy - Michigan is a swing electoral state).  This created a backlash and THE PEOPLE elected to power the the antithesis to Obama (such as no tax increases).
 
"Obama is an amateur."
 
The worst part is that Obama divides rather than leads.   He can not run on his record because he has failed in almost all accounts, especially the economy.   He can not run on "hope and promises."     His only alternative is to foment class warfare.  America is not about class warfare.   We need a leader.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on June 21, 2012, 06:12:26 AM

Do you really think so? What if he turns out to be worse than Obama and put Americans into real austerity ala Greece? Real revolt in the streets?

Some austerity is necessary and good.  In your own neighborhood, look how well Estonia and Sweden are doing.   If we do not address the fiscal deficit, we will become Greece.  How soon?  Supposedly we have a few more years along this path before our metrics resemble Greece.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 21, 2012, 06:52:38 AM
Obama's Simpson-Bowles commission reported its findings while the Democrats still had control of Congress.   He could have done something.  Instead Obama and Democrats recognized they would lose some popularity by cutting entitlement programs, so they hid their heads in the sand (but did ask for more taxes on the rich).

This was discussed in  yesterday's Washington Post (a liberal rag)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-race-snubbed-obama-deficit-panel-proposals-are-getting-new-attention-_-from-both-sides/2012/06/20/gJQAKJjUqV_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-race-snubbed-obama-deficit-panel-proposals-are-getting-new-attention-_-from-both-sides/2012/06/20/gJQAKJjUqV_story.html)
 
Obama can only blame himself.   American government is about compromise to keep our nation working together.  Our Civil War happened when the opposing parties could not compromise.   

Gator,

There are many ways of looking at the same thing.  Here's a similar article from a couple months ago.

Bottom line is that Republicans have vowed to eradicate Obamacare and not to allow any taxes to be raised, even if a 'raise' is in the form of closing loopholes.  Democrats have vowed to support lower taxes, but close the loopholes and keep healthcare reform going.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-house-reaches-bipartisan-deal-to-reject-simpson-bowles/2012/03/29/gIQAfucdiS_blog.html

Quote
But Wednesday's vote — which considered a version of SImpson-Bowles with somewhat less in tax increases -- is at least suggestive evidence that the White House was right and the proposal would never have passed because, in the end, the problem with Simpson-Bowles wasn't that the president didn't say enough nice things about it, but that members of Congress didn't want to vote for it.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

It's all here and I can't say I find much if anything to disagree with, but it seems there are a few on both sides of the aisle that only 'want' but are not willing to 'give'.

As it stands, I agree with the author of one of the recent blogs.. can't remember which that it is an 'ongoing game of political chicken.'.. hard work and compromise are no longer part of the legislative branch of government.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 21, 2012, 08:30:58 AM
hard work and compromise are no longer part of the legislative branch of government.


How do you compromise raising taxes vs lowering taxes?
How do you compromise lowering spending vs raising spending?
How do you compromise creating a new trillion dollar spending program
like health care and eliminating it?
How do you compromise requiring voters to show IDs to vote with allowing
anyone to vote without any ID?
How do you compromise reforming spending now with kicking the can down
the road until your term is up?


Sometimes one side must prevail and the other can not.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 21, 2012, 09:19:56 AM

How do you compromise raising taxes vs lowering taxes?
How do you compromise lowering spending vs raising spending?
How do you compromise creating a new trillion dollar spending program
like health care and eliminating it?
How do you compromise requiring voters to show IDs to vote with allowing
anyone to vote without any ID?
How do you compromise reforming spending now with kicking the can down
the road until your term is up?


Sometimes one side must prevail and the other can not.

Easy,

You get some people together in a bipartisan manner and start working on it..

You end up with something like this  http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Lets just face it folks, Congress is not looking for good ideas but instead stumble on party lines and get nowhere in the end.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on June 21, 2012, 02:16:01 PM
Quotes from The Natural

Yes, I remember also all the "hope" and worship of Obama. Even saw a car here with an Obama bumper sticker and he was compared to Kennedy, even Jesus.

I have not seen an Obama bumper sticker for many months.  This in itself sends a message.  LOL

Historian and political commentator Webster Tarpley say that the powers that be, like with the recent Bilderberg meeting in Virginia, want to replace Obama with Romney. There's the reason for the anti-obama stuff in the media now, that wasn't allowed before.

Not sure what you mean by not allowed before.  The mainstream liberal press has always protected the liberal politicians.  It has nothing to do with being 'allowed' to print the truth.  If it were not for Fox news, the public would have no inkling as to what is truly the other side of the picture.  Clearly they are as biased as the mainstream media, just on the opposide side of the aisle.  At least there is one source to get the other side of the picture.

Obama's most recent screw ups by circumventing congress and effectively 'making law',  and by granting executive priviledge to the documents that congress is requesting has caused the liberals to question his veracity.  Congress has a duty and responsibilty to oversee the administrative branch and the year and a half stonewalling by Attorney General Holder and Obama does not  improve his image much in the eyes of the people.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on June 21, 2012, 03:19:15 PM
Easy,

You get some people together in a bipartisan manner and start working on it..

You end up with something like this  http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Lets just face it folks, Congress is not looking for good ideas but instead stumble on party lines and get nowhere in the end.



BC, I don't think you are seeing the picture as we Americans see it.
There is a reason that the legislature is divided among party lines and it has to do with the fundamental differences expressed by the citizens.  Among these differences are:
1.  Socialism vs. unbridled Capitalism   (without any regulation)
2.  Religious 'right' forcing religious views on the population vs.  Individual Freedom to make their own choices (abortion,, etc).
3.  Individual liberty vs.  Government Control of our personal lives.
4.  The Welfare State vs. Individual Responsibility.

It is unfortunate that the citizens are so locked up on one extreme or the other, but that is what we have.   We have been so used to the welfare state for so long, that a couple of generations expect it as an entitlement.  Weening ourselves off the welfare state will not be an easy task.  When the takers outnumber the givers, it is said to be a point of no return.

From the 40's to the 60's we had a fairly balanced system that worked pretty well.  We had the antitrust laws that prevented large businesses from becoming monopolies and we had a relatively small welfare system.  With the weakening laws on business, they went wild with mergers, acquisitions, etc. and many small businesses were devoured up and went out of business.    All this was done in the name of living in a 'Global Economy' and Capitalism (without regulation) is great!  The results are pretty clear.  It was also during this time that we used tarriffs (a principle approved by our founding fathers) to protect American Industry.  As our politicians were bought off by foreign and domestic business interests, this is no longer an effective tool.

Also, during this period we had a balance between labor and business.   Unfortunately, the Unions were run by thugs and eventually lost their public support.  At the same time Public Service Unions sprung up and their demands were met by politicians that had nothing to loose.  Give them whatever they want to get their votes, and it is the public that will foot the bill!  At one time, public servants were not allowed to form unions.  It was generally accepted by the citizens that public servants could not hold the public hostage to union demands.  That was a major change that has now come back to haunt us.  The benefits and salaries of public servants (unions) are now so large they are not sustainable by the taxpayer.  I seriously doubt that many Americans would like to see the days of the coal miners and others that endured outrageous working conditions.

My observation is that business will hire workers as cheap as possible to get the job done, and workers will try and bargain for the highest wages and benefits they can.  The problem is that an individual has no power to negotiate on his own (with a few exceptions).  That is the reason collective bargaining was formed.  It is unfortunate that the leadership of unions did such a shitty job of representing their workers.  Fighting for the moon, when a company can only afford a smaller increase created much of the problem.  Those companies that included profit sharing no doubt had the right idea.

So much for my soap box!  LOL

We have a long way to go to solve our problems and form a consensus among our citizens.  Right now the Congress is just a reflection on the two opposing philosophies about which direction we want the government to go.  Individual Liberty vs More Government Control over our personal lives.

Title: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: 2tallbill on June 22, 2012, 12:45:52 AM
Easy,

You get some people together in a bipartisan manner and start working on it..

You end up with something like this  http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf (http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf)

Lets just face it folks, Congress is not looking for good ideas but instead stumble on party lines and get nowhere in the end.


The senate has bottled up any chance of reform


The house came up with a program that had many similarities to the fiscal
commission report. Including spending reform, tax reform, social security and
medicare reform. These reforms are very similar to the reforms listed in the
fiscal commission report.
 
http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ (http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity)


It would require a change in the Senate and President for the plan to be passed.
Romney has endorsed The Path to Prosperity  and Obama is definitely against
the plan along with the Senate Democrats.


If the Republicans win control of the senate and Romney were to be elected a plan
like the Path to Prosperity or the fiscal commission plan could be passed.


BC, if you and I were in charge we would take the two plans and hammer out a
compromise of some sort.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 22, 2012, 04:34:26 AM
BC, if you and I were in charge we would take the two plans and hammer out a
compromise of some sort.

Yes, I believe such would be possible.

But what do you think is the fundamental problem as to why two common men can, but 535 elected men and women cannot?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on June 22, 2012, 05:45:32 AM

But what do you think is the fundamental problem as to why two common men can, but 535 elected men and women cannot?

Congress can easily agree to general concepts.  The devil is in the details.   That is where compromises must be made.   The amazing part of the Simpson-Bowles commission is that it included a number of fiscal conservatives and liberalsprogressives, and most approved the details of the commission's plan.
 
Partisan politics has always been part of Congress.  That is why compromise is absolutely necessary.   Compromise starts at the top.  In Obama's first year, he did not compromise.  He did not reach across the aisle.  Please study his initiatives in his first year.   Much was crammed down the throat of the Republican minority.
 
I assert that such intractability breeds just as adamant and opposite reaction.   The PEOPLE voted in 2010 and returned the House to the Republicans, electing many Congressmen who campaigned and pledged never to raise taxes.  After that, it was too late for Obama to change his colors.  As the Cossack woman  tells me, "You are what you make."
 
Regardless of who wins in November, something will be done soon after the election because of the rapidly approaching "fiscal cliff."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on June 22, 2012, 06:51:55 AM
Yes, I believe such would be possible.

But what do you think is the fundamental problem as to why two common men can, but 535 elected men and women cannot?

It's really pretty simple to explain.  There are two paths to take....... more socialism vs. more freedom for the individual including business.  Compromise is what has got us into the present state of our culture.  Many feel that it is a declining culture and economic path that is not good for our culture and our nation.  The division has not been more dramatic than it is currently.  Clearly, our electorate has to make a choice one way or the other.  Compromise is just going to result in the same crap that has gone on for the last 40 years.  That picture is not pretty when you expand it out to the future.

Regardless of what the outcome is, one way or the other will result in more stability and a sense of what the future holds for America.  No doubt our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves to see what America has become since they wrote the constitution.

Here is a quote worth sharing...

This quote was translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic as published in the Prager Zeitung of 28 April 2011.

 "The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.  The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.  Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.  The Republic can survive a Barack Obama.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him their president."



We are really at the tipping point in America.  Today Moody has downgraded several US banks.  Some say we are on the cliff of financial colapse.  We have no leader that is credible.  The American people do not have a clue what the solution should be.  We vote by who is the most handsome, or who is our ethnic choice, or who has the best sound bites on television.  It is embarrassing to admit that the electorate is so illiterate to history and fundamental economics.  It seems that our choice is to see what happens and then decide whether to immigrate to a better place (if there is one).

 

 

 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on June 22, 2012, 07:02:19 AM
Calmissile gives an example of those who will not compromise.    Many in Congress on both sides of the aisle have such a mindset.   They were elected on such a platform.  Yes, some issues are black and white, but so much is gray.
 
We can only hope for good will.
 
BTW, a dictator never compromises.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on June 22, 2012, 09:05:07 AM
It seems that our choice is to see what happens and then decide whether to immigrate to a better place (if there is one).

There isn't.

Take the old saying:  'The justice system in USA is terribly flawed, but it is the best in the world.'

The same idea can be applied to our political system and life in general.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on June 22, 2012, 09:40:36 AM

Not sure what you mean by not allowed before.  The mainstream liberal press has always protected the liberal politicians.  It has nothing to do with being 'allowed' to print the truth.  If it were not for Fox news, the public would have no inkling as to what is truly the other side of the picture.  Clearly they are as biased as the mainstream media, just on the opposide side of the aisle.  At least there is one source to get the other side of the picture.


Be careful, your mind and ability to think independently can be polluted by both sides of the media biases. Just because one particular source or channel favors your opinions more than the other doesn't mean all that channel spews is unbiased or unvarnished. It may sound out in the left field of paranoia but, I'll say it anyway. Don't allow any news source or stream to do your thinking for you. Many people do. In the area of news media, they love the idea of mind control. Don't think they wouldn't. To elaborate further, they would love nothing more than for you to believe everything they tell you.  ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on June 22, 2012, 10:29:08 AM
Be careful, your mind and ability to think independently can be polluted by both sides of the media biases. Just because one particular source or channel favors your opinions more than the other doesn't mean all that channel spews is unbiased or unvarnished. It may sound out in the left field of paranoia but, I'll say it anyway. Don't allow any news source or stream to do your thinking for you. Many people do.   ;D


 
Excellent!   +1   Just like the different channelsmembers at RWD.

 
 

Quote
In the area of news media, they love the idea of mind control. Don't think
they wouldn't. To elaborate further, they would love nothing more than for you
to believe everything they tell you.

Just like some members at RWD and their opinions about what is best for you, what is wrong with you, etc.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 22, 2012, 10:41:36 AM
Having been an observer of politics and what seems to have succeeded and what not, I submit several observations:

One of the governments that has had very difficult challenges but in the long run has at least done well (aside from the current EU situation) is Germany.

I have seen their election campaigns and it is nothing near that of the US in terms of what it costs to get into office and what favors are traded to do so.  Two Billion dollars for two candidates to compete for post of President?  Unheard of in EU, even if you combined elections in all countries..  Nowhere near that amount.

It is what those in the US would call a socialist government and yes taxes are high, but as far as economic stability, deficits, etc etc they have done well.

Politics in italy, well a complete disaster.  They cannot even handle EU funds given to them in a proper manner and usually end up giving it back as implementation cannot be achieved.  It is corrupt, same as in Greece and Spain.  One might think that the PIIGS countries are very bad off, but aside from Ireland I believe the 'black' economy by far overshadows the 'official' economy.

Germany to a great but not 100% extent has worked decades long to fight against corruption and 'black economy'.. they have been quite successful.

In Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal corruption and the black economy is what drives life..  I see it all the time.  If I go to the store and buy a hundred bucks worth of meat I'll regularly be asked if it's ok to get a receipt for 50....  very very common and something that does not happen in the US or Germany.  I feel comfortable in stating that GDP of these countries is undervalued by at least 25%.  In the overall scope of things that is quite a lot.

I also see that for big ticket items such as healthcare that the US pays double or more what other countries do with absolutely no benefit whatsoever.. and households across Europe are filled with prescription medicines paid for by the government.  Even still cost to the government is half or a quarter of what healthcare costs in the US.  That's why US folks buy medicine online from Canada and such... or if uninsured go to other countries for elective, non critical care.

Also consider household debt... I think the highest household debt is in the US.  The entire US economy is driven by debt.. and that is very different from what I see here.  Household debt and things like student loans adds many trillions to the US debt.  Sure, some will be paid back, but in the current economic situation not all.  Education, like healthcare here is basically free, supported by taxes, same as in Germany.  Germany has a very good system of educating electricians, plumbers, construction workers, engineers etc...  A trillion dollars in student loans should give pause for reflection and thought as to why it works elsewhere and not in the US.....

The other factor I see is that with all the advantages of the internet and media it simply does not let a system come to a point near equilibrium...  stock market trades are performed in milliseconds.. good or bad information distributed in the same amount of time that creates even a discerning audience difficulty with forming an independent opinion.  Who should I believe.. Fox or the others?  Even on news.google.com I can find an article blaming Obama or Congress, on the same page for the same issue at hand. IMHO media is just as much to blame as the politicians.

Here in the south of Italy, most own their houses outright, maybe even have a small plot of land to grow their veggies and a couple of chickens.  I could care less if the Greece opts out of the EU or not, my family will have a roof over their head and food on the table, even good healthy food.  We have over 40.000 square feet we can plant and are not alone with little or no debt. Folks here are built to survive as they have done for centuries.  Same in Greece and Spain.  I have a platinum amex card, visa, mastercard etc that is paid off every month, no interest and live well within our means even when filling the tank of our car costs 140 bucks....  Just like everyone else around hers..

I guess what I am trying to say with all this is that there are substantial differences between the US and what I have seen in EU.  I see the ability of many here to survive where 'elsewhere' such might not be possible, and that this fact is not being factored in to the overall situation one casually observes watching the news.

Here the government is somewhat held hostage by the population and nit vice versa..

And that is a very fundamental and powerful force..

Just blabbering a bit....


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on June 22, 2012, 10:46:33 AM


 
Excellent!   +1   Just like the different channelsmembers at RWD.

 
 
 
Just like some members at RWD and their opinions about what is best for you, what is wrong with you, etc.

 :ROFL:

If I didn't know better Gator I'd think you were poking fun at me, and you can.  :D

Despite our terse disagreement on recent subjects, I'm sure we agree on this one
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on June 22, 2012, 11:03:39 AM
:ROFL:

If I didn't know better Gator I'd think you were poking fun at me, and you can.  :D

Despite our terse disagreement on recent subjects, I'm sure we agree on this one

My dear Faux Pas, you are correct that I am not poking fun at you.    :D   To the contrary, I like your mood.


I am poking fun at all of us, myself included because at times I have been zealous about my opinion yet not really knowing that much about the person at whom I directed  it. 
 
All of us have been guilty of being too bold with our individual opinions.  However,  RWD is a very wise place collectively IF the person in need can sort through it all and decide what is best for his/her situation.   I believe most do eventually.  I hope they do.
 
I have faith that American government will eventually do what is best for all of us.  I feel we will have out national debt issue headed in the right direction with some sense of the final destination long before the Europeans have an ultimate plan.

Then again, the debt issue may be so large that the only solution is to monetize the debt, i. e., print money.  If that is the case, you better purchase commodities in the ground.  Currently, commodity prices are dipping (because most are dollar denominated), so we are not there yet.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 22, 2012, 11:39:11 AM

 
I have faith that American government will eventually do what is best for all of us.  I feel we will have out national debt issue headed in the right direction with some sense of the final destination long before the Europeans have an ultimate plan.

Then again, the debt issue may be so large that the only solution is to monetize the debt, i. e., print money.  If that is the case, you better purchase commodities in the ground.  Currently, commodity prices are dipping (because most are dollar denominated), so we are not there yet.

Is not monetizing debt noyt current policy?

There is a time lapse for fundamental repurcussions to arrive in EU.. Approx two years or so.  In relative terms as far as debt and gdp is concerned US and EU are on par.. Evidenced by the quite minimal currency fluctuations..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gylden on June 22, 2012, 12:07:33 PM
Everybody pick their favorite hedge/hedges against inflation and HANG ON!!
No matter which political group takes the helm, the globalists will do what they do best (manipulate the powers at be).
 ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on June 22, 2012, 12:23:25 PM
Is not monetizing debt noyt current policy?

To some extent but it is not causing inflation (see chart below).  Does this suggest that deflationary forces are even larger than we anticipate?

Your comment recognizes that we must have both a sound monetary policy as well as fiscal policy, even with the Fed's target rate near zero.  When dealing with M1, M2, M3, BOGUMBNS I admit that the theories tend to get  really fuzzy to me, and based on the differing opinions among economists, I say they too are not real sure.  I am so confused that I will not comment.  Nevertheless, the current trends are unprecedented.

Quote
There is a time lapse for fundamental repurcussions to arrive in EU.. Approx two years or so.  In relative terms as far as debt and gdp is concerned US and EU are on par.. Evidenced by the quite minimal currency fluctuations..

A 10% move is is not "minimal."  It is huge.
 
I agree with the two year time horizon for getting everything in order.  Meanwhile the Germans continue to lend money so that people who do not work as hard and productively as the Germans can buy from the Germans, yet knowing that it is unlikely that the money will be repaid.  That is the same as paying someone to buy your products.  We are involved in something similar.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on June 22, 2012, 12:58:04 PM

I have faith that American government will eventually do what is best for all of us. I feel we will have out national debt issue headed in the right direction with some sense of the final destination long before the Europeans have an ultimate plan.

Then again, the debt issue may be so large that the only solution is to monetize the debt, i. e., print money.  If that is the case, you better purchase commodities in the ground.  Currently, commodity prices are dipping (because most are dollar denominated), so we are not there yet.

I wish I shared your enthusiasm. Any effort or plan to keep the debt manageable has been gone since the Clinton Administration. It's not that Clinton or his predecessors  prolific at national debt management but, that was the last time in my memory that collectively our elected officials actually cared on both sides of the isle. Since, it has been costs and debt be dammed, partisan politics is the rule of the day.

The thing is eventually, they will have to pay attention because the money/credit/printing presses will stop and the bloodletting will begin. If it comes to that before compromises are reached, it will likely be a very evil world.

If they could sit down now at this minute and reach a compromise, cuts would be deep and severe across the board. The general public would revolt much as we see in Greece now but probably much more intense. It's necessary but the politicians are in favor of power instead of governing.

Yes, I have the pessimistic view. That's all I see coming from our  *cough* leaders
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 22, 2012, 12:58:44 PM

A 10% move is is not "minimal."  It is huge.
 
I agree with the two year time horizon for getting everything in order.  Meanwhile the Germans continue to lend money so that people who do not work as hard and productively as the Germans can buy from the Germans, yet knowing that it is unlikely that the money will be repaid.  That is the same as paying someone to buy your products.  We are involved in something similar.

Gator,

remember that initially the USD  and EUR were basically 1 to 1..  As in any financial market, exchange rates are subject and even driven by speculation.  Considering that since the EUR came to be that the USD was held artificially low in order to combat trade deficits and interest rates I am very surprised the dollar is where it is today and that the EUR is not valued much higher.  The 10% you mention is simply speculation and nothing of true substance.  Maybe here today, there tomorrow.

Germany is a part of the EU.. due to their economic advantage, they have invested heavily over the years to maintain their market competitiveness..  German taxpayers built crappy roads down here, nowhere near the standard of roads built in Germany..

The problem with EU is that as far as fiscal policy is concerned, most seemed happy with a decentralized situation.. unlike in the US where state finances take a subordinate role.  I agree wholeheartedly that was a big mistake from the beginning.

Right now EU is where the US was a couple years ago.  But it will recover, in the long term possibly better than the US as the big ticket items, healthcare, social services, care for the aging etc etc are at least well under control without increasing debt that awful much.

Before moving to Italy I can remember that Germany implemented an additional healthcare tax called 'krankenpflegeversicherung'.. yes Germans like long words... basically premiums for long term care for chronic health issues.  Insurance companies jumped on the bandwagon offering even more service, private nurses, home delivery and cleaning services etc etc.. sort of an all inclusive deal that did not cost that much in premiums.

Interesting read: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health-care-abroad-germany/

This is a huge ticket item that directly affects US debt... maybe even a third or more..  does the word 'socialist' necessarily have to mean it is not acceptable?...  Obviously it works elsewhere but the 'me and only me' selfishness seems to weigh more on the grand scale of things.

Obamacare or not, taking care of the baby boomers is going to be a daunting and very expensive task.. one that could even break the bank.

IMHO I was hoping Obama could bring more to the plate, a true universal healthcare act..  I was disappointed but cognizant that it was the result of compromise, even within his own party.

Strangely enough, as an immigrant my elderly parents could come here tomorrow and within a month have residency and full healthcare coverage.  I, even as a USC would have difficulty paying astronomical amounts to some insurance company for my family and I would still get a whopping bill / copay if we moved back to the US and one of our kids had a broken  arm or leg.. 

It is simply silly...  maybe even stupid.

Next time you get a prescription filled, send me the name and quantity.. I'll price it here and let you know.  Will bet a good bottle of wine it will be cheaper here..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on June 22, 2012, 01:10:40 PM

Next time you get a prescription filled, send me the name and quantity.. I'll price it here and let you know.  Will bet a good bottle of wine it will be cheaper here..

Yes, Mericans (those living here) pay the big bucks for medicines.  These big bucks are what cover the astronomical costs of research  and development of the drugs.

This  research and development is a fixed cost whereas the variable costs to actually mix up the drugs and press into a tablet is relatively minor.  So after the Mericans pay the big costs of development,  the rest of the world gets by with paying the minor variable costs of production.

More exploitation of Mericans.

Boy, when you start to think about it this exploitation thingy is huge.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 22, 2012, 01:26:51 PM
Yes, Mericans (those living here) pay the big bucks for medicines.  These big bucks are what cover the astronomical costs of research  and development of the drugs.

This  research and development is a fixed cost whereas the variable costs to actually mix up the drugs and press into a tablet is relatively minor.  So after the Mericans pay the big costs of development,  the rest of the world gets by with paying the minor variable costs of production.

More exploitation of Mericans.

Boy, when you start to think about it this exploitation thingy is huge.

Did you read the article I linked?

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health-care-abroad-germany/

Quote
Q. Are drug prices regulated?

A. No. In principle, drug makers are free to price their products for the market. But the sickness funds group drugs into therapeutic groups. Patients have a choice between taking a low-cost drug for which they are fully reimbursed, or paying the difference between the low-cost drug and a higher-priced one in the same category. The system is called “reference pricing,” and it is much hated by drug manufacturers around the world — even though it’s a market system relying on the decisions of patients themselves. Isn’t that what the so-called “consumer directed health care” now being pushed in the U.S. is all about?

Of course, when patients can’t evaluate the different drugs, they tend to stick with the low-cost drugs. Apparently it happens often, because expenditures on drugs are much lower in Germany than the United States.

There is a huge difference where the public can decide rather than a lobbyist courting politicians to forbid such 'manipulations of the market'..

It is really absurd what you allow pharma to get away with...

I do agree though that litigation costs in the US for the pharma industry are high.. but that is another fallacy within the US system.  The cost of your burger includes multi million dollar lawsuits for slipping on wet floors.  Same same.

GDP of EU is quite the same as US GDP.. do you think that all drugs are researched and invented in the US and therefore that justifies subsidizing the rest of the world with high prices there?  That is a far stretch...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on June 22, 2012, 01:30:33 PM
GDP of EU is quite the same as US GDP.. do you think that all drugs are researched and invented in the US and therefore that justifies subsidizing the rest of the world with high prices there?  That is a far stretch...

The US actually gets screwed twice... not only by paying more, but that the profits end up in some overseas account or holding company as licensing fees, thereby paying less taxes in the US.

Just another one of those creative tax loopholes.... 

Live with them or without them... your choice vote.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on June 22, 2012, 04:44:28 PM
Yes, Mericans (those living here) pay the big bucks for medicines. These big bucks are what cover the astronomical costs of research  and development of the drugs. This  research and development is a fixed cost whereas the variable costs to actually mix up the drugs and press into a tablet is relatively minor.
Maybe you are not aware of the fact that pharmaceuticals are covered by patents lasting 15-20 years from their approval ::)?

Granted that, by the time a new drug is on the market, that period may have shrunk to 8-10 years, but this is also due to pharma companies rushing to secure patent coverage before the clinical trials, etc. required to have it approved for distribution by some regulatory agency like the FDA.

Quote
So after the Mericans pay the big costs of development,  the rest of the world gets by with paying the minor variable costs of production. More exploitation of Mericans.
Maybe you are also not aware that a company producing a drug patented by a different company first has to secure a license from the latter, which also involves paying royalties for the privilege ::)?

So, where/when are US pharma companies & Mericans exploited?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on June 22, 2012, 05:14:36 PM
Maybe you are not aware of the fact that pharmaceuticals are covered by patents lasting 15-20 years from their approval ::) ?

Granted that, by the time a new drug is on the market, that period may have shrunk to 8-10 years, but this is also due to pharma companies rushing to secure patent coverage before the clinical trials, etc. required to have it approved for distribution by some regulatory agency like the FDA.
Maybe you are also not aware that a company producing a drug patented by a different company first has to secure a license from the latter, which also involves paying royalties for the privilege ::) ?

So, where/when are US pharma companies & Mericans exploited?

I am fully  aware of both points you raise.

Doesn't change at all the facts that Mericans pay the big bucks for drugs which helps cover the R&D costs and 'most' other citizens of the world then benefit by having to pay only the variable costs which can include licensing.

The identical drugs are sold in various countries by the original developers . . . at vastly different prices . . . within the patent period.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on June 22, 2012, 05:31:58 PM
Doesn't change at all the facts that Mericans pay the big bucks for drugs which helps cover the R&D costs and 'most' other citizens of the world then benefit by having to pay only the variable costs which can include licensing.The identical drugs are sold in various countries by the original developers . . . at vastly different prices . . . within the patent period.
So Mericans are being scammed by Merican pharma companies :D?

You should address a stern complaint to your Senator/Representative - but first check whether the state he/she represents hosts significant pharma plants ;).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on June 22, 2012, 06:30:39 PM
So Mericans are being scammed by Merican pharma companies :D ?

Let's stick with the 'exploited' word.  I like it today.

Yes, Mericans are being exploited by Merican pharma companies AND by citizens of other countries of the world.

If citizens of other countries paid more for the drugs, they would help pay for some of the R&D costs currently borne mostly by Mericans.

We are exploited by everyone.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on June 23, 2012, 06:52:11 AM
Let's stick with the 'exploited' word. I like it today.
Good word, but rather 'loaded' historically ;):

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Marx_old.jpg/220px-Marx_old.jpg)   (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Lenin_CL.jpg/210px-Lenin_CL.jpg)

The Winter Palace in Washington :D?

(http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/66462349.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 11, 2012, 09:35:14 AM
So now you have it: O'bummer versus Romney/Ryan. The sparks are going to fly!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 11, 2012, 09:49:07 AM
Let's stick with the 'exploited' word.  I like it today.

Yes, Mericans are being exploited by Merican pharma companies AND by citizens of other countries of the world.

If citizens of other countries paid more for the drugs, they would help pay for some of the R&D costs currently borne mostly by Mericans.

We are exploited by everyone.

Agree, however I think you are overlooking one of the significant reasons that drugs are much more expensive in the USA.  That reason is all the exposure to lawsuits.  Until we have serious tort reform, we will continute to see inflated prices of nearly everything, including drugs.

Neither political party has the  balls to take on the lawyers.  Health care would be significantly less expensive if we had tort reform and get the freeloading illegal aliens out of the health care system.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 11, 2012, 10:54:16 AM
Neither political party has the  balls to take on the lawyers.  Health care would be significantly less expensive if we had tort reform and get the freeloading illegal aliens out of the health care system.

Yeah, tort reform would probably knock off about 10%.  Illegals are not necessarily 'freeloaders' though.. they help keep veggie and fruit costs down and mow your lawn for a decent price along with many other jobs even a high school student would not want to take on... that's pretty much an even trade.  Can't live with 'em can't live without 'em kinda deal.

Fraud is probably the biggest problem of them all though..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on August 12, 2012, 12:36:02 AM
What people may forget it that in the EU people rarely pay the full price when buying meds. In most cases the Government pays part or subsidises, as almost every EU country has a form of Obamacare. :P
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: remiel6 on August 12, 2012, 02:51:39 AM
Tort reform is not going to work. All tort reform does is shield the drug maker from higher lawsuits. This is a myth that if the lawsuit goes away then magically the prices will go down. In fact it is very difficult to win a medical malpractice claim. Over some 90% of them are won by the defendant in the case. This has been true for quite some time, yet malpractice insurance has gone up, why is this? The rule is simple. If i know that you'll pay $150 for X why on gods green earth would I ever charge you less? I wouldn't. No one wants to hear this, but serious changes in drug prices will not come without some kind of Government or health insurance change.
There is another incorrect point. The makers of drugs already have a certain amount of shielding from litigation that is given them by the government as a method of encouraging them to make drugs.
Lastly, the drugs that are being reffered to many times do those clinical trials in Europe where the regulations are more lax and its easier for them to get approval for the clinical studies. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on August 12, 2012, 03:39:47 AM
Tort reform is not going to work. All tort reform does is shield the drug maker from higher lawsuits. This is a myth that if the lawsuit goes away then magically the prices will go down. In fact it is very difficult to win a medical malpractice claim. Over some 90% of them are won by the defendant in the case.
The solution to the problem is in your words but you missed it. 
If 90% of the mailpractice lawsuits are won by the defendent what does that tell you?
It should tell you that there is such an enourmous profit to be made by the scum bag, ambulance chasing lawyers that they are willing to take totally frivilous lawsuits knowing that they will hit a winner once in a while making themselves millions and millions of dollars.  One of the easiset solutions to the high cost of health care does not involve capping the awards injured people can get, it involves capping the high contingency fees lawyers charge so that they use a little common sense in filing lawsuits.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 12, 2012, 04:19:58 AM
remiel6,

Quote
Prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world. "The prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, which are far higher than those paid by citizens of any other developed country, help explain why the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. In the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue."[1] National expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for 12.9% of total health care costs, compared to an OECD average of 17.7% (2003 figures).[2] The high price of prescription drugs is one of the major areas of discussion in the U.S. health care reform debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_drug_prices_in_the_United_States

Sure, tort reform would resolve only part of the problem..

Quote
Prices of brand name drugs in the United States are significantly higher than in Canada, India, the UK and other countries, nearly all of which have price controls. Prices for generic drugs tend to be higher in Canada. The price differential for brand-name drugs between the U.S. and Canada has led Americans to purchase more than US$1 billion in drugs per year from Canadian pharmacies.

Prescription drug prices, in particular as part of Medicare, have become a political issue in the United States.
The pharmaceutical industry has thousands of lobbyists in Washington, DC, that lobby Congress and protect their interests. The pharmaceutical industry spent $855 million, more than any other industry, on lobbying activities from 1998 to 2006, according to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity.

What it boils down to is that in the US, big pharma woo's politicians to not implement price controls, especially in government programs.  I'd be willing to bet though that the major HMO's and other medical providers, due to their economies of scale are not paying the 'sticker' price for their orders.

In countries where universal health care is provided, the government has bargaining power, just like a HMO in the US would.

In the US, the government does not have the power to control prices and allows pharma to price their goods as they see fit.  Here, for prescription medicine one pays a small amount per prescription package - a couple EUR.  The government maintains a list of the prescriptions that they subsidize and pharma wants to be on that list even if it requires discounted pricing.  If a generic substitute is available it will be listed and subsidized, but even the brand name will meet/match the generic price just to be listed!!  If a patient absolutely wants the brand name and it's not subsidized, they pay the difference.

In the US and even Canada, producers of generics often have agreements with the original patent producer to keep their prices high. http://www.prweb.com/releases/lipitor/generic/prweb9008008.htm

Another interesting item..  pharmacies here in the south are quite flexible.. aside from narcotics, I can usually just walk in to a pharmacy and get a prescription drug without a prescription.  Lets say I need an antibiotic like Tavanic which requires a prescription and costs around 10 bucks..  In the US I would have to go to a doctor, spend an hour and 50 or 60 bucks for the script.. and that is only if he/she doesn't insist on doing some tests first which can easily add another 120 bucks.  Heck paying 10 bucks and not wasting a couple hours trying to get a script is worth it even without the subsidy.

Seems that in the US I would pay over 50 bucks for this same antibiotic...  so all in all we're easily talking 100 to 200 bucks or more in the US for a med that should really cost only 10.

It's a ripoff.... really.... and sorta explains why there are major pharmacies on just about every corner in the US.. often right across the street from each other.  These pharmacies also leverage the manufacturers.... and get a hefty cut doing so.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 12, 2012, 04:21:39 AM
The solution to the problem is in your words but you missed it. 
If 90% of the mailpractice lawsuits are won by the defendent what does that tell you?
It should tell you that there is such an enourmous profit to be made by the scum bag, ambulance chasing lawyers that they are willing to take totally frivilous lawsuits knowing that they will hit a winner once in a while making themselves millions and millions of dollars.  One of the easiset solutions to the high cost of health care does not involve capping the awards injured people can get, it involves capping the high contingency fees lawyers charge so that they use a little common sense in filing lawsuits.

TG.. in this case, the defendant is the medical provider....  think you got it ass backwards... lol

But... most of these claims are likely settled by arbitration out of court and not 'won' in front of a jury.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on August 12, 2012, 05:37:53 AM
BC,

No, I didn't get it backwards.  That was my point.  Howeve in real life I rhink most are settled.   It is usualy cheaper to settle even a frivelous suit than to go to trial.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 12, 2012, 06:13:54 AM
BC,

No, I didn't get it backwards.  That was my point.  Howeve in real life I rhink most are settled.   It is usualy cheaper to settle even a frivelous suit than to go to trial.

Yeah, seems I indeed misread your post.  sorrii... 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 12, 2012, 08:12:16 AM
The solution to the problem is in your words but you missed it. 
If 90% of the mailpractice lawsuits are won by the defendent what does that tell you?
It should tell you that there is such an enourmous profit to be made by the scum bag, ambulance chasing lawyers that they are willing to take totally frivilous lawsuits knowing that they will hit a winner once in a while making themselves millions and millions of dollars.  One of the easiset solutions to the high cost of health care does not involve capping the awards injured people can get, it involves capping the high contingency fees lawyers charge so that they use a little common sense in filing lawsuits.
I agree, Ray. Free market would bring the price of insurance down IMO. If insurance companies are allowed to compete across state lines and their loss potential is reduced drastically by the TORT (love this word! Means "cake" in Russian :) )
prices will come down, it's only logical.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 12, 2012, 12:36:05 PM
Tort cases has been a sore spot to me for quite some time.  It began when the law changed allowing lawyers to advertise on TV, Billboards, etc.  The ads were clearly illustrative of the ambulance chasing scum bags that were out to promote lawsuits.

The next personal experience was when I owned a general aviation avionics corporation.  The liability insurance for aircraft manufacturers increased so much that it all but destroyed the manufacture of general aviation aircraft in the US.  I can't find the statistic at the moment, but the cost of purchasing an aircraft at the time included a very large percentage of the total cost as being liability insurance for the manufacturer.  The end result was that the increased costs reduced sales to almost nothing.

Here is a very well written link that not only addresses the history of liability insurance costs in aviation, but several other industries as well.  A good read all the way to the end.

http://econlib.org/library/Enc/Liability.html

In the US, over many years we have been aware of the power of the Trial Lawyers in Congress.  They have spent huge sums of money to influence lawmakers to prevent any changes in the laws that would affect their pocketbooks.  With most of the lawmakers being lawyers, it seems like a good ol boys club that take care of each other.

If have read many articles about tort laws and how little affect changes would have on the cost of goods and services.  It just does not pass the smell test!

With the current debates on the huge increases in health care costs, I have also been trying to find impartial analysis's that break down the costs of health care and where the profits are going.  We know that doctors are making a lot LESS money than they did 20 years ago, yet the total costs have continued to increase.  Who the hell is making all this extra money.  While our politicians are compaining about the big picture of health care costs, no one (that  know of) has actually broke it down to explain where each segment is profiting and at what percentage.  Where is Ross Perot when we need him with his charts and graphs?  LOL.  It could be in fact a multifaceted answer that would require reform in many areas.  Until we are able to see the breakdown, it is difficult to evaluate what the solution(s) should be.

With respect to prescription drug costs there are arguments all over the place and still no detailed breakdown that nails the costs and profits as well as solutions that would lower the costs.  Many of the arguments do not even pass the 'smell test'.  For example, many Americans are going to Mexico and Canada to purchase the identical brand name drugs for huge savings over the cost in the US.  I don't know if Canada subsidizes drug costs, but I seriously doubt a country as poor as Mexico does so.  So why the disparity in costs for the same identical product in two countries that live side by side?  I have heard only two explanations that make any sense (other than the subsidy explanation).  One plausible explanation is that the drug companies charge what the market will bear.  The other explanation is that due to the exposure to tort lawsuits in the US, the drug companies have to cover the huge costs to cover the expected lawsuits.  Which is it, or is it both?
Even in past years, the drug companies still had the protection of their patents and the cost of drugs was much more reasonable than it is today!

What we really need in order to make an informed decision and to lobby our elected representatives is an accurate analysis of the whole health care costs which includes the doctors, drugs companies, insurance companies, hospitals, costs of labor, cost of tort lawsuits, the costs to provide free health care to the welfare clients and illegal aliens, etc.  Picking on only one small segment of the big pie to argue about it not going to solve the problem IMHO.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on August 12, 2012, 02:46:40 PM
...In the US, the government does not have the power to control prices and allows pharma to price their goods as they see fit.  Here, for prescription medicine one pays a small amount per prescription package - a couple EUR.  The government maintains a list of the prescriptions that they subsidize and pharma wants to be on that list even if it requires discounted pricing.  If a generic substitute is available it will be listed and subsidized, but even the brand name will meet/match the generic price just to be listed!!  If a patient absolutely wants the brand name and it's not subsidized, they pay the difference.

Exactly the same here - our standard prescription charge is $3.  I normally pay about $40 for a visit to the doctor.

Another interesting item..  pharmacies here in the south are quite flexible.. aside from narcotics, I can usually just walk in to a pharmacy and get a prescription drug without a prescription.  Lets say I need an antibiotic like Tavanic which requires a prescription and costs around 10 bucks..  In the US I would have to go to a doctor, spend an hour and 50 or 60 bucks for the script.. and that is only if he/she doesn't insist on doing some tests first which can easily add another 120 bucks.  Heck paying 10 bucks and not wasting a couple hours trying to get a script is worth it even without the subsidy.

Seems that in the US I would pay over 50 bucks for this same antibiotic...  so all in all we're easily talking 100 to 200 bucks or more in the US for a med that should really cost only 10.

It's a ripoff.... really.... and sorta explains why there are major pharmacies on just about every corner in the US.. often right across the street from each other.  These pharmacies also leverage the manufacturers.... and get a hefty cut doing so.

Interesting - I've never tried that but I don't think it's possible in our system.  Any chemist who tried dispensing a prescription medicine without a prescription would be for the high jump (and several have ended up with criminal records over the years for doing this).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on August 12, 2012, 03:46:00 PM
Interesting - I've never tried that but I don't think it's possible in our system.  Any chemist who tried dispensing a prescription medicine without a prescription would be for the high jump (and several have ended up with criminal records over the years for doing this).
Here pharmaceuticals may belong to one of three different classes:

- Class A: essentials and for chronic illnesses, free except for a base charge (ticket) varying from region to region - this accounts for most of our national pharma expenditure, since pharnacies obtain a state refund for the difference by submitting the filled prescription.
- Class C: not free.
- Class H: for hospital use (not for public sale).

Both A and C require a doctor's prescription, and the pharmacist must inform of the existence of any equivalent with a lower price (unless the doctor specified it's non-replaceable).

Pharmacies are authorised to provide pharmaceuticals without prescription in a number of cases (continuation of treatment, release from hospital, etc.) but this involves some cumbersome administrative paperwork.

BC lives in Southern Italy, an area renowned for its little concern with rules and regulations, from jumping red traffic lights to more serious cases of "forgetfulness/inattention" ::).

In his reported case, the parmacist may even have 'forgotten' to enter the sale in the ancient cash register

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Cmnational1.jpg/300px-Cmnational1.jpg)

thereby pocketing a small tax-free amount ;D.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 13, 2012, 12:13:28 PM
The solution to the problem is in your words but you missed it. 
If 90% of the mailpractice lawsuits are won by the defendent what does that tell you?
It should tell you that there is such an enourmous profit to be made by the scum bag, ambulance chasing lawyers that they are willing to take totally frivilous lawsuits knowing that they will hit a winner once in a while making themselves millions and millions of dollars.  One of the easiset solutions to the high cost of health care does not involve capping the awards injured people can get, it involves capping the high contingency fees lawyers charge so that they use a little common sense in filing lawsuits.

Probably a good idea, but most members of Congress are attorneys who have been enriched by tort laws.  Do you believe they will change the system.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 13, 2012, 12:30:43 PM
Yeah, tort reform would probably knock off about 10%.

It would be much more.  It is not just about cost of pharmaceuticals.
 
For example, our out-of-control tort laws create high awards and hence high costs for malpractice insurance.  I believe OB-GYN physicians pay well over $100k per year and as much as $200k for insurance dependent upon the state.   Family physicians pay much less. 
 
Because of malpractice tort laws, doctors prescribe expensive tests such as MRIs more than they should just to protect themselves.  Surgeons frequently work as teams. 
 
I spoke to my family physician about the healthcare issue.  His personal feeling is that while tort reform would work, a significant reduction in total healthcare costs would result from requiring patients to pay 20%.  Totally free healthcare prompts unnecessary visits.  And if helthcare was not free, maybe many patients would take better care of themselves.  We have an epidemic of diabetes in America, and the rate is even increasing rapidly among children.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 13, 2012, 12:42:35 PM

Illegals are not necessarily 'freeloaders' though.. they help keep veggie and fruit costs down and mow your lawn for a decent price along with many other jobs even a high school student would not want to take on... that's pretty much an even trade.  Can't live with 'em can't live without 'em kinda deal.


There are many people who contend the cost of illegals is very high.   
 
Florida is a battleground state for the Presidential election, so I am besieged by ads and emails.   For topics that I understand, much of the barrage is erroneous.  I do not understand illegal aliens, but this email got my attention.  I wonder how true it is.   I imagine that this issue is debated in Europe as well. 
 
"CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps..
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, theyqualify for SSI.  Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills AND his.
The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.
Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 14, 2012, 07:09:05 PM
More HOPE & CHANGE!

You got to know that when an imminent leak upon a ship is inevitable there's going to a huge bailout to follow...US taxpayers, better brace yourself for some serious shifting on the latest GM/Chrysler stock sell-offs and with it, your doomed tax giveaways to the Obama campaigning sponsoring cronies...

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13281710-auto-bailout-cost-now-upped-to-25-billion?lite (http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13281710-auto-bailout-cost-now-upped-to-25-billion?lite)

It would be interesting to know on who's 'buying' your bargain basement GM/Chrysler price stock shares...

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 14, 2012, 07:11:31 PM
YUP...

My favorite youtube summary of the present-day US socio-economic situation...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4rfAqdanuY



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: remiel6 on August 14, 2012, 07:22:43 PM


"CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps..
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, theyqualify for SSI.  Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills AND his.
The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.
Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!"

I avoid politics on this thread because it tends to make people mad. some of the things in the above quote I am not sure are true.
1. Most illegals that I knew personally worked construction jobs, they get paid more than 5 or 6 dollars an hour. Although I knew attorneys who hired illegals to clean thier house and justified it on the grounds that no one else would do that job. The amount she paid her maid, $500 a week.
2. Before I accept item 2 I want proof illegals are filing tax returns.
3. the health care is going to depend upon the state. Where I live an Illegal can get health care if they are pregnant, but not if they are not pregnant.
4. Yes they don't pay insurance, but I've personally also seen them hauled into court for not having insurance and put in jail. Also seen them get sued for damages when they cause accidents. This is a double edged sword.
The problem I have with all of this is that the conservatives who do the most bitching about this never provided the money needed to take the illegals that are arrested and drive them out of the country. When we arrested them they were held in the county jail, immigration was informed and then never came to pick them up so the police release them. This policy requires actual cash to work. This might require an increase in taxes to pay for it. In the last election Obama made a very practical point. it is simply not feasable to line up buses and drive 15 million people out of the country.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 14, 2012, 07:35:00 PM
YUP...

My favorite youtube summary of the present-day US socio-economic situation...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4rfAqdanuY

Very funny... and how true it is!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 14, 2012, 07:40:31 PM
.... it is simply not feasable to line up buses and drive 15 million people out of the country.

 ..... it is simply not feasable to line up buses and drive 15 million people Democratic VOTERS out of the country.

And yes, some illegals have actually voted in the GoodOl' USA.  :rolleyes:

GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 14, 2012, 07:50:54 PM

I avoid politics on this thread because it tends to make people mad. some of the things in the above quote I am not sure are true.
1. Most illegals that I knew personally worked construction jobs, they get paid more than 5 or 6 dollars an hour. Although I knew attorneys who hired illegals to clean thier house and justified it on the grounds that no one else would do that job. The amount she paid her maid, $500 a week.
2. Before I accept item 2 I want proof illegals are filing tax returns.
3. the health care is going to depend upon the state. Where I live an Illegal can get health care if they are pregnant, but not if they are not pregnant.
4. Yes they don't pay insurance, but I've personally also seen them hauled into court for not having insurance and put in jail. Also seen them get sued for damages when they cause accidents. This is a double edged sword.
The problem I have with all of this is that the conservatives who do the most bitching about this never provided the money needed to take the illegals that are arrested and drive them out of the country. When we arrested them they were held in the county jail, immigration was informed and then never came to pick them up so the police release them. This policy requires actual cash to work. This might require an increase in taxes to pay for it. In the last election Obama made a very practical point. it is simply not feasable to line up buses and drive 15 million people out of the country.

I don't know what state you are in, but Gators response is pretty accurate for California.  He forgot to mention one important point and that is how much of the income by illegals is under the table and not reported to the IRS.  It is no wonder they can apply for an earned income tax credit.

I disagree with your comments about conservatives not willing to provide the resources (money) to ship the illegals out of the country.  Immigration is a federal issue and the federal government needs to deport them.  Holding them in state/county/city jails is not the resonsibility of the local government.  The federal government should be providing the funds to do this or have the INS do it themselves.  As you are aware, the liberals in government do not want to export the illegals.  They want to give them amnesty and turn them into democratic voters ASAP.   LOL

I can't put my fingers on the numbers for L.A. and Orange County, but the most recent estimate of the percentage of residents that work for unreported wages was staggering.  Perhaps someone else still has the numbers.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: remiel6 on August 15, 2012, 04:25:11 AM
I can put my fingers on the numbers for LA and Orange county because I worked there. yes the feds provide the money, but that is the great ruse. Not even Bush provided enough money in the budget to actual drive them to mexico. I don't mind if people want to use the argument that we should be deporting them when we catch them, but this stand tough approach also needs money.
Second driving them out wouldn't do you any good. They would just come right back again. The only real way of preventing them from coming is fixing the mexican economy so they don't have to come here fore better jobs.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 15, 2012, 07:51:38 AM
The only real way of preventing them from coming is fixing the mexican economy so they don't have to come here fore better jobs.

Fix Mexico?  That's a good one.   Very corrupt government in Mexico with little wealth distribution.  Those in power are not concerned with what trickles down.  Although the Mexican economy has improved, population growth among the poor is probably outstripping what trickles down.  The problem will become worse.  It is not just Mexico.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 15, 2012, 09:36:43 AM
I can put my fingers on the numbers for LA and Orange county because I worked there. yes the feds provide the money, but that is the great ruse. Not even Bush provided enough money in the budget to actual drive them to mexico. I don't mind if people want to use the argument that we should be deporting them when we catch them, but this stand tough approach also needs money.
Second driving them out wouldn't do you any good. They would just come right back again. The only real way of preventing them from coming is fixing the mexican economy so they don't have to come here fore better jobs.

I'm not stating this for any discussion point but, I read a survey not too long ago I can't locate at the moment. It was a survey of illegal immigrant seasonal construction labor workers that remained in the US all year yet only worked a partial year. The survey was done in California. It was determined that the illegal partial year workers were earning the equivalent to $40K per year while the legal laborers who worked 12 months were only earning 32K per year.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on August 15, 2012, 11:00:55 AM

Fix Mexico?  That's a good one.   Very corrupt government in Mexico with little wealth distribution.  Those in power are not concerned with what trickles down.  Although the Mexican economy has improved, population growth among the poor is probably outstripping what trickles down.  The problem will become worse.  It is not just Mexico.


Population growth rates have fallen quite radically in Mexico, below replacement levels. The population growth is due now to the large number of young people who are in their childbearing years: http://www.economist.com/node/15959332
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 15, 2012, 06:00:22 PM
Well, at least CNN debunked this stupid, dirty Obama campaign...O is still hoping the '08 gullibles remain gullible..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM7NUektWlE


remiel-

Do you honestly believe the Mexican government will forego hundreds of million, if not billions, of dollars annually into Mexico and actually 'help' to stop illegal immigration to the US? That's just funny! Ever wonder 'why' there aren't border patrol FROM Mexico stopping coyotes and illegal migrants from crossing the border?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 17, 2012, 07:09:20 AM

I avoid politics on this thread because it tends to make people mad. 

Politics makes me sick...that's for sure.
Politics is inherently evil.
They'll say anything ...do anything for that vote.
 
This thread should actually be moved [as it has nothing to do w/Russian politics or culture]  better yet...best close it altogether.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 17, 2012, 07:40:33 AM
This thread is in "Cultural and political events" section, seems appropriate... been here for more than a year. Are you afraid of a discussion on a discussion forum? I think it has a lot to do with the RW because another 4 years of Obama and no RW will want to immigrate to the US!


Interesting new development! Obama campaign is now considering replacing Biden with Hilary Clinton. Smart move on their part IMO. Has any one seen the new movie about Obama: "2016"?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 17, 2012, 10:01:16 AM
  Are you afraid of a discussion .. I think it has a lot to do with the RW because another 4 years of Obama and no RW will want to immigrate to the US!


Interesting new development! Obama campaign is now considering replacing Biden with Hilary Clinton. Smart move on their part IMO.

1) Another 4 years of Obama and I will wish to immigrate out of here.
2) Obama can replace Joe Biden with the Prince of Darkness...things will still get worse.
3) Sorry....I've always thought that P&C was meant for the FSU stuff...ie
Quote
Cultural and Political Events (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?board=9.0) (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Themes/default/images/rss.png) (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?action=.xml;board=9;type=rss) Recent events in Ukraine have captured the interest of the world. This section is available to discuss all such matters, especially as they bear on the women from the FSU.
4) My earlier assessment of politics remains.

The discussion meanders and recently migrated to and from  Mexico etc.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 17, 2012, 11:21:22 AM
This thread has been going for a while, so there seems to be an interest in it out there. If some one doesn't want to read it I don't believe any one is forcing them to read it. Locking it sounds like something a big Obama government would do.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 17, 2012, 12:18:26 PM
1) Another 4 years of Obama and I will wish to immigrate out of here.

IIRC it's emigrate.

I can say with confidence that a Romney presidency would keep me away for the duration.. and maybe even drive my parents to relocate here which is also quite ok.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 17, 2012, 12:33:27 PM
IIRC it's emigrate.

I can say with confidence that a Romney presidency would keep me away for the duration.. and maybe even drive my parents to relocate here which is also quite ok.
why do you feel this way, BC? Under almost 4 years of Obamanomics the economy haven't improved at all, 5 trillion in new debt was just a waste and didn't produce any positive effect. What is it abot Obama that so many find magical?
FYI: I was glad when Obama first got elected. I felt like America made a leap forward electing it's first black president and this would make for better race relations in te country. Boy, was I wrong! I think we should all watch the "2016" movie to better understand who we have in the White House.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 17, 2012, 12:38:39 PM
This thread has been going for a while .. Locking it sounds like something a big Obama government would do.
Closing a thread usually occurs when after a while :deadhorse: happens.
I did not realize that you seem so attached to your own thread.
I re-read your last 4 or 5 posts and noted that they contributed nothing to it.
I have a right as a member here to read and post as I choose.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 17, 2012, 12:42:49 PM


I can say with confidence that a Romney presidency would keep me away for the duration.. and maybe even drive my parents to relocate here which is also quite ok.

Are your parents like the "neighbors" in this story.
 
Recently, while I was working on my lawn, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
 
Her parents beamed with pride! "Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her. "What do you mean?" she replied. So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out and give him the $50 to use toward food and a place to call home."
 
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?" I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."  Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.   ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 17, 2012, 12:46:08 PM

Population growth rates have fallen quite radically in Mexico, below replacement levels. The population growth is due now to the large number of young people who are in their childbearing years: http://www.economist.com/node/15959332 (http://www.economist.com/node/15959332)

Thanks for the correction.  You can correct me, but I assume a large part of America's growth rate is accounted for by high birth rates among minorities.  That certainly is happening in Europe.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 17, 2012, 12:56:05 PM
IIRC it's emigrate.

 
There is no such word as 'emigrate'.
But you may create it if you wish.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=emigrate.&go=Look+up

Also...is Italy  [your country?] really doing all that great?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 17, 2012, 01:51:02 PM
There is no such word as 'emigrate'.
But you may create it if you wish.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=emigrate.&go=Look+up

Also...is Italy  [your country?] really doing all that great?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emigrate

Doing just fine tfcrew... for the last 15 years.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 17, 2012, 02:31:07 PM

Are your parents like the "neighbors" in this story.
 
Recently, while I was working on my lawn, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
 
Her parents beamed with pride! "Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her. "What do you mean?" she replied. So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out and give him the $50 to use toward food and a place to call home."
 
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?" I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."  Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.   ;)
exactly!  :clapping:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on August 17, 2012, 05:08:33 PM
There is no such word as 'emigrate'.
There's always some confusion on this and the opposite verb, it depends on speaker's/writer's viewpoint - when residency, work, etc. and not tourism is implied:

- Immigrate: refers to a foreign person coming to your country, hence the derived Immigrant.
- Emigrate: refers to a person of your country going abroad, hence  the derived Emigrant.

The verb 'to migrate' can be modified with either an IM (In, Into) or an E (Ex), to be specific about the origin of motion.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 17, 2012, 05:35:50 PM
 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emigrate)

Doing just fine tfcrew... for the last 15 years.

Remembering news from last week...
Quote
Ten Italian cities at risk of bankruptcy, schools may not reopen  Italy's financial outlook darkened on Monday amid warnings that 10 cities are at risk of bankruptcy and schools may not be able to open in the autumn because of drastic spending cuts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9421599/Ten-Italian-cities-at-risk-of-bankruptcy-schools-may-not-reopen.html

US cities here are also declaring bankruptcy.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on August 17, 2012, 05:58:49 PM
Italian cities at risk of bankruptcy, schools may not reopen
Another case of inaccurate/sensationalist reporting.

While a few cities, notably Palermo in Sicily, indeed face the risk of bankruptcy, the school problem has another possible cause: among many other money-saving measures, our current Government decided to reduce the excessive number of our provinces by instituting population and area limitations that would cut them down to about half, thereby hopefully redistributing their overblown staffs to other duties or promoting early retirements.

Needless to say, this measure is facing a very determined opposition, and may not come about eventually, anyway.

The appointment of teachers/principals and school budgets are a provincial/regional (not municipal) responsibility, hence the alarm raised by some about schools not reopening this autumn.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 17, 2012, 06:57:57 PM
Italian economy is "doing just fine" if contraction (recession) is "fine."  And not bad compared to the P, G, and S in PIGS.   
 
 
From the Guardian 10 days ago http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/07/eurozone-crisis-ecb-plan-italian-gdp#block-5020d9a5b57975a08080f1b7 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/07/eurozone-crisis-ecb-plan-italian-gdp#block-5020d9a5b57975a08080f1b7)
 
Quote
   Just in: Italian GDP shrank by 0.7% in the second quarter of 2012. That means its economy is now 2.5% smaller than a year ago.   

Nevertheless, the Europeans will eventually figure this out and right the ship.  Germany wants the PIGS to feel more pain before Europe prints more money.  The US is not far behind.  Even if Romney loses to Obama, the Republicans will gain control of both houses of Congress and start us on a path for a balanced budget in 20 years or so. 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 17, 2012, 07:16:28 PM
Oh those business bloggers...what do they know?
Quote
Greece still seeking €4bn of savings Over in Greece today, the country’s normally tight-lipped finance minister has been admitting that the “numbers don’t add up”, and civil servants could pay the price.

I guess I'm straight now on 'immigration'.
The paperwork stated that my [future] wife would not have or be on an 'immigration visa'. So she didn't actually emigrate?
 Someone emigrates to become an immigrant.
My German and Austrian ancestors were immigrants... but before that, they were emigrants? OK
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 17, 2012, 07:19:49 PM
...My German and Austrian ancestors were immigrants... but before that, they were emigrants? OK

Yeah, and apparently, according to Obama, your Austrian ancestors spoke Austrian.  :P
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on August 17, 2012, 08:07:39 PM
25 pages? Ladies and gentlemen, I'm highly amused by anyone who thinks it'll make a whit of difference whether Obama or Romney gets elected.

Just like that infamous 'Change We Can Believe In' that changed absolutely nothing, I guarantee that this endless left/right paradigm silliness is just two sides of the same coin. it's like rooting for the Bonanno family over the Gambino family. Say hello to the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Best to ignore it all.


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on August 17, 2012, 09:02:24 PM
There is no such word as 'emigrate'.
But you may create it if you wish.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=emigrate.&go=Look+up (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=emigrate.&go=Look+up)



What do you think your referenced website 'proves' with respect to the valid word emigrate?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on August 18, 2012, 12:11:39 AM
25 pages? Ladies and gentlemen, I'm highly amused by anyone who thinks it'll make a whit of difference whether Obama or Romney gets elected.

Just like that infamous 'Change We Can Believe In' that changed absolutely nothing, I guarantee that this endless left/right paradigm silliness is just two sides of the same coin. it's like rooting for the Bonanno family over the Gambino family. Say hello to the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Best to ignore it all.

Exactly. Very well put Cameraguy.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 18, 2012, 07:10:23 AM
What do you think your referenced website 'proves' with respect to the valid word emigrate?
Enough with emigrate immigrate...they are both said the same.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 18, 2012, 07:51:29 AM
Enough with emigrate immigrate...they are both said the same.

Like coming and going...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on August 18, 2012, 08:34:38 AM
I love this line.

"...if you voted for Obama to prove you aren’t a racist, you now have to vote for Romney to prove you aren’t an idiot."


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 18, 2012, 10:33:39 AM
Like coming and going...

No. Sounds the same
Like weight or wait...deer or dear....road or rode

Quote
Emigration is the act of leaving one's country or region to settle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler) in another. It is the same as immigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration) but from the perspective of the country of origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigrate

 
 


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 18, 2012, 10:57:34 AM
No. Sounds the same
Like weight or wait...deer or dear....road or rode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigrate

Yepper... Get it now?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on August 18, 2012, 04:45:04 PM
Yepper... Get it now?
Hopefully yes :-\.

In the early 1800s, the Royal Navy press gangs were forced to corral landlubbers, too, to serve in His Majesty's ships, since real seamen were harder and harder to get - but it was a long process to properly train them to their on-board duties ;D.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Caricature-1780-press_gang.jpg/240px-Caricature-1780-press_gang.jpg)

No. Sounds the sameLike weight or wait...deer or dear....road or rode
No relation at all ::).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 19, 2012, 07:51:09 AM


In the early 1800s, the Royal Navy press gangs were forced to corral landlubbers, too, to serve in His Majesty's ships, since real seamen were harder and harder to get - but it was a long process to properly train them to their on-board duties.



What does all of this have to do with immigration?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on August 19, 2012, 09:14:34 AM
What does all of this have to do with immigration?
Well, it is an immigration of sorts, inspired by your nick tfcrew ;).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 19, 2012, 09:25:59 AM
25 pages? Ladies and gentlemen, I'm highly amused by anyone who thinks it'll make a whit of difference whether Obama or Romney gets elected.

Best to ignore it all.

Your complacency stuns me.   This election is a watershed event.  Never in my lifetime have the differences been so stark.

Yet I agree that America will somehow survive regardless of who is elected.  OTOH I feel only one of the two choices is a path for thriving vs. surviving.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 19, 2012, 09:41:54 AM

Your complacency stuns me.   This election is a watershed event.  Never in my lifetime have the differences been so stark.

Yet I agree that America will somehow survive regardless of who is elected.  OTOH I feel only one of the two choices is a path for thriving vs. surviving.
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 19, 2012, 10:07:21 AM
OTOH I feel only one of the two choices is a path for thriving vs. surviving.

Gator,

Putting partisan politics aside, I think one has to look back and check out what fueled the booming economy for a long period of time.  The pillars of the economy are consumer goods and services.  Those goods and services however were in large part not bought from savings or earnings, but instead from credit. 

Nowadays, after the crash, personal debt like credit card debt is lower

http://www.dailyfx.com/forex/market_alert/2012/08/07/US_Consumer_Credit_Reports_Cites_Lower_Use_of_Revolving_Credit.html

Now that consumers are more aware of using credit and on the path towards living within their means, how can demand be generated to prop up the economy again?

In addition, businesses, especially the financial industry were able to carve the fat out of their operations with mass layoffs and firings.  I believe they even found a new 'sweet spot' as far as personnel requirements go.  Their pre crash employment levels will never recover fully by a long shot.  They simply learned to live a bit leaner and meaner.

I challenge your argument by asking how demand will recover in the present circumstances.. without it there is no growth. 

Government efforts to make cash essentially free have not resulted in demand for credit except to those who deal in financial instruments, shaving off a bit here and there by turning a buck.

Politically, I think it's more of a choice who will thrive more at the expense of those surviving.

edit:

Oh and personally, I did not agree with Obama rescuing the financial market.  I believe they should have been left to themselves to crash and burn.

Like the stomach flu, vomiting up all that crap would have been unpleasant for all, but in most cases one feels better once it's over.

All that ails the US economy is still present and flourishing.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on August 19, 2012, 10:15:07 AM
http://2016themovie.com/media/
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 19, 2012, 02:27:03 PM

 
 
"CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps..
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, theyqualify for SSI.  Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills AND his.
The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.




I avoid politics on this thread because it tends to make people mad. some of the things in the above quote I am not sure are true.
1. Most illegals that I knew personally worked construction jobs, they get paid more than 5 or 6 dollars an hour. Although I knew attorneys who hired illegals to clean thier house and justified it on the grounds that no one else would do that job. The amount she paid her maid, $500 a week.
2. Before I accept item 2 I want proof illegals are filing tax returns.
3. the health care is going to depend upon the state. Where I live an Illegal can get health care if they are pregnant, but not if they are not pregnant.
4. Yes they don't pay insurance, but I've personally also seen them hauled into court for not having insurance and put in jail. Also seen them get sued for damages when they cause accidents. This is a double edged sword.
The problem I have with all of this is that the conservatives who do the most bitching about this never provided the money needed to take the illegals that are arrested and drive them out of the country. When we arrested them they were held in the county jail, immigration was informed and then never came to pick them up so the police release them. This policy requires actual cash to work. This might require an increase in taxes to pay for it. In the last election Obama made a very practical point. it is simply not feasable to line up buses and drive 15 million people out of the country.

Given some thought I will no longer request this thread to be closed.
We should have at least one American politics forum.
I thought the very first opening post was distancing with all that extra bold text.
And note that I have agreed all along with the assessment that Obumble administration has been a disaster.

In response to the above quotes.
Quote
1. ...I knew attorneys who hired illegals to clean thier house and justified it on the grounds that no one else would do that job. The amount she paid her maid, $500 a week.
There are exceptions. Gator's statement just might chronicle the millions that are the rule.
 
Quote
2... Before I accept item 2 I want proof illegals are filing tax returns.

Somebody is, and raking in millions from the Treasury.
See this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/tax-refund-fraud-florida_n_1752244.html

and this

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-scam-irs-pays-billions-151756498.html

Quote
3..Where I live an Illegal can get health care if they are pregnant, but not if they are not pregnant.

Where is this? Where I live, all the illegals are pregnant with offspring to join all their other siblings. I am not making this up.
 
Quote
4.  the conservatives who do the most bitching about this never provided the money needed to take the illegals that are arrested and drive them out of the country.
They try, but these guys return to the USA faster than the Border Patrol does.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 19, 2012, 03:01:46 PM

Interesting new development! Obama campaign is now considering replacing Biden with Hilary Clinton. Smart move on their part IMO. 
Mrs Clinton has since denied that rumor.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 19, 2012, 03:13:57 PM
http://2016themovie.com/media/ (http://2016themovie.com/media/)


Obama's real father is Frank Marshal Davis, communist author and organizer. His admitted mentor.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrrnkKmUzo




A case of immigration fraud to coverup who his real father is.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 19, 2012, 03:15:18 PM




Obama's mother was Frank Marshal Davis' Bondage and Fetish model and teenage Lolita.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on August 19, 2012, 03:21:21 PM
This election is a watershed event.

Statements like this are made during every election. Yet somehow when these "watershed events" are over, it's always business as usual. The crazy trillion-dollar wars keep rolling, the banksters keep getting bailed out, mountains of debt keep piling up, the government becomes more plutocratic and citizen's privacy, civil liberties and the entire Constitutional Republic keeps eroding.

Never in my lifetime have the differences been so stark.

Then perhaps you can name one stark difference between Obamacare and Romneycare, without looking it up (even if you look it up, you're gonna have a hard time!)

OTOH I feel only one of the two choices is a path for thriving vs. surviving. 

If you actually believe the campaign rhetoric from a billionaire venture capitalist is the key to thriving, then you've got a lot more in common with the 'Change We Can Believe In' crowd than you realize...  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on August 19, 2012, 05:12:47 PM
BTW, speaking of "thriving", has anyone seen the new documentary 'Thrive', produced by Foster and Kimberly Gamble, heirs to the Proctor and Gamble fortune?

Now THESE are the type of people who understand the real issues and challenges facing America and whom I'd vote for ANY public office in a heartbeat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 20, 2012, 05:38:25 AM
Statements like this are made during every election. 

The differences this election will probably be more stark than in 1980 once Romney-Ryan and the Republican Party develop and start selling their platform. 
 
We know Obama's plan - spend.  For sure a key issue this election will be who allocates American dollars - government or the private sector?      Democrats love the Keynesian model, yet forget that increased government spending must eventually be paid by 1) increased taxes or 2) debt which is later repaid by taxes or an inflated currency.    Thus, government decides how money is spent.   
 
Please show me how increased government spending has helped since 2008.  Obama's economic record is abysmal.  The selection of Ryan as a VP is risky IMO yet it will focus the debate on meaty economic subjects including some contentious subjects such as entitlement reform which no one has had the courage to tackle.
 
Quote
   Yet somehow when these "watershed events" are over, it's always business as usual. 

What happens is that a new party wins plurality and upon taking office it initiates its programs.  The initiatives create change, and change prompts an opposite reaction, and in two years the party loses the House of Rep.  This counterbalance slows change and "normal" starts to return. 

 
 
 
Quote
The crazy trillion-dollar wars keep rolling, the banksters keep getting bailed out, mountains of debt keep piling up, the government becomes more plutocratic and citizen's privacy, civil liberties and the entire Constitutional Republic keeps eroding.

Was it that way in 1980-1988 when Reagan replaced Carter in a period of hyperinflation? 
 
Quote
Then perhaps you can name one stark difference between Obamacare and Romneycare, without looking it up (even if you look it up, you're gonna have a hard time!)

I don't know much about either healthcare plan.   I am guessing that context differs (Mass vs. US, economy today vs then).


Quote
If you actually believe the campaign rhetoric from a billionaire venture capitalist is the key to thriving, then you've got a lot more in common with the 'Change We Can Believe In' crowd than you realize...  ;)

Well Marty, if my senator for years and years were Harry Reid I perhaps would be as pessimistic and cynical as you.  However, I am an optimist.   I bewilder people like you.  And I feel that Romney is a far better man than this enigma Obama.  At least Romney has nothing to hide.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 20, 2012, 05:47:26 AM


I challenge your argument by asking how demand will recover in the present circumstances.. without it there is no growth.

 
The old "supply vs. demand" debate.    It will not happen overnight.  Direction of change is critical however.

Quote
Politically, I think it's more of a choice who will thrive more at the expense of those surviving.


Government must have compassion, yet government should not remove the incentive for self-responsibility.


Quote
Oh and personally, I did not agree with Obama rescuing the financial market. I believe they should have been left to themselves to crash and burn.

Good.  And the auto industry and....



Quote
All that ails the US economy is still present and flourishing.

To a large degree.  That is why change of direction is necessary as I discussed in my previous post.    We do have a model across the Atlantic, a model that we know not to follow.   However, being Euro, perhaps you feel the Euro model is superior.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 20, 2012, 07:25:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&NR=1)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 20, 2012, 07:48:02 AM
CBS News


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d81TxUqR0M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d81TxUqR0M)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 20, 2012, 08:31:27 AM

0The old "supply vs. demand" debate.    It will not happen overnight.  Direction of change is critical however.


Agreed.  It usually takes more than 4 years though for the economy to stabilize after a recession.  The economic factors although dampened, are still there and are positive even if weak.  Considering the credit factor and expenditures on war have taken a huge toll by 'burning the buck' overseas, how to get the 'demand' ball rolling again when 90% of the population is wary of taking on more credit while paying down the old?  With a trillion dollars in student loans out there at risk due to high unemployment?  We have to learn to burn the buck within the financial confines of the US and not overseas.

Quick example...

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/listarticle.aspx?cp-documentid=1093087

Take the most affluent zip codes though and you end up with Mercedes and BMW at the top of the list..  Ok lets do trickle down... Rich folk buy more cars made in Germany than US cars... with EUR striving for parity with USD.. hey that's great business.... for the Germans.. think they really care if the EUR goes 1 to 1 with USD?... I think not.  20% currency difference is huge when it comes to import / export....  EUR balance of trace is still surplus..... that's what keeps the EUR at 1.20++

Quote
Government must have compassion, yet government should not remove the incentive for self-responsibility.

Quite frankly, people will always go the path of least resistance... whether private or business....  give someone an 'easier, softer way' and that way will rule, including the premis of this board...
 
Quote
Good.  And the auto industry and....

Yes, let them die.. but wait.... last time I was in the US I was quite impressed with a little Ford I rented...  decent car, good mileage... quality quite ok...  Gator, even for my euro views, US auto has taken a few steps forward.. those steps should be supported.  I kick myself in the butt when I did not buy a car when the exchange rate was 1.45 bucks to the euro... really... I missed a good deal.

Quote
To a large degree.  That is why change of direction is necessary as I discussed in my previous post.    We do have a model across the Atlantic, a model that we know not to follow.   However, being Euro, perhaps you feel the Euro model is superior.

Superior?.. maybe, maybe not.  But in many aspects like healthcare which is really becoming a 'make it or break it' deal in the US, all I can say is that ALL those on this side of the Atlantic have BTDT... it's past history here for centuries  vs unchartered territory in the US.

I'll even admit that Obama/Romneycare is a weak excuse for healthcare reform.. but at least it is a start in the right direction.

Gator,  you and I have been around for a good while on RW boards.  I think you would agree that it is a 'take what you can' environment.. try to take the good and discard the bad...

It's not all that bad over here.. believe me.  Sure a lot does not work, but at least take a good look at what does work.

Higher life expectancy for half the cost.

Is that not something to work for?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on August 20, 2012, 09:18:01 AM
The Euro model was created to coounter balance the Dollar, which is based on a federal system of states, thus creating a strong inner market for products.
So telling the Euro model is bad is more or less pointing back.

The current problems are not at all surprising or unexpected, even if the press wishes to make people believe so. The weakest econimies now have been the weakest for the last 50 years, and there for will suffer most in times of crisis.
Without those countries getting serious benefits for industries to settle, their economy will remain as it is. Weak in bad years, ok in good years.

This is nothing new. Last month I was in Germany and heard the news that Bavaria wanted to reform the German Federal Economics so they would no longer have to contribute so much to the weaker German States. Sounds familiar?

All in all its just the game of economy, politics and public opinion.
Last year there was a lot of press about the US breaking the $10bn limit, and people told how the US might not be able to pay the bills. But did anyone deep in their heart really expect anything else as the limit being raised? Come on, be serious.


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on August 20, 2012, 12:34:02 PM
Ed, it looks like the ultra-right wants to make sure Obama wins again.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on August 20, 2012, 12:47:03 PM
CBS News



God, will this ever go away  ::)  Two newspapers in Hawaii reported Barack Obama's birth in 1961. Are we to believe that everybody knew that he was going to become president of the United States when he was still in his diapers?!?


See: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 20, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
Ed, it looks like the ultra-right wants to make sure Obama wins again.
with all the "transparency" talk during his 2008 election it seems to defy logic that Obama is keeping his college records sealed. As they say: "where there is smoke there is fire". I personally don't think that it's beyond the realm of possibility that he in fact has Indonesian citizenship and went to college on a foreign student scholarship. Why else would he keep it a secret? I also find it interesting that his Hawaii birth certificate has a Connecticut number and the Arizona sheriff who had a team of experts look at it says that it's a forgery and the number actually belonged to somebody born in the 1800s. All this perhaps wouldn't matter if Obama's policies worked to fix this country. Instead my feeling is that they are destroying this country. I can't wait to see the 2016 movie, I think it will be eye opening.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Brianinaz on August 20, 2012, 01:45:43 PM
the health care is going to depend upon the state. Where I live an Illegal can get health care if they are pregnant, but not if they are not pregnant.

In the last election Obama made a very practical point. it is simply not feasable to line up buses and drive 15 million people out of the country.

I guess I would respectfully disagree. They don't go to their regular doctor like you and I. They go to the emergency department fortheir care. There they cannot be denied services by federal law. If you're seen in the emergency department for a runny nose that will generate a minimum charge of $700-$900 dollars and if there's actually anything wrong with you it easily goes into the thousands. Since it dosent cost them anything they tend to go to the emergency department at the drop of a hat. I can't tell you how many times a week I hear a spanish speaking only person tell me "I just want to get checked out" or bring their kid with a runny nose to the ED "cause I wanna get him (her) checked out". Just for medical care alone the cost is in the billions per year. Now if you bought each of them a plane ticket say at $1000 that would be a one time cost of 15 billion dollars. Just considering health care you would cover the cost in 3 to 5 years or less. If you factor all the other services they use I would bet you would cover it in a year or two. It's feasible from the point of could you do it and would it be economically justified. The feasibility part comes from the political clout of the hispanic community. The stupid thing is "they're" making it worse with talk of granting immunity, legal residency, and citzenship.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on August 20, 2012, 02:09:41 PM
Eduard, I agree with you about Obama. His former literary agent's publicity sheet states: "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation..."

Even his grandmother says she was at the hospital in Kenya when he was born.

Well Marty, if my senator for years and years were Harry Reid I perhaps would be as pessimistic and cynical as you.  However, I am an optimist.   I bewilder people like you.  And I feel that Romney is a far better man than this enigma Obama.  At least Romney has nothing to hide.

Call me cynical and pessimistic if you wish, but I consider myself a realist. To think that one party (or candidate) is the savior and the other one the destroyer is blindly partisan and simply naive.
 
 The entire U.S. political system and process -- both parties -- is broken and compromised to the core by lobbyists, massive corporate interests and infighting. Perhaps that's why a BILLION dollars will be spent on this election and why Congress has a 10% approval rating.
 
 I'm certainly no fan of Harry Reid, but I'm also not from the state that was responsible for the biggest voting fiasco (and presidency) in recent history. I remember being at the Pulkovskaya Hotel in St. Petersburg on Nov. 8, 2000. The front desk clerk told me she had always agreed with the results of every previous U.S. presidential election, but based on this one, she suddenly had very ominous feelings about America's future.
 
 Little did she know how prescient she was.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on August 20, 2012, 02:16:35 PM
Eduard, I agree with you about Obama. His former literary agent's publicity sheet states: "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 20, 2012, 02:30:54 PM
Eduard, I agree with you about Obama. His former literary agent's publicity sheet states: "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation..."

Even his grandmother says she was at the hospital in Kenya when he was born.
 
Call me cynical and pessimistic if you wish, but I consider myself a realist. To think that one party (or candidate) is the savior and the other one the destroyer is blindly partisan and simply naive.
 
 The entire U.S. political system and process -- both parties -- is broken and compromised to the core by lobbyists, massive corporate interests and infighting. Perhaps that's why a BILLION dollars will be spent on this election and why Congress has a 10% approval rating.
 
 I'm certainly no fan of Harry Reid, but I'm also not from the state that was responsible for the biggest voting fiasco (and presidency) in recent history. I remember being at the Pulkovskaya Hotel in St. Petersburg on Nov. 8, 2000. The front desk clerk told me she had always agreed with the results of every previous U.S. presidential election, but based on this one, she suddenly had very ominous feelings about America's future.
 
 Little did she know how prescient she was.
I agree with you on everything you wrote.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 20, 2012, 02:35:07 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp)
Misha, it says "TRUE" on snopes... That indeed it did say that he was born in Kenya in the booklet...
I was gonna ask you if you had an original copy of that newspaper you posted earlier? That on line copy doesn't mean anything to me. I can put in there that you were born on the same day in Hawaii and you won't be able to tell the difference... a little photoshop magic...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 20, 2012, 05:08:16 PM
Asked if he knows for sure where he was born, Barack Obama had stated that he distinctly remembers being born on American soil.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 20, 2012, 05:30:22 PM
Asked if he knows for sure where he was born, Barack Obama had stated that he distinctly remembers being born on American soil.

For someone that requires a teleprompter for everything, his memory sure is good when he was born.   LOL
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 20, 2012, 06:26:05 PM
For someone that requires a teleprompter for everything, his memory sure is good when he was born.   LOL


Oh no....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 20, 2012, 06:49:05 PM
I just now read this...remiel, not sure if you can provide citations for your following statements, but maybe we live in two different Californias despite knowing there's only one in the contiguous lower 48...

...I avoid politics on this thread because it tends to make people mad. some of the things in the above quote I am not sure are true.
1. Most illegals that I knew personally worked construction jobs, they get paid more than 5 or 6 dollars an hour. Although I knew attorneys who hired illegals to clean thier house and justified it on the grounds that no one else would do that job. The amount she paid her maid, $500 a week.

I can tell you I work in the construction industry. I once requested a laborer from the local union haul and they dispatched a guy who didn't speak English, didn't have any official pictured ID (DL) but had a social security card and couldn't read, much less fill, a W9. When I called the union haul to find out what the heck they dispatched to the site, the dispatcher complained that we should've asked for an English-speaking laborer and that we should have a site foreman who's bilingual. WTF! Non-skilled laborers get paid, excluding burden and union dues, around $30.00/hr.

As a followup, the laborer did in fact turned out to be an illegal alien. The SS number he was using was someone else's SSN.

Quote
2. Before I accept item 2 I want proof illegals are filing tax returns.

That's a very silly statement. The crime (or this nation's problems) is not if they are filing tax return or not, it's the fact they are/were here illegally to begin with.

Quote
3. the health care is going to depend upon the state. Where I live an Illegal can get health care if they are pregnant, but not if they are not pregnant.

News to me. The illegals aliens we have in MY California gets medical care and attention-period. The State declare that the care are for emergency care only, but you can visit any medicaid providing care institutions any day and you'll see more than just *pregnant* and *emergency* cases waiting to be treated *free of charge*. No one gets denied medical care in California or the US, bar none. These illegals seem to reproduce like rabbits, too. They each always seem to be surrounded by screaming non-English speaking busloads of children wherever they go, too. Chalk one up for anchor babies...expotentially.

Why else do you think these segment of our society is in deep kaka? Take the freeloading scumbcukets and the illegals off the medical care landscape and we'll be better than just fine. California's in deeper trouble since Arizona shook the proverbial immigration stick in their illegal alien roaches' nest. They scamper to the nearest nest hole west.
 
Quote
4. Yes they don't pay insurance, but I've personally also seen them hauled into court for not having insurance and put in jail. Also seen them get sued for damages when they cause accidents. This is a double edged sword.

Illegal aliens are in the jurisdiction of DHS/Immigration. They cannot be tried in any other courts. They get caught, they get handed over to the Immigration Dept. pronto.
 
Quote
The problem I have with all of this is that the conservatives who do the most bitching about this never provided the money needed to take the illegals that are arrested and drive them out of the country. When we arrested them they were held in the county jail, immigration was informed and then never came to pick them up so the police release them. This policy requires actual cash to work. This might require an increase in taxes to pay for it. In the last election Obama made a very practical point. it is simply not feasable to line up buses and drive 15 million people out of the country.

The problem I have with our country today is that those who voted for this clown and bit into the whole HOPE & CHANGE silliness aren't being held responsible for the hole your president put US ALL in these days.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 20, 2012, 07:21:44 PM
 
"WHO GIVES A SHIT WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN ....
 
THE PROBLEM IS WHERE HE LIVES NOW"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 20, 2012, 07:41:57 PM

"WHO GIVES A SHIT WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN ....
 
THE PROBLEM IS WHERE HE LIVES NOW"

so true Gator.... so true....  Double entendre?  (Pardon my French)  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 20, 2012, 10:20:45 PM
... I'm certainly no fan of Harry Reid, but I'm also not from the state that was responsible for the biggest voting fiasco (and presidency) in recent history. I remember being at the Pulkovskaya Hotel in St. Petersburg on Nov. 8, 2000. The front desk clerk told me she had always agreed with the results of every previous U.S. presidential election, but based on this one, she suddenly had very ominous feelings about America's future.
 
 Little did she know how prescient she was.

Nah CG...my money is on this HarvardLawGrad for posting this youtube vid...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related


I still to this day get a kick out of this C-Span report...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIjoW_IXos4&feature=related


...and 4 years later, the gullible majority still drank the Kool-Aid. It's little wonder why it's fairly easy for Fat Yuri to make millions off Americans in exchange for a few sexy pictures...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on August 20, 2012, 10:23:01 PM
Misha, it says "TRUE" on snopes... That indeed it did say that he was born in Kenya in the booklet...
I was gonna ask you if you had an original copy of that newspaper you posted earlier? That on line copy doesn't mean anything to me. I can put in there that you were born on the same day in Hawaii and you won't be able to tell the difference... a little photoshop magic...


It also says that the person responsible for putting together the booklet made a mistake. The woman who wrote the comment admits that the information is not based on any information given to her by Obama or anybody close to Obama. Just because something was printed somewhere does not make it correct. Incorrect information is published all the time... As for the newspaper, there are many copies of the newspaper, libraries will have copies on microfiche. I personally don't understand this need to believe that Obama was not born in the United States.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 20, 2012, 10:54:15 PM
Frank Marshal Davis is Obama's real father. If you care to look at what I posted on the previous page and opened your eyes you'd see it too. I don't post here much because this board is full of stupid people.


Obama is the son of a goat herder? No! he's the son of a commie agitator and pornographer .


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/obamasmother.jpg)


And his mother? Frank Marshal Davis' Lolita he writes about in his book. A young woman under 20 he calls "Ann".
Obama senior was an acquaintance of Ann Dunham's father. Someone who needed a green card. So a marriage was made and he applied for a relative petition. His daughter no longer had the taint of being impregnated by a commie watched by the FBI.


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/slide01.jpg)


Obama and Frank Marshal Davis. That's his daddy.


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/clippings.jpg)


And Obama calls Frank Marshal Davis his mentor in his book. Yeah and he should tell the rest. He's his daddy too.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 21, 2012, 12:00:08 AM
Maxx-

I think those photos of his mumski are photo-shopped, LOL. It went viral on everyone's email.

But no one can photo-shop these...

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20100204obamas_auntie_still_freeloading (http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20100204obamas_auntie_still_freeloading)

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220413obamas_uncle_ordered_to_report_regularly_to_ice (http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220413obamas_uncle_ordered_to_report_regularly_to_ice)

They must have one hell of a Thanksgiving weekend, eh? How'bout a family-reunion shindig courtesy of the US taxpayers?

Actually I'm really glad the election is here as I really miss our Vice-President Mr. Joe Biden. He never seem to fail to provide endless comic relief, LOL. Obama should give him the rein one time and let him speak at the State of the Union address with his own material.

Joe can definitely light up the House!

One of my favorite skit he did was when he asked a handicapped person on a wheelchair to stand-up, LOL! That was hysterical! Almost as funny as when Obama offered a toast for the Queen just when God Save the Queen played. Chalk one up for Affirmative Action education!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 21, 2012, 06:06:13 AM
I don't post here much because this board is full of stupid people.

LOL...

After 4 years of hearing about 'birthers' it's hard to believe the topic is still around...  but guess some will believe anything.

Gotta loves a good conspiracy theory it seems.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 21, 2012, 09:03:17 AM
LOL...

After 4 years of hearing about 'birthers' it's hard to believe the topic is still around...  but guess some will believe anything.

Gotta loves a good conspiracy theory it seems.
I personally don't care where he was born or what color skin he has. In fact I was proud to see that this country finally was able to elect a black man to be a president. I was touched to see Jesse Jackson cry when the result of the election was announced . But after seeing this president in action for the last almost 4 years I feel like I along with millions of other Americans was fooled. I feel like he is an ideologue who has taken this country in the wrong direction. I feel that he is incompetent, that his appointees are incompetent and very corrupt and I dislike his agenda.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on August 21, 2012, 09:13:48 AM

 The selection of Ryan as a VP is risky IMO yet it will focus the debate on meaty economic subjects including some contentious subjects such as entitlement reform which no one has had the courage to tackle.

Sorry to say, this selection has doomed Romney's chances.

We can already see from recent happenings in France and Greece that people simply aren't willing to live within the means of their country.

The 'takers' in many countries simply outnumber the 'payers,' certainly in the USA.
The numbers can be found in many sources, but all show that a very large percentage of American people pay zero Federal income taxes, and many even get rebates.

These 'takers' are not going to vote for anyone that has a plan to reduce what they take.

I have the gloomiest outlook  for my country that I have ever had.
Some of these things we read about how all great countries eventually fall, are seeming more real to me.  I really feel for the generations coming along.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 21, 2012, 09:32:36 AM
Maxx-

I think those photos of his mumski are photo-shopped, LOL. It went viral on everyone's email. (so?)



The photos were found in a vintage Bondage Fetish magazines from the sixties, "Exotique", "Bazarre Life" and "Secret Pleasures".



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 21, 2012, 09:46:37 AM

The photos were found in a vintage Bondage Fetish magazines from the sixties, "Exotique", "Bazarre Life" and "Secret Pleasures".

There's been a lot of photoshopping going on where BO is concerned but, I read something sometime back about the mother's nude modeling and had the pics to prove it. I saw those you posted and some others. The story I read was that the mag photos of her couldn't be disproven
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 21, 2012, 10:13:54 AM

Some of these things we read about how all great countries eventually fall, are seeming more real to me.

To fall is a relative term, meaning some country will take our place.   Much of Europe is in a similar boat as ours with perhaps more leaks a nd more water.  Everyone points to China as the next world leader.  They certainly have the discipline that we seem to lack.   
 
Many claim that Obama has an agenda for America to pay for its colonialist plundering of the world.  His father had a strong anti-colonial ideology.   And it is seemingly confirmed in not wearing the American flag lapel pin, appeasing the Muslim world, etc.   That possibility is frightening, yet no President has the power and authority to make that happen.   If we fall it will not be because of one man but of our indifference and inaction.
 
Quote
    I really feel for the generations coming along. 

Yes, the current generation of young people may be the first generation in American history to not have a better life than the prior generation.  Sad! 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 21, 2012, 10:31:23 AM
CBS has been a big supporter of Obama.  Thus I was amazed when they ran this story showing Romney the person in a good light as a kind, generous man. 
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7405692n&tag=api (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7405692n&tag=api)
 
I have never seen such stories on Obama.  If you get past Obama's Walmart Greeter charm, he seems smart but mean and bitter as evidenced in his campaign ads.  When Romney came through Florida seeking the nomination, he had just lost South Carolina to Gingrich.  So Romney ran some negative ads. He seemed out of place as if it is not his nature.
 
For sure over the next 2 1/2 months we will have ample opportunity to compare the two men and to contrast the two platforms.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 21, 2012, 10:48:29 AM
good posts. Phil.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on August 21, 2012, 10:58:43 AM
CBS has been a big supporter of Obama.  Thus I was amazed when they ran this story showing Romney the person in a good light as a kind, generous man.
IINM, David Letterman keeps poking fun at 'Mitch' Romney for his undisclosed tax returns, poor singing abilities, driving to Canada with his dog on the car roof, etc. :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 21, 2012, 02:38:39 PM
IINM, David Letterman keeps poking fun at 'Mitch' Romney for his undisclosed tax returns, poor singing abilities, driving to Canada with his dog on the car roof, etc. :D

Years ago Letterman was funny, cutting edge of comedy and of course younger. He's grown into a bitter old celebrity that has difficulty holding an audience. His time slot no longer has the might it once had and one can easily surmise he panders to the execs political leanings to hold his position even if that position is his own. Most comedians make fun of politicians and rightfully so, they are so easy. Letterman made himself political and lost more than half his audience. Since he's made that leap, he's no longer funny.IMHO
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 21, 2012, 04:28:55 PM
There's been a lot of photoshopping going on where BO is concerned but, I read something sometime back about the mother's nude modeling and had the pics to prove it. I saw those you posted and some others. The story I read was that the mag photos of her couldn't be disproven


Including the birth certificate.


This the latest photo in question. It was a official photo added to Barrack Obama's personal Facebook page.


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/breakingnews004hand.jpg)


I notice on the www.drudgereport.com the largest website on the internet at the top of the page is this advertisement.
 Matt Drudge must not think this subject is looney tunes.


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/51GKVhhPUoL_SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 21, 2012, 04:46:42 PM

Including the birth certificate.


This the latest photo in question. It was a official photo added to Barrack Obama's personal Facebook page.


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/breakingnews004hand.jpg)


I notice on the www.drudgereport.com (http://www.drudgereport.com) the largest website on the internet at the top of the page is this advertisement.
 Matt Drudge must not think this subject is looney tunes.


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/51GKVhhPUoL_SL500_AA300_.jpg)
got a link, Maxx?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 21, 2012, 05:45:58 PM
Suggested reading.
 
You can get/order this book at your local library.
 
GOB
 
http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596986255 (http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596986255)
 
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51g%2Bk3--MrL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1596986255/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 21, 2012, 07:06:44 PM
got a link, Maxx?


http://www.obamasrealfather.com/
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 21, 2012, 08:07:04 PM
Regardless of all the silliness, methinks Obama is going to get re-elected. Face it, this country is pestered with social leeches and lazy scumbags. They easily outnumber hard-working folks these days. Then add in illegal aliens to the mix, this country's screwed.

Entitlement and Free Grab Bags is this country's present theme.

When my wife got her citizenship, it was held in the LA convention. I remember mine was held in the Federal building downtown moons ago and there couldn't have been more than 200 folks there that afternoon waving those cute little Stars and Stripes. At the convention, it was nothing short of a cattle round-up. There was a sea of humanity and that was for the morning session. Word was, the afternoon session is even bigger. They hold these twice every month. Estimate for the morning session, easy 5,000.

The celebration was represented by 80 nationalities. The Top 5 countries were, in order: Mexico (huge applause), The Philippines, El Salvador, Thailand, Vietnam. I counted 5 Russian, including my wife.

They separated the guest/s and relatives from the celebs and wifey had to take a seat along with everyone else...as it was such a cool experience for both of us, we started exchanging text messages. My wife sent me one that said....

"Great! 4,999 Democrats, 1 Republican" with a smiley face.

I just don't see Obama losing the way things are in this country today.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 21, 2012, 10:13:44 PM
Great story GQ. It really sums up what is happening to America today.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 22, 2012, 07:26:24 AM
Regardless of all the silliness, methinks Obama is going to get re-elected. Face it, this country is pestered with social leeches and lazy scumbags. They easily outnumber hard-working folks these days. Then add in illegal aliens to the mix, this country's screwed.

Entitlement and Free Grab Bags is this country's present theme.

When my wife got her citizenship, it was held in the LA convention. I remember mine was held in the Federal building downtown moons ago and there couldn't have been more than 200 folks there that afternoon waving those cute little Stars and Stripes. At the convention, it was nothing short of a cattle round-up. There was a sea of humanity and that was for the morning session. Word was, the afternoon session is even bigger. They hold these twice every month. Estimate for the morning session, easy 5,000.

The celebration was represented by 80 nationalities. The Top 5 countries were, in order: Mexico (huge applause), The Philippines, El Salvador, Thailand, Vietnam. I counted 5 Russian, including my wife.

They separated the guest/s and relatives from the celebs and wifey had to take a seat along with everyone else...as it was such a cool experience for both of us, we started exchanging text messages. My wife sent me one that said....

"Great! 4,999 Democrats, 1 Republican" with a smiley face.

I just don't see Obama losing the way things are in this country today.
I think that there is a sleepy silent majority that's about to wake up. I haven't lost hope just yet.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 22, 2012, 10:48:03 AM



There is one factor everyone is forgetting about, RON PAUL. While everyone here sees him as lost they are forgetting his supporters. Do you think a Ron Paul supporter is going to vote for Romney/Ryan? What you don't know is that us Ron Paul supporters have been keeping track the delegate conventions and their aftermath.


Below is stuff you didn't know.
Quote
So far, Romney and the GOP have contested the Ron Paul wins in Louisiana (http://www.dailypaul.com/248572/louisiana-ron-paul-delegates-lose-appeal), Maine (http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/13/politics/dispute-over-maines-ron-paul-delegates-to-republican-convention-to-go-to-full-hearing/), Massachusetts (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/07/30/Mass-Ron-Paul-delegates-challenge-GOP-ouster/UPI-00000000000000/) and Oregon. They threw out the Massachusetts Ron Paul delegates after the GOP tried to force the delegates to sign a long legal document  (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Ron-Paul-delegates-Massachusetts/2012/06/25/id/443372)that required them to vote for Romney. This was not something that had ever been done before. The GOP allowed Romney, big lawyers and big bullying to invalidate Ron Paul's solid win in Massachusetts (http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/20/ron-paul-delegate-roundup-his-massachuse).
As in the other states, the Ron Paul delegates in Maine played by the rules and won. Even Governor LePage of Maine (http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/17/ron-paul-delegate-news-roundup-members-o), a Republican, is appalled with GOP efforts to throw out the duly-elected Ron Paul delegates.

Nationwide
[/size]Ron Paul supporters represented about 10% of the Republican vote during the primaries. About 20% or more in certain states. Do you think we are going to vote for people who treat us so shabby? People who have cheated to deny Ron Paul his 15 minute speaking slot at the convention? Gary Johnson Libertarian candidate for president (Ron Paul without Roe verse Wade) will get our votes or we will sit it out. Can you say Ross Perot '92? So in my opinion the GOP blew it. Instead of welcoming in Ron Paul and his millions of enthusiastic supporters and frankly the youth of America "the next generation" who see how the establishment is robbing them of their future, they bring us Bob Dole and John Mc Cain retreads. And "Ryan"? just another neocon war hawk who can't propose a real debt reducing budget because he won't cut military spending but rather chooses to increase it. And Romney? Just another corporatist financed by the same people (Goldman Sachs etcetera) that Obama is. [/font][/font]
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on August 22, 2012, 11:11:44 AM
I think that there is a sleepy silent majority that's about to wake up. I haven't lost hope just yet.

Eduard,  those who take much more than they give are the majority.
They are wide awake and ready to defend their position.

25% of the people paid 87.3% of the Federal Income taxes.

That means 75% of the people only paid the remaining 12.7%
You think these 75% are going to vote to change this?

These (and similar figures for different years) figures can be found on dozens of Federal and Independent websites such as:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on August 22, 2012, 11:35:32 AM
I think that there is a sleepy silent majority that's about to wake up. I haven't lost hope just yet.

With stuff like this? Forget it.
 
 Just Think No By MAUREEN DOWD Published: August 21, 2012 There’s something trying about an unforgiving man suddenly in need of forgiveness.
 
Yet Todd Akin is right. He shouldn’t have to get out of the United States Senate race in Missouri simply for saying what he believes. He reflects a severe stance on abortion that many in his party embrace, including the new vice presidential candidate.
 
“I talk about one word, one sentence, one day out of place, and, all of a sudden, the entire establishment turns on you,” Representative Akin complained to the conservative radio talk-show host Dana Loesch on Tuesday as he spurned pleas from Mitt Romney and other G.O.P. big shots to abort his bid. He continued: “They just ran for cover at the first sign of any gunfire, and I think we need to rush to the gunfire.”
 
He’s right again. Other Republicans are trying to cover up their true identity to get elected. Even as party leaders attempted to lock the crazy uncle in the attic in Missouri, they were doing their own crazy thing down in Tampa, Fla., by reiterating language in their platform calling for a no-exceptions Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, even in cases of rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother.
 
Paul Ryan, who teamed up with Akin in the House to sponsor harsh anti-abortion bills, may look young and hip and new generation, with his iPod full of heavy metal jams and his cute kids. But he’s just a fresh face on a Taliban creed — the evermore antediluvian, anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-gay conservative core. Amiable in khakis and polo shirts, Ryan is the perfect modern leader to rally medieval Republicans who believe that Adam and Eve cavorted with dinosaurs.
 
In asserting that women have the superpower to repel rape sperm, Akin ratcheted up the old chauvinist argument that gals who wear miniskirts and high-heels are “asking” for rape; now women who don’t have the presence of mind to conjure up a tubal spasm, a drone hormone, a magic spermicidal secretion or mere willpower to block conception during rape are “asking” for a baby.
 
“The biological facts are perhaps inconvenient, but whether the egg meets the sperm is a matter of luck or prevention,” says Dr. Paul Blumenthal, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology who directs the Stanford Program for International Reproductive Education and Services. “If wishing that ‘I won’t get pregnant right now’ made it so, we wouldn’t need contraceptives.”
When you wish upon a rape.
 
Dr. Blumenthal is alarmed that Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
 
“What is very disturbing to me is that people like Mr. Akin who have postulated this secret mechanism for avoiding pregnancy have developed their own make-believe world of science based on entirely self-serving beliefs of convenience or just ignorance,” he said. “I don’t think we want these people to be responsible for the lives of others.”
 
But, for all the Republican cant about how they want to keep government out of the lives of others, the ultraconservatives are panting to meddle in the lives of others. Contrary to President Obama’s refreshing assertion Monday that a bunch of male politicians shouldn’t be making health care decisions for women, this troglodyte tribe of men and Bachmann-esque women craves that responsibility.
 
“Next we’ll be trying to take away the vote from women,” lamented Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist who advised Romney in the 2008 race. “How can we be the party of cool and make the generational leap forward when we have these recidivist ideas at the very core of our base?”
 
Akin defended the incendiary comment he made on a Missouri TV show — “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” — by saying he wasn’t talking about rapists being legitimate, but rather “false claims” of rape, “like those made in Roe versus Wade.” He said he meant to say “forcible rape.” Oh, that’s ever so much better.
Akin, Ryan et al. have made it their business to designate which rapes are legitimate, joining up to push Orwellian legislation last year to narrow the definition of rape to “forcible rape.”
 
And Mitt, who was for abortion rights (except for Mormons he counseled) before he was against them, in his last presidential bid went after the endorsement of Dr. John Willke, a former president of the National Right to Life Committee and father of the inanity about rape victims being able to turn back sperm if they put their mind and muscles to it.
 
The nutty doctor hypothesized: “This is a traumatic thing. She’s, shall we say, she’s uptight.” Adding, “She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”
 
Akin is right in saying this race should be about “who we are as a people.”
 
It should also be about who they are. They are people who want to be in your life, deep in your life, even when they say they don’t.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/dowd-just-think-no.html?_r=1&ref=opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/dowd-just-think-no.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 22, 2012, 09:21:47 PM
I think that there is a sleepy silent majority that's about to wake up. I haven't lost hope just yet.

Unfortunately Eduard, I concur with ML's ensuing response. I haven't yet added the effect of the Union to its membership. We are headed into an undesirable future, at least for those held the values of opportunities through hard work.

FWIW, there are cities and municipalities here in California (Stockton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Irvine, San Bernardino) that had gone broke and/or declared BKs caused by those silly unsustainable union pensions the like of which this present administration WANT to take this country to head-on. Greece, the best rated pensioned society in the world today also, and coincidentally, is the country with the worst economic state in the modern day free enterprise society.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on August 23, 2012, 12:54:35 AM
If people really would not want Obama re-elected, could they not come up with a better candidate to run against him?
From across the ocean it may be wrong, but Romey comes across as someone who should not lead one of the most powerful countries in the world, simply due to having some points of view that do not agree with modern society, and getting caught in multiple seemingly ignorant errors.

Why can a country that has brought forward so many great leaders not find a better candidate (once again viewed from across the ocean)?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 01:53:36 AM
Why can a country that has brought forward so many great leaders not find a better candidate (once again viewed from across the ocean)?

Shadow,

It seems the 'bar' to measure candidates has little to do with actual ability.  The most important factors are:

They are mainstream religious.  Regular church goers is a plus.
Their moral record is squeaky clean.
No skeletons in the closet.
No prior scandals.
Are healthy.
Good schooling.
Their record shows they pretty much follow the 'party line'

With those criteria alone, most members of congress, senate, governors etc are excluded... not much left to choose from even though there are surely many who would make more knowledgable, experienced and even better candidates.

This applies to both parties.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on August 23, 2012, 03:32:45 AM
Shadow,

It seems the 'bar' to measure candidates has little to do with actual ability.  The most important factors are:

They are mainstream religious.  Regular church goers is a plus.
Their moral record is squeaky clean.
No skeletons in the closet.
No prior scandals.
Are healthy.
Good schooling.
Their record shows they pretty much follow the 'party line'

With those criteria alone, most members of congress, senate, governors etc are excluded... not much left to choose from even though there are surely many who would make more knowledgable, experienced and even better candidates.

This applies to both parties.
Let's exclude the first line and see if it increases the candidates.
After all, the founding fathers of the USA were not exactly fan of religion inluencing State in any way.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 04:35:21 AM
Let's exclude the first line and see if it increases the candidates.
After all, the founding fathers of the USA were not exactly fan of religion inluencing State in any way.

I doubt it would...  after all most Presidents were already elected to other public posts.. Congressmen, Governors etc

Religion is such an entwined factor it just won't go away..  Same sex marriages, abortion are always somewhere in the mix.

Lobbying efforts of religious groups is getting close to a half billion per year....

http://www.newsmax.com/US/pew-research-religious-lobbies/2011/11/22/id/418849

If Romney wins, he will be the first non Christian President since Nixon who was a Quaker (likely non practicing).

We've all heard of 'Separation of Church and State' but in essence and practice the line is quite fuzzy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

Recent evidence:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/08/23/christian-groups-support-akin.html
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 06:40:26 AM
I just ran across this....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48762745

Isn't it kind of sad that any form of government economic stimulus immediately results in higher oil prices, lining the pockets of speculators and big oil from those who pay at the pump?

Is that not counter productive?  Talk about taking food out of a baby's mouth....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 23, 2012, 07:05:32 AM
If people really would not want Obama re-elected, could they not come up with a better candidate to run against him?
From across the ocean it may be wrong, but Romey comes across as someone who should not lead one of the most powerful countries in the world, simply due to having some points of view that do not agree with modern society, and getting caught in multiple seemingly ignorant errors.

Why can a country that has brought forward so many great leaders not find a better candidate (once again viewed from across the ocean)?

Wow shadow, have you not paid any attention to Barack Obama? He fits this criteria to a tee
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 23, 2012, 07:06:33 AM


If Romney wins, he will be the first non Christian President since Nixon who was a Quaker (likely non practicing).

If Romney is a non-Christian, WTF is Obama?

The Mormon faith does not adhere exactly with traditional Christianity, yet Christianity is broader than the Vatican doctrine and it encompasses LDS.   To consider the Mormon faith as non-Christian requires a rigorous theological analysis of which I doubt anyone here is capable of performing.  Selective reading of doctrinal disputes does not count. 
 
And Quakers not being Christian?   That's a good one.  If there is a difference between  Quakers and Christians, it would be  Quakers are kinder and gentler.   For example, practicing Friends (Quakers) avoid war as part of their Peace Testimony (so Nixon was not a devout Quaker).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 23, 2012, 07:11:43 AM
I just ran across this....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48762745

Isn't it kind of sad that any form of government economic stimulus immediately results in higher oil prices, lining the pockets of speculators and big oil from those who pay at the pump?

Is that not counter productive?  Talk about taking food out of a baby's mouth....

Sad indeed but, in all likelihood intentional. Government stimulus has morphed from the 1940s-50's with government cheese and milk that actually went into the mouths of the hungry into lining the pockets of political contributors. A practice that is not only allowed but encouraged by the lawmakers
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 23, 2012, 07:13:50 AM
Quakers are kinder and gentler......(Quakers) avoid war........Nixon was not a devout Quaker).

 :ROFL:
 
You ain't just a woofin' about that one Gator!
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 23, 2012, 07:20:31 AM

Isn't it kind of sad that any form of government economic stimulus immediately results in higher oil prices, lining the pockets of speculators and big oil from those who pay at the pump?

Is that not counter productive?  Talk about taking food out of a baby's mouth....

That is an interesting spin.  In a stronger economy, higher energy prices will result from increased demand.  So you are against a stronger economy?   Nose..... spite.......face
 
BTW, in America we have the capability to be oil and gas self-subsistent in 10 years.    However, the Obama administration has discouraged taking steps in that direction.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 23, 2012, 07:22:06 AM
BC and Shadow,
I can understand your support of Obama because further weakening of America would by comparison make Europe stronger.  Nevertheless, I would think everyone would want a stronger  world economy.    And that begins with strengthening, not weakening, of the world's largest economy.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 07:26:20 AM

If Romney is a non-Christian, WTF is Obama?

The Mormon faith does not adhere exactly with traditional Christianity, yet Christianity is broader than the Vatican doctrine and it encompasses LDS.   To consider the Mormon faith as non-Christian requires a rigorous theological analysis of which I doubt anyone here is capable of performing.  Selective reading of doctrinal disputes does not count. 
 
And Quakers not being Christian?   That's a good one.  If there is a difference between  Quakers and Christians, it would be  Quakers are kinder and gentler.   For example, practicing Friends (Quakers) avoid war as part of their Peace Testimony (so Nixon was not a devout Quaker).

LOL Gator,

do some research.. It's not about who is nicer.  btw I studied at a Quaker college.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 07:28:30 AM

That is an interesting spin.  In a stronger economy, higher energy prices will result from increased demand.  So you are against a stronger economy?   Nose..... spite.......face
 
BTW, in America we have the capability to be oil and gas self-subsistent in 10 years.    However, the Obama administration has discouraged taking steps in that direction.

Gator,

the evidence does not seem to support this theory.  http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/obama-vs-bush-the-oil-chart-that-will-surprise-you/11859
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 07:32:20 AM
BC and Shadow,
I can understand your support of Obama because further weakening of America would by comparison make Europe stronger.  Nevertheless, I would think everyone would want a stronger  world economy.    And that begins with strengthening, not weakening, of the world's largest economy.

Gator,

I don't think either Shadow (if he could) or I would have any qualms at all about voting for the best man..  It just seems that the republican and other parties haven't been able to come up with the person who can compete...

Shadows post was not supportive of Obama... It was why the other parties can't come up with something better...

We're the forest Gator, not the tree.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 23, 2012, 07:40:22 AM
Gator,

the evidence does not seem to support this theory.  http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/obama-vs-bush-the-oil-chart-that-will-surprise-you/11859 (http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/obama-vs-bush-the-oil-chart-that-will-surprise-you/11859)

Where is JB?
 
I guarantee you that Obama had NOTHING to do with the increased production.  To the contrary, his policies have kept production from increasing even more.
 
Much of the increased production is due to implementation of fracking, a method Obama has questioned and delayed.   Read about that.  Also read about curtailment of offshore drilling.   Related to this, read about pipelines from Canada.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 23, 2012, 07:55:04 AM


Shadows post was not supportive of Obama... It was why the other parties can't come up with something better...


Something better, huh?   Let us start with something better than Obama.
 
Romney is intelligent, the same as Obama.  Different from Obama, Romney  has a proven track record as a turnaround guru for weakened enterprises (including the Olympics).  Also he served as  the moderate executive leader of a liberal state.   Even more significant, Romney is a decent human being.
 
To his fault, Romney is not charismatic on television while Obama is one of the best ever.    Romney is not comfortable with negative campaigns, while Obama seems to relish them.
 
I am sure that there are better leaders in America than Romney.  Yet, they do not want the job of President and would probably be eliminated by the negative campaigns necessary to get the job.   
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 07:57:43 AM

Where is JB?
 
I guarantee you that Obama had NOTHING to do with the increased production.  To the contrary, his policies have kept production from increasing even more.
 
Much of the increased production is due to implementation of fracking, a method Obama has questioned and delayed.   Read about that.  Also read about curtailment of offshore drilling.   Related to this, read about pipelines from Canada.

Gator,

and how do you explain the pre-Obama period?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 23, 2012, 08:03:26 AM

25% of the people paid 87.3% of the Federal Income taxes.

That means 75% of the people only paid the remaining 12.7%
You think these 75% are going to vote to change this?



You are wrong. 
 
Many of the 75% do not aspire to success and will eagerly vote for change, change being that the 25% pay even more taxes because such is "fair."   

Definition of "fair" - those who worked their ass off for years  should take care of those who relaxed and partied over the same  years.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 08:11:23 AM
I am sure that there are better leaders in America than Romney.  Yet, they do not want the job of President and would probably be eliminated by the negative campaigns necessary to get the job.

Gator,

and I do agree with you there, 100% as I alluded to upthread.  I have no problem with voting for a republican candidate that is up to snuff, even Romney.

The problem with Romney is that his plan has little substance, with much of the effects rebuked by independent research.  It's a political promise and that ain't worth much nowdays.  Obama is at least a known factor after four years so wins that argument.  Forget trickle down.. it has never worked without debt being in the game and we both know what that leads to.  His 'plan' has been picked apart many times over... and all it amounts to is that he will try to repeal Obamacare...  above that, promising 12 million jobs is a pipe dream.

Romey should 'put up' with his tax records... 'Oh I paid at least 13% does not quite hack it... 13% of what??  It's a no brainer, either he admits to the actual amounts paid or no confidence.  When it comes to the economy, his record should stand.  He does not even have to divulge the records themselves.... just the amounts.. what problem can there be with that....  in 2007 I paid xxxxxx.xx amount which equalled 13.5% of my income.. etc.

Romney represents big business... nothing wrong with that at all if there is transparency.. and there is not.  Perception of big bizness is waay down as far as the 98% is concerned.  Nothing in Romney's plan addresses that.

I could go on and on.. but you get the jist.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 08:13:19 AM

You are wrong. 
 
Many of the 75% do not aspire to success and will eagerly vote for change, change being that the 25% pay even more taxes because such is "fair."   

Definition of "fair" - those who worked their ass off for years  should take care of those who relaxed and partied over the same  years.

Gator,

Your argument may well be justified if it were not for the shrinking of the middle class.  They have been sucked dry.  The only class that is becoming wealthier is the already wealthy class... go figure.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 23, 2012, 08:28:58 AM
Obama is at least a known factor after four years so wins that argument.

I believe JB covered this already.
 
I love this line.

"...if you voted for Obama to prove you aren’t a racist, you now have to vote for Romney to prove you aren’t an idiot."

Quote
   The problem with Romney is that his plan has little substance, with much of the effects rebuked by independent research. 

His plan has not been finalized.  I await the forthcoming RNC down the street for the plan.   I fear that with Ryan it will touch on some necessary changes that are alarming to some.

Quote
Romey should 'put up' with his tax records...

I agree with you if Obama releases his university records, etc.  Please name another President who hid his educational records.   This will perhaps become an issue as the campaign unfolds.
 

Quote
Romney represents big business... nothing wrong with that at all if there is transparency.. and there is not.
 
 
I agree, people who have a record of success should not be eligible for office.   :D 
 
Get real, there is enough transparency to understand what he did at Bain Capital, what would have happened had he not intervened, etc. 
 
And what crap was Obama involved with to explain his meteoric rise in the political ranks?   That to me is a big unknown.  Where did he get his money?  How did he manage to go to Pakistan?  Who were his core backers?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 23, 2012, 08:32:54 AM
Gator,

Your argument may well be justified if it were not for the shrinking of the middle class.  They have been sucked dry.  The only class that is becoming wealthier is the already wealthy class... go figure.

Some in the wealthy class such as Obama's man Soros did well betting that the housing bubble would burst.  Others lost a ton of money.
 
More and more I get the feeling that you are a socialist with regard to the economy.  Please tell me that is not true.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 08:56:55 AM

Some in the wealthy class such as Obama's man Soros did well betting that the housing bubble would burst.  Others lost a ton of money.
 
More and more I get the feeling that you are a socialist with regard to the economy.  Please tell me that is not true.

A socialist?  Now that's kind of hard to define especially of late, but no, I don't think I am a true socialist.

I have been a businessman for almost 30 years so know well what is involved, and I do praise success - in brick and mortar.  for 15 years I owned multiple companies  in Germany that had around 20 employees.  Believe it or not, despite the taxes, paying employer portion of healthcare, etc etc the business was great.  I do not however applaud the new 'business of speculation' as a core portion of the economy.  That is where things go awry.

Making a hard earned buck is much different than flipping a buck.  As long as flipping is taxed less than truly earning the economy and employment will never recover and investments in brick and mortar will lag severely.

All of todays woes can be tracked back to this imbalance.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 09:03:05 AM
   
His plan has not been finalized.  I await the forthcoming RNC down the street for the plan.   I fear that with Ryan it will touch on some necessary changes that are alarming to some.
 
I agree with you if Obama releases his university records, etc.  Please name another President who hid his educational records.   This will perhaps become an issue as the campaign unfolds.


Once his plan has been finalized and deemed feasible I might rethink. But I doubt that will be forthcoming.

Has Romney released his university records?  Really though I doubt such matters that much.  But with the precedent his father set, followed by others from both parties, Romney Jr. has a tough argument ahead releasing only 1 year and an estimate for 2011.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 23, 2012, 09:19:51 AM
Once his plan has been finalized and deemed feasible I might rethink. But I doubt that will be forthcoming.

It will never be finalized whether he wins or not. Nor is BO's finalized although to date it has been an abysmal failure.

Quote
Has Romney released his university records?  Really though I doubt such matters that much.  But with the precedent his father set, followed by others from both parties, Romney Jr. has a tough argument ahead releasing only 1 year and an estimate for 2011.

Romney's records were never sealed and are available for inspection for those who seek them. BO's records were sealed and not available. A process that cost BO somewhere in the neighborhood of $750,000.

BC, you're biting too hard on the Romney's tax return question. Exactly what the BO campaign hopes every one does. There is nothing wrong with being rich and successful. It is seen as an opportunity to deflect from BO's record as president and further inflame class warfare.

Have you read either of BO's books?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 23, 2012, 09:24:07 AM
Once his plan has been finalized and deemed feasible I might rethink. But I doubt that will be forthcoming.


To summarize, Romney's plan is some fiscal responsibility. Balance the budget (which hasn't happened BO's entire term) reduce the debt (which has tripled under BO's presidency)and develop long term sustainable solutions to eliminating the debt. Also to repeal Obamacare.

Obama's plan is 4 more years that mirrors the last 4. Spending and printing money like a drunken sailor (forgive me all sailors)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on August 23, 2012, 09:39:34 AM
BC and Shadow,
I can understand your support of Obama because further weakening of America would by comparison make Europe stronger.  Nevertheless, I would think everyone would want a stronger  world economy.    And that begins with strengthening, not weakening, of the world's largest economy.
To be honest I just find it baffling that someone who has been called the worst president in history just a short time ago can even have a fighting chance.
While I undertand that it is usual for the President to go for a second term so there would not be competition from within, based on opinions on Obama from one or two years ago he should not even be in the election, let alone have a chance to win.

But if a banker screws up royally he still gets his bonus, so perhaps Obama will get a second term as well.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 09:40:30 AM
To summarize, Romney's plan is some fiscal responsibility. Balance the budget (which hasn't happened BO's entire term) reduce the debt (which has tripled under BO's presidency)and develop long term sustainable solutions to eliminating the debt. Also to repeal Obamacare.

Obama's plan is 4 more years that mirrors the last 4. Spending and printing money like a drunken sailor (forgive me all sailors)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

And when was the last time the budget was ever balanced?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 23, 2012, 10:04:57 AM
 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html)

... the last time the budget was ever balanced?
Bill Clinton?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/
Last Republican?
Eisenhower?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_republican_president_balanced_a_budget
Those days are definitely gone.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 23, 2012, 10:10:27 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

And when was the last time the budget was ever balanced?

Honestly, I don't find your reference to Bush as relative or what that graph has to do with anything. Eisenhower admin IIRC was the last balanced budget. There have been many with smoke and mirrors of a balanced budget but that is all it was. The Obama admin hasn't even had a budget since he took office Should the country continue to operate in such a manner. If you believe yes, vote for BO. If you don't, your choice is limited
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 10:35:20 AM
Honestly, I don't find your reference to Bush as relative or what that graph has to do with anything. Eisenhower admin IIRC was the last balanced budget. There have been many with smoke and mirrors of a balanced budget but that is all it was. The Obama admin hasn't even had a budget since he took office Should the country continue to operate in such a manner. If you believe yes, vote for BO. If you don't, your choice is limited

I'm confused then.  This was not your post?  [parts emphasized]

To summarize, Romney's plan is some fiscal responsibility. Balance the budget (which hasn't happened BO's entire term) reduce the debt (which has tripled under BO's presidency)and develop long term sustainable solutions to eliminating the debt. Also to repeal Obamacare.

Obama's plan is 4 more years that mirrors the last 4. Spending and printing money like a drunken sailor (forgive me all sailors)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 23, 2012, 10:57:08 AM


Rather hard to believe Obama or Romney are Christians when they back forces in Syria an Egypt that are bent on exterminating Christians in their countries.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 23, 2012, 12:33:10 PM
I'm confused then.  This was not your post?  [parts emphasized]

Yes and I misspoke, kind'a/sorta. The point I was trying to make was "a budget". We haven't had one in 3 years. A balanced budget being the goal, light at the end of the tunnel. At least get on track to fiscal responsibility. The national debt has near doubled in a short 4 years. Where is it headed in the next 4 without a budget.

Make no mistake, the bloodletting will have to commence at some point. The day of reckoning will happen. When it does happen, we need to do it from a position of fiscal strength and responsibility rather than bankruptcy. Greece can get bailed out from it's irresponsibilty because it's economy is insignificant. America will have no where to turn. Do you not see the urgency here?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 23, 2012, 12:38:51 PM

Rather hard to believe Obama or Romney are Christians ....

It's not all that hard to believe...
As I posted earlier....

Politics is inherently evil.
They'll say anything ...do anything [bite back anyone] for that vote.
 
 
 
Matthew 4:9
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 23, 2012, 12:51:04 PM
The point I was trying to make was "a budget". 
Back when we were engaged, my wife asked me [when I mentioned it]..
What is 'budget'?
The nearest I could come was to find финансовый план.
Well, the word budget is still not in her vocabulary 8)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 12:57:45 PM
Yes and I misspoke, kind'a/sorta. The point I was trying to make was "a budget". We haven't had one in 3 years. A balanced budget being the goal, light at the end of the tunnel. At least get on track to fiscal responsibility. The national debt has near doubled in a short 4 years. Where is it headed in the next 4 without a budget.

Make no mistake, the bloodletting will have to commence at some point. The day of reckoning will happen. When it does happen, we need to do it from a position of fiscal strength and responsibility rather than bankruptcy. Greece can get bailed out from it's irresponsibilty because it's economy is insignificant. America will have no where to turn. Do you not see the urgency here?

FP,

I do agree with you.  The budget problem is a matter of Congress and not the Presidency who only has veto powers.  The 'armageddon' mentioned in the news is of their doing and not fault of Obama. but instead Congressional inaction.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff

It's the stagnation of Government that has led us here...not the President.

Romney may have all the credentials in the world, but also can do nothing without congress behind him.  As mentioned before, the 'balance of powers' have simply become too balanced, to the point where no one can get anything done.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 23, 2012, 12:58:46 PM
Well, the word budget is still not in her vocabulary 8)

You are not alone,,
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 23, 2012, 01:34:14 PM
Back when we were engaged, my wife asked me [when I mentioned it]..
What is 'budget'?
The nearest I could come was to find финансовый план.
Well, the word budget is still not in her vocabulary 8)
Buget - Бюджет [byud-zheht]  in Russian. same word which probably was borrowed from French language. Just an FYI
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 23, 2012, 02:28:01 PM
BC

The president regardless of party affiliation is the ultimate "leader" of both the House and the Senate. The Presidents party controls Congress, it is he that has provided no leadership and now he wishes to lead for 4 more years? He had an opportunity to actually make a difference, he chose not to but rather continue with partisan politics.

IMHO, neither Obama or Romney are worth the rope it would take to hang them with. Even with their philosophical and political differences they are still birds of a feather with no interest in the common good or the best interest of the nation and it's citizenry. Merely lusts for power. Yes, I am extremely dogmatic when it comes to politicians. The Congress, Senate and the White House is one of the biggest assembly of thieves, vipers and swindlers in the history of mankind.

Earlier, your and shadows posts seem to demonize Romney of somehow less qualified to be president somehow more qualifies Obama. It doesn't hold any water. They are both figureheads, all hat and no cattle. Parroting the mantra of one's campaign slogans doesn't improve the other IMHO. The lesser of two evils (also IMHO) is Romney just because of his fiscal approach in which, the Obama administration has no clue
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 23, 2012, 03:12:50 PM
BC

The president regardless of party affiliation is the ultimate "leader" of both the House and the Senate. The Presidents party controls Congress, it is he that has provided no leadership and now he wishes to lead for 4 more years? He had an opportunity to actually make a difference, he chose not to but rather continue with partisan politics.

IMHO, neither Obama or Romney are worth the rope it would take to hang them with. Even with their philosophical and political differences they are still birds of a feather with no interest in the common good or the best interest of the nation and it's citizenry. Merely lusts for power. Yes, I am extremely dogmatic when it comes to politicians. The Congress, Senate and the White House is one of the biggest assembly of thieves, vipers and swindlers in the history of mankind.

Earlier, your and shadows posts seem to demonize Romney of somehow less qualified to be president somehow more qualifies Obama. It doesn't hold any water. They are both figureheads, all hat and no cattle. Parroting the mantra of one's campaign slogans doesn't improve the other IMHO. The lesser of two evils (also IMHO) is Romney just because of his fiscal approach in which, the Obama administration has no clue

+1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 23, 2012, 03:51:41 PM
IMHO, this just about says it all:

Heckler: Blah, blah, blah.....
 
Romney: "If your looking for free stuff you don't have to pay for...... vote for the other guy".
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/20/romney_to_contraception_heckler_if_you_want_free_stuff_vote_for_obama.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/20/romney_to_contraception_heckler_if_you_want_free_stuff_vote_for_obama.html)

GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 23, 2012, 04:38:41 PM
If people really would not want Obama re-elected, could they not come up with a better candidate to run against him?
From across the ocean it may be wrong, but Romey comes across as someone who should not lead one of the most powerful countries in the world, simply due to having some points of view that do not agree with modern society, and getting caught in multiple seemingly ignorant errors.

Why can a country that has brought forward so many great leaders not find a better candidate (once again viewed from across the ocean)?

Personally speaking, Shadow, I was dismayed at the prospect that at this coming election I was going to vote for a candidate (Romney) not because I feel absolutely certain about him assuming the presidential seat but because I feel absolutely certain his opponent simply doesn't belong there.
 
But the event of the past week was energizing when he appointed Paul Ryan as his running mate for vice-presidency. You can say I will be voting for Romney/Ryan ticket simply because of Ryan. He's astute, dedicated, concise to his duties and his cause with a conviction not too many DC politician can match these days.
 
I am hopeful his talent can help and/or influence Romney in more ways than one.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 23, 2012, 04:42:18 PM
BC

The president regardless of party affiliation is the ultimate "leader" of both the House and the Senate. The Presidents party controls Congress, it is he that has provided no leadership and now he wishes to lead for 4 more years? He had an opportunity to actually make a difference, he chose not to but rather continue with partisan politics.

IMHO, neither Obama or Romney are worth the rope it would take to hang them with. Even with their philosophical and political differences they are still birds of a feather with no interest in the common good or the best interest of the nation and it's citizenry. Merely lusts for power. Yes, I am extremely dogmatic when it comes to politicians. The Congress, Senate and the White House is one of the biggest assembly of thieves, vipers and swindlers in the history of mankind.

Earlier, your and shadows posts seem to demonize Romney of somehow less qualified to be president somehow more qualifies Obama. It doesn't hold any water. They are both figureheads, all hat and no cattle. Parroting the mantra of one's campaign slogans doesn't improve the other IMHO. The lesser of two evils (also IMHO) is Romney just because of his fiscal approach in which, the Obama administration has no clue


+ 2
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 23, 2012, 06:25:27 PM

Personally speaking, Shadow, I was dismayed at the prospect that at this coming election I was going to vote for a candidate (Romney) not because I feel absolutely certain about him assuming the presidential seat but because I feel absolutely certain his opponent simply doesn't belong there.
 
But the event of the past week was energizing when he appointed Paul Ryan as his running mate for vice-presidency. You can say I will be voting for Romney/Ryan ticket simply because of Ryan. He's astute, dedicated, concise to his duties and his cause with a conviction not too many DC politician can match these days.
 
I am hopeful his talent can help and/or influence Romney in more ways than one.
I agree, Ryan is an excellent choice IMO.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on August 24, 2012, 04:17:06 AM
...But the event of the past week was energizing when he appointed Paul Ryan as his running mate for vice-presidency. You can say I will be voting for Romney/Ryan ticket simply because of Ryan. He's astute, dedicated, concise to his duties and his cause with a conviction not too many DC politician can match these days.
 
I am hopeful his talent can help and/or influence Romney in more ways than one.

Serious question because I don't know these people - is this the same Ryan that thinks women in miniskirts are "asking for it," who wants to introduce a bill banning abortion on any grounds, and wants to redefine rape as "forcible rape" (whatever that means?).  Or is there more than one Senator or Congressman named Ryan?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 24, 2012, 06:33:14 AM

Serious question because I don't know these people - is this the same Ryan that thinks women in miniskirts are "asking for it," who wants to introduce a bill banning abortion on any grounds, and wants to redefine rape as "forcible rape" (whatever that means?).  Or is there more than one Senator or Congressman named Ryan?

Ryan is anti-abortion (pro life).   He collaborated with Akin in writing bills dealing with abortion.  However, Akin's most recent comments were more extreme than Ryan's position.   Ryan called Akin and asked him to withdraw from the Senate election in Missouri.   When questioned, Ryan replied:
 
Quote
   Rape is rape and there's no splitting hairs over rape. 

The official release from campaign headquarters:
 

Quote
Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a
Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.

Romney has moderate views about many issues, and this is the primary reason that Romney had some difficulty at first in winning  the Republican nomination even though many of his opponents were lacking.   
 
Personally I identify with the Democratic "progressive" position for some critical issues:  women's choice, gun control, reduced military, etc.  However, I am seriously concerned about the economy and the direction our country is taking.   The democrats are wrong, so my vote will be for Romney.  Add to that my belief that Obama is an "amateur" (to quote Bill Clinton) and has a darkside which he has kept under wraps, and I have no reservations about pulling the all-Republican lever.  Because Obama may be reelected, it is important that Republicans control congress.
 
Would you believe I thought about voting for Obama in 2008?   Several of my friends did.  Most of them are now anti-Obama.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 24, 2012, 07:04:33 AM
As stated above, the economy is my major immediate concern.  Over the long term, well after my ashes have been scattered, I am concerned about a) illegal immigration and b) our pandering to ethnic groups already here.  Minorities become majorities without being inculcated with American ideals and culture.   Redistribution of wealth would be just one end result.
 
Here are samples of rhetoric:

Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets; "Go back to Boston ! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die. Through love of having children, we are going to take over.

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council. "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over . . . We are here to stay."

Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico , "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas ; "We have an aging white America . They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population . . . I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."

Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, "Remember 187--proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens--was the last gasp of white America in California ."

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country . . ... I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, " California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General, "We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California ..."
Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University ; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos . . . "
 
Some European countries are further along this path than America.  What is the sentiment there?  Are you legalizing illegals?   Are you attempting to keep your traditional values.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on August 24, 2012, 07:07:13 AM
Just one shot in the back of the head for all of them. That should take care of the problem wouldn't it?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on August 24, 2012, 07:11:58 AM
Here are samples of rhetoric:
...


http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/hispanicleaders.asp


Snopes is wonderful site.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 24, 2012, 07:25:28 AM

Serious question because I don't know these people - is this the same Ryan that thinks women in miniskirts are "asking for it," who wants to introduce a bill banning abortion on any grounds, and wants to redefine rape as "forcible rape" (whatever that means?).  Or is there more than one Senator or Congressman named Ryan?


...then you should do some more reading about the issue if you are so inclined. It'll be so easy for you now since the media blitz had already begun....

Here's a good one to keep you comfy with a nice cold glass of Kool-aid by your lonesome self:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/dowd-just-think-no.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/dowd-just-think-no.html)

Plenty to choose from actually that you can dissect, grind, mince, chew, chew some more over a very silly singular word. The Libs/Media are investing millions and millions of greenbacks that more than a few more morons would bite on it and be stuck on first gear all the way to November. Just like it did back in '08. Obama is way behind the gender poll (male) and their only recourse now is 'create enough controversy, even where there isn't any, to sway the women voters and balance that line.

For many others, THERE ARE BY FAR a lot more important issues at hand. So I hope you have a good time getting to know someone as relevant to you as the Tiananmen's tank man.

Next on the list for you is (should be) to watch ABC's Special on The Mormon Church/religion that's airing at this time. And ask the same question the show asked the audience...

"Will the leader of the the Mormon church ever affect Romney's presidential decisions if elected as US president?"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on August 24, 2012, 07:38:36 AM


Plenty to choose from actually that you can dissect, grind, mince, chew, chew some more over a very silly singular word. The Libs/Media are investing millions and millions of greenbacks that more than a few more morons would bite on it and be stuck on first gear all the way to November. Just like it did back in '08. Obama is way behind the gender poll (male) and their only recourse now is 'create enough controversy, even where there isn't any, to sway the women voters and balance that line.



Right. And the Romney campaign backpedaling and spin controlling this issue has nothing to do with it?

Hot out there? Have some kool aid.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 24, 2012, 07:52:26 AM
Right. And the Romney campaign backpedaling and spin controlling this issue has nothing to do with it?

Hot out there? Have some kool aid.

So you're sucking up the rhetoric that the Republican party is attacking women and is anti-women?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 24, 2012, 08:02:50 AM
Right. And the Romney campaign backpedaling and spin controlling this issue has nothing to do with it?

Hot out there? Have some kool aid.

...and I very happily and heartily agree with them because THERE ARE FAR MORE important and pressing issue this country is facing today. LOL, even Clinton is campaigning for Obama by speaking of the decade of the '90s because even he understands there isn't much to speak of during Obama's tenure.

So read up some more on your choices of 'legitimate' articles.

No thanks on the Kool-aid...always been too smart to drink that stuff.  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on August 24, 2012, 08:19:47 AM
...then you should do some more reading about the issue if you are so inclined. It'll be so easy for you now since the media blitz had already begun....

Here's a good one to keep you comfy with a nice cold glass of Kool-aid by your lonesome self:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/dowd-just-think-no.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/dowd-just-think-no.html)

Plenty to choose from actually that you can dissect, grind, mince, chew, chew some more over a very silly singular word.

I've already seen the article.  However, I hadn't read the comments attached.  I've now looked at the first 50 or so, and am totally depressed as a result.
 
Kool-aid? I don't think it's available here - I thought it was for sale only in Jonestown.
 
Which very silly singular word are you talking about?  Abortion, or something else?
 
For many others, THERE ARE BY FAR a lot more important issues at hand. So I hope you have a good time getting to know someone as relevant to you as the Tiananmen's tank man.

How many times do you Americans (even the naturalised ones) tell the rest of us that you rule the world?  If that's the case, then your Vice-President is actually relevant to all of us.  As for the "tank man," he was relevant to the whole world for the way he stood up to the oppression symbolised by that piece of machinery.

Next on the list for you is (should be) to watch ABC's Special on The Mormon Church/religion that's airing at this time. And ask the same question the show asked the audience...

"Will the leader of the the Mormon church ever affect Romney's presidential decisions if elected as US president?"

I'll gladly watch it if it ever comes to this part of the world, to one country (at least) where the Church has absolutely no influence at all in political decision-making.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 24, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
In an attempt to find the meaning of 'legitimate rape' I found this site...

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/08/the-legal-definition-of-legitimate-rape/

Had some interesting articles.

Gaffs? Here is when the prez really soured me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74DLaFkOP88

Maureen Dowd is wrong.
This is typical ..someone even questions an abortion issue and they are branded as a narrow minded, radically  religious, war against women cretin.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on August 24, 2012, 10:50:58 AM
So you're sucking up the rhetoric that the Republican party is attacking women and is anti-women?

FP, I didn't say anything.

It was the elected Republicans who did.

Edit to add: Ask any woman out there how they feel lately with the comments coming from the Republican campaign.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 24, 2012, 10:54:21 AM
The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate....
1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aX6T--U8Ll8) TARP.
2. Mitt Romney supported (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38) Barack Obama's "economic stimulus" packages.
3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama's bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea (http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-takes-credit-for-the-auto-bailout-say-what/).
4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/there-is-not-going-to-be-a-solution-to-our-economic-problems-on-the-national-level).
5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/16-reasons-why-mitt-romney-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president) of being big spenders (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/17-reasons-why-a-vote-for-mitt-romney-is-a-vote-for-the-new-world-order) while in office.
6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.
7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38) as saying that the president should not question the "independence" of the Federal Reserve.
8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38) during the last financial crisis.
9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38) that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.
10. Both candidates oppose (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_Federal_Reserve/) a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
11. Both candidates are on record (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-Geithner-TARP-Republican/2012/01/31/id/426118) as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.
12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38).
13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/16-reasons-why-mitt-romney-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president).
14. Wall Street absolutely showers (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/top-mitt-romney-donors-update) both candidates with campaign contributions.
15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.
16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-tax-rates-low-2012-7) for the vast majority of Americans.
17. Both candidates are "open" to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/27/romney-and-the-vat/) on the American people.
18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.
19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38) the NDAA.
20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38) the renewal of the Patriot Act.
21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.
22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/29/us/election-news/candidates-on-executive-power.html).
23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/romney-2008-close-guantanamo-no-double-guan) the number of prisoners held there.
24. Both candidates support (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Homeland_Security/) the practice of "extraordinary rendition".
25. They both support (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/there-is-not-going-to-be-a-solution-to-our-economic-problems-on-the-national-level) the job-killing "free trade" agenda of the global elite.
26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.
27. Both candidates are extremely soft (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/#.UCwEk6PN2Q5) on illegal immigration.
28. Neither candidate has any military experience.  This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944 (http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150795727/are-obama-and-romney-the-same-guy).
29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University (http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150795727/are-obama-and-romney-the-same-guy).
30. They both believe (http://blog.algore.com/2011/06/good_for_mitt_romney_though_we.html) in the theory of man-made global warming.
31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAGpLOKtQDA).
32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IWDJEc92d38).
33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers.  Mitt Romney's "conversion" to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many.  In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec) on Bain Capital's investment in a company called "Stericycle" that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.
34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/barack-obama-boy-scouts-gays-mitt-romney-/1#.UCrgkaPN2Q4) that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.
35. They both believe that a "two state solution" will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/romney_jurist_picks_not_tilted_to_gop/).
37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add "signing statements (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/29/us/election-news/candidates-on-executive-power.html)" to bills when he signs them into law.
38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation (http://www.romneyexposed.com/2011/06/20/an-open-letter-about-mitt-romney-from-conservatives/).
39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress (http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/romney-president-has-power-act-unilat).
40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/category/u-s-government-debt).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 24, 2012, 11:13:06 AM
FP, I didn't say anything.

It was the elected Republicans who did.

Edit to add: Ask any woman out there how they feel lately with the comments coming from the Republican campaign.

Muzh,

Now I know you to be an intelligent, stand up guy albeit far leaning left and I believe you'll speak your mind and truthful. However, if you are biting on that tidbit of hyperbole from the Obama campaign, I'd think you were drinking up the kool-aid. Seriously.

There are nuts and crack pots on both sides of the isle but the attempt to lend Akins remarks to the Romney plan or the Republican party is akin (pun intended) saying all Democrats are Anthony Weiners  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 24, 2012, 11:24:30 AM
...... is akin (pun intended) saying all Democrats are Anthony Weiners  :D

.... is akin (pun intended) saying all Democrats are Anthony Weiners Teddy Kennedys.  :D
 
GOB
 
PS... The liberal media still calls vehicular manslaughter an "incident".  :rolleyes:

 
Chappaquiddick incident
 Main article: Chappaquiddick incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident)  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/54/Mary_Jo_Kopechne.jpg/115px-Mary_Jo_Kopechne.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Jo_Kopechne.jpg)  (http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf9/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Jo_Kopechne.jpg)Mary Jo Kopechne On the night of July 18, 1969, Kennedy was on Martha's Vineyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha%27s_Vineyard)'s Chappaquiddick Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_Island) at a party he gave for the "Boiler Room Girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler_Room_Girls)", a group of young women who had worked on his brother Robert's presidential campaign the year before.[53] Kennedy left the party, driving a 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Delmont_88#1965.E2.80.9368) with one of the women, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne), and later drove off Dike Bridge into the Poucha Pond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poucha_Pond) inlet, a tidal channel on Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy escaped the overturned vehicle, and, by his description, dove below the surface seven or eight times, vainly attempting to reach Kopechne. Ultimately, he swam to shore and left the scene. He contacted authorities the next morning, but Kopechne's body had already been discovered.[53]
On July 25, Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and was given a sentence of two months in jail, suspended (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_sentence).[53] That night, he gave a national broadcast in which he said, "I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the police immediately," but denied driving under the influence of alcohol and denied any immoral conduct between him and Kopechne.[53] Kennedy asked the Massachusetts electorate whether he should stay in office or resign, after getting a favorable response in messages sent to him, announced on July 30 that he would remain in the Senate and run for re-election the next year.[58]
In January 1970, an inquest into Kopechne's death was held in Edgartown, Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgartown,_Massachusetts).[53] At the request of Kennedy's lawyers, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Supreme_Judicial_Court) ordered the inquest be conducted in secret.[53][59][60] The presiding judge, James A. Boyle, concluded that some aspects of Kennedy's story of that night were not true, and that negligent driving "appears to have contributed to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne".[60] A grand jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury) on Martha's Vineyard conducted a two-day investigation in April 1970 but issued no indictment, after which Boyle made his inquest report public.[53] Kennedy deemed its conclusions "not justified".[53] Questions about the Chappaquiddick incident generated a large number of articles and books over the next several years.[61]
Kennedy easily won re-election to another term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_1970) in the Senate in November 1970 with 62 percent of the vote against underfunded Republican candidate Josiah Spaulding, although he received about 500,000 fewer votes than in 1964.[61]
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 24, 2012, 12:20:51 PM
Make no mistake, the bloodletting will have to commence at some point. The day of reckoning will happen. When it does happen, we need to do it from a position of fiscal strength and responsibility rather than bankruptcy. Greece can get bailed out from it's irresponsibilty because it's economy is insignificant. America will have no where to turn. Do you not see the urgency here?

Yes, and logic dictates the fiscal 'haircut' should begin at the top, where it hurts least.  Greece is a pimple on the world's arse.. of little economic consequence... but still it makes the markets shake... why is that?

Greece a problem?... yes officially... but reflect... in the majority of the PIIGS no one pays anywhere near the amount of taxes that are really due.  The 'black' segment of their economies, not reflected in 'official' GDP figures is staggering....   It's more like FSU than anything north of Switzerland and west of the Atlantic.  I go to the local butcher and buy 50 EUR of meat...  guess what the bill says.. 20 EUR.  Think it doesn't happen in Greece?  LOL

Greece's debt has been 'shaved' in half or more.. and the money is still rolling in to cover the rest.

Yeah, life is tough but I tell you what... go anywhere near the Med with a pocket full of cash and see what happens.... you'll be happy to leave with a shirt.  The saving grace of the South is that nobody wanted to lend them money anyway.. and that put them in decent position today.  No credit is much better than bad credit.  So is living within your means however difficult that may be.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 24, 2012, 12:22:39 PM
...How many times do you Americans (even the naturalised ones) tell the rest of us that you rule the world?...

OY! There goes the proverbial deep-seeded pesky pebble again, LOL! How many times? My guess is 'zero' so I'm resigned to suggest that's likely just a self-induced paranoia. Do you see dead people, too?
 
You should see someone about that. It could turn into a wart, you know.
 
As for the rest of your rant, try it with some Dems over a cold picther of Kool-Aid. I personally don't have the time or the interest. I've better things to do with my time, you know.
 
 ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 24, 2012, 12:54:31 PM
Oh and btw... one of the best gifts you can give a child is to help them learn multiple languages.

Out of 5 kids

2 bilingual
3 trilingual
Wife trilingual
In my lifetime have spoken French(my first language), Italian, Spanish, German, English a decent portion of Russian and smattering of Turkish.

I see it this way..  Each language learned opens the door to to millions of new friends and business partners.

Without multi language skills, I would still be pumping gas... oops... in the US there are no full service pumps anymore... or?

Obama is right.. even within the RW world we talk about communication being key..  is it not so in business?

Think about it.

For the naysayers.. keep thinking the old ways...

Allegedly, a Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich overheard the following:
Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English."
Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on August 24, 2012, 01:15:13 PM
I can't clearly understand the war of Democrats versus Republicans. It's like you have a choice between the Plague and AIDS. When will you understand they are all of the elite and will screw the public, no matter who is president now or later.
 
Last time you were tired of the bad press Bush baby made and went for hope and glory with Obama. Then the hope, that was never specified, went out the window with more wars and executive imprisonment and torture policies and now you set your hopes for a billionaire who is a Mormon which is a religion of hate against the USA and in support of the English rule? And a religion that hates blacks to top it off.
 
And none of this is in the media. Only that Romney is a billionaire and an asset stripper and knows economics. Haha. Yeah, vote for this poster boy and get what you deserve! Is it only in the USA that the poor loves the rich parasites, or what?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 24, 2012, 01:29:59 PM
There is both bad and good about two term limitations on the Presidency... much about the first term is about getting re-elected and the second term one can show balls and go for broke.

The 'home game' advantage is hard to break.. Reps.. your next chance is 2016.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 24, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I can't clearly understand the war of Democrats versus Republicans. It's like you have a choice between the Plague and AIDS. When will you understand they are all of the elite and will screw the public, no matter who is president now or later.

Natural,

You have to understand that the US is still a divided country.  In each town there are boundaries, mostly along racial, ethnic and economic lines.  These lines divide school and election districts.  The contrast is simply too stark, and unfortunately pervasive.  The 'melting pot' is filled with ice cubes and no one wants to tender the fire.

One of the most frequent questions when meeting someone new in the US is 'Where do you live'.....  why is that?

I don't know much at all about Norway, but is that question of great importance other than to figure out which is better 'your place or my place'?

In Europe I rarely see those boundaries and If I do, it's mostly economic as in public housing areas hosting a wide mix of peoples.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on August 24, 2012, 02:01:57 PM
Natural,

You have to understand that the US is still a divided country.  In each town there are boundaries, mostly along racial, ethnic and economic lines.  These lines divide school and election districts.  The contrast is simply too stark, and unfortunately pervasive.  The 'melting pot' is filled with ice cubes and no one wants to tender the fire.

One of the most frequent questions when meeting someone new in the US is 'Where do you live'.....  why is that?

I don't know much at all about Norway, but is that question of great importance other than to figure out which is better 'your place or my place'?

In Europe I rarely see those boundaries and If I do, it's mostly economic as in public housing areas hosting a wide mix of peoples.
'
¨'¨
I suppose divisions are everywhere, but how to explain the red team and the blue team when both teams are screwing you? And... in any case someone thinks this only happens in the US, it doesn't. In my own country we have a labour party and they are all for the EU and then there is the opposition party who apparently is on the right side and they are also... for the EU!
 
I don't really know enough of what you are saying when it comes to politics, what part of a country or what group wins out. Power tends to be circulated in capitols I guess but we have ways to counteract this in a relatively vibrant democracy. But with more centralization and globalization that is in danger. May I need to point out that I, living on the northern outskirts of a tiny country on the very north of the world, does NOT want any further centralization?
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 24, 2012, 02:05:03 PM
Natural,

You have to understand that the US is still a divided country.  In each town there are boundaries, mostly along racial, ethnic and economic lines.  These lines divide school and election districts.  The contrast is simply too stark, and unfortunately pervasive.  The 'melting pot' is filled with ice cubes and no one wants to tender the fire.

One of the most frequent questions when meeting someone new in the US is 'Where do you live'.....  why is that?

I don't know much at all about Norway, but is that question of great importance other than to figure out which is better 'your place or my place'?

In Europe I rarely see those boundaries and If I do, it's mostly economic as in public housing areas hosting a wide mix of peoples.

You almost echoed Jacque Chirac's statement. Then a riot broke out in his backyard, LOL.

Yup. It's all good.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 24, 2012, 02:13:47 PM
You almost echoed Jacque Chirac's statement. Then a riot broke out in his backyard, LOL.

Yup. It's all good.

Indeed a good example GQ.

Germany does a lot better by distributing immigrant populations.  Example when the influx of ethnic Germans first returned from FSU they were basically assigned places to live in towns strewn across Germany and not some huge centralized housing complex.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 24, 2012, 02:21:07 PM
Oh...

And why is it when I was living in the US, I noted that Mr. Black was usually white and Mr. White was usually black.

To this day that remains a mystery.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 24, 2012, 02:56:02 PM
Oh...

And why is it when I was living in the US, I noted that Mr. Black was usually white and Mr. White was usually black.

To this day that remains a mystery.

Which reminded me when I first arrived here and noticed how Black folks carried the same Anglo surname as everyone else, so I asked and got the answer..but like your Q, no one seem to have answer to my other Q either...how is it Tarzan doesn't have a beard?  :P
 
Anyway. I'm not much into polls, but to put 'some' perspective as to the division within our social-politico at large, here's a nice little read:
 
http://tracysright.com/telling-poll-results-about-uncle-sam-republicans-say-leave-me-alone-dems-lend-me-a-hand/ (http://tracysright.com/telling-poll-results-about-uncle-sam-republicans-say-leave-me-alone-dems-lend-me-a-hand/)
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 24, 2012, 03:03:32 PM
I can't clearly understand the war of Democrats versus Republicans. It's like you have a choice between the Plague and AIDS. When will you understand they are all of the elite and will screw the public, no matter who is president now or later.
 
Last time you were tired of the bad press Bush baby made and went for hope and glory with Obama. Then the hope, that was never specified, went out the window with more wars and executive imprisonment and torture policies and now you set your hopes for a billionaire who is a Mormon which is a religion of hate against the USA and in support of the English rule? And a religion that hates blacks to top it off.
 
And none of this is in the media. Only that Romney is a billionaire and an asset stripper and knows economics. Haha. Yeah, vote for this poster boy and get what you deserve! Is it only in the USA that the poor loves the rich parasites, or what?


You are a very bright guy. Obama is a disaster. With Romney we have a hope for change. We can project our hopes on Romney then vote for him for that reason. Then maybe if he is elected he'll put aside his desire to get reelected and do the necessary painful surgery America needs. Like BC said, let America throw up and get the poison out. No more kicking the can down the road with quantitive easing. No more banker bailouts. No more giving the big boys a pass on their financial fraud. No more trying to maintain the American Empire abroad. Just let the whole bloody thing collapse. Then maybe Romney will lead us to a solid rebuild, a restructuring of America. We can hope Romney will have a backbone of steel and not be a flip flopper. We can hope for change.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 24, 2012, 03:40:16 PM

Anyway. I'm not much into polls, but to put 'some' perspective as to the division within our social-politico at large, here's a nice little read:
 
http://tracysright.com/telling-poll-results-about-uncle-sam-republicans-say-leave-me-alone-dems-lend-me-a-hand/ (http://tracysright.com/telling-poll-results-about-uncle-sam-republicans-say-leave-me-alone-dems-lend-me-a-hand/)

One of the first questions I would ask is nowadays how many either dem or rep, rich or poor still have their telephone numbers listed.

Quote
The Fox News poll is based on live telephone interviews on landlines and cell phones from August 19 to August 21 among 1,007 randomly-chosen likely voters nationwide.

I don't trust that 3% at all.. Over the years I have seen my telephone book dwindle down to the thickness of a Newsweek magazine.  Include unsolicited call blocks and I wonder whether or not telephone polls are anywhere near the level required to be 'statistically valid'.

The only statistics that will truly count are those published early in the morning of Nov 7th.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 24, 2012, 03:57:27 PM



Pat Buchanan:
Quote
The GOP's insoluble problem is that the multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual country they created with their open borders appears not to like the brand of dog food the party sells.

[/size]
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on August 24, 2012, 04:45:08 PM

You are a very bright guy. Obama is a disaster. then vote for him for that reason. Then maybe if he is elected he'll put aside his desire to get reelected and do the necessary painful surgery America neWith Romney we have a hope for change. We can project our hopes on Romney eds. Like BC said, let America throw up and get the poison out. No more kicking the can down the road with quantitive easing. No more banker bailouts. No more giving the big boys a pass on their financial fraud. No more trying to maintain the American Empire abroad. Just let the whole bloody thing collapse. Then maybe Romney will lead us to a solid rebuild, a restructuring of America. We can hope Romney will have a backbone of steel and not be a flip flopper. We can hope for change.

Please I pray, let this be a cunning clever sense of humour for the intelligent!!!! Did anyone remember when last time I warned about Obama? Romney is much worse. You have a few very (extremely) intelligent people in the US. Why not use their insights?
 
Seriously Maxxx, do you hope that Romney will do any difference for the Average Joe?
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on August 24, 2012, 06:17:16 PM
Each language learned opens the door to to millions of new friends and business partners.

Without multi language skills, I would still be pumping gas... oops... in the US there are no full service pumps anymore... or?

To tell the 180 degree story.  I have been traveling outside USA for business for close to 20 years in nearly 30 countries.  I have zero language skills outside of English.  Has never been a problem for me.

If the other side has no English skills . . . I simply say next, and go on about my business.

English is the language of business around the globe.

And . . . I have more than enough (probably too many) friends in these foreign countries.
Title: Mitt VS Obama
Post by: tfcrew on August 24, 2012, 06:21:28 PM
 
Quote
Fear and Loathing in Tampa: Your Gonzo Guide to the Republican National Convention



   By Michael E. Miller (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/authors/michael-e-miller) Thursday, Aug 23 2012   
Quote
...... unbelievers will be confined like cattle to designated protest zones. There will be Black Bloc anarchists, Code Pink (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/related/to/CODEPINK/) soccer moms dressed as giant vaginas, a poor people's camp called Romneyville, and tens of thousands of Ron Paul (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/related/to/Ron+Paul/) fanatics descending like libertarian locusts to devour whatever scraps their septuagenarian savior tosses them. Barred by city officials from bringing masks, puppets, or tricycles, the malcontents will be surrounded by 4,000 heavily armed police —

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-08-23/news/republican-national-convention-2012-fear-and-loathing-in-tampa/ (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-08-23/news/republican-national-convention-2012-fear-and-loathing-in-tampa/)



















Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on August 24, 2012, 06:36:36 PM
I can't clearly understand the war of Democrats versus Republicans. It's like you have a choice between the Plague and AIDS. When will you understand they are all of the elite and will screw the public, no matter who is president now or later.

 Is it only in the USA that the poor loves the rich parasites, or what?

Reidar, you have a very bad misconception about the situation in USA.
But your conception is common with people throughout Europe which has a history of Royalty and a history of job placement and promotions based on connections rather than performance.

Our leaders, by and large, are not from the elites or very old money.  Sure there are some, but they are outweighed by those who came up from quite ordinary or even humble beginnings.  Unfortunately, too many of them have chosen the lawyer route to achieve their education and election to public office.

There is no screwing over the public by wealthy elites.
There is screwing over the successful members of society by leaders who wish to take from those who have worked hard and redistribute to those who are not ambitious.

As I posted earlier in this thread:

25% of the people paid 87.3% of the Federal Income taxes.

That means 75% of the people only paid the remaining 12.7%
You think these 75% are going to vote to change this?

These (and similar figures for different years) figures can be found on dozens of Federal and Independent websites such as:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0 (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0)

Yes, the poor here in USA do love the rich.  Because from the efforts of these rich, they are the ones who can be the parasites.

And lest anyone think otherwise about my elitism or advantages . . . my father completed 3rd grade and my mother completed 8th grade.  I grew up dirt poor and got handouts from no one.  Our extensive welfare system did not exist in my childhood.

My enormous income tax payments now go to support my childhood acquaintances who led a very calm and fun filled life of beer drinking and drag strip racing.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on August 24, 2012, 06:56:45 PM

You have to understand that the US is still a divided country.  In each town there are boundaries, mostly along racial, ethnic and economic lines.  These lines divide school and election districts.  The contrast is simply too stark, and unfortunately pervasive.  The 'melting pot' is filled with ice cubes and no one wants to tender the fire.

I see none of this division that you talk about.
In my daily life here I interact with many people from many walks of life and economic situations.
I never feel, nor sense any divisions such as those you speak of.
Quite often in the house I am spending most time in now, it is even  hard to determine the income levels of people if you see them outside their home or work.

I show up at the farmer's market driving my 1996 small size base model pickup that is pretty banged up from timbering and wood cutting operations, hauling landscape materials, etc. . . . and buy items from people with few teeth driving the latest model full size pickup truck with all the options.

Other times I drive around in my luxury car or sports car.  I never notice any difference in my treatment from anyone.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on August 24, 2012, 06:59:24 PM

And why is it when I was living in the US, I noted that Mr. Black was usually white and Mr. White was usually black.

To this day that remains a mystery.

In my childhood hometown there were few blacks.  But of those, many of them lived on White Avenue.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 24, 2012, 07:15:16 PM

Please I pray, let this be a cunning clever sense of humour for the intelligent!!!! Did anyone remember when last time I warned about Obama? Romney is much worse. You have a few very (extremely) intelligent people in the US. Why not use their insights?
 
Seriously Maxxx, do you hope that Romney will do any difference for the Average Joe?


This best illustrates what I believe is America


(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k131/Maxx_1953/shit-creek1.jpg)


Obama and Romney are in the car with the license plate of "1PCT". I see me, tfcrew, GQ, Good 'ol Boy, ML, FP and Muzh in the little boats. Neither Romney or Obama have any inclination to shut off the sewer pipes much less any plan to deal with the debt storm.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 24, 2012, 07:20:59 PM

Obama and Romney are in the car with the license plate of "1PCT". I see me, tfcrew, GQ, Good 'ol Boy, ML, FP and Muzh in the little boats. Neither Romney or Obama have any inclination to shut off the sewer pipes much less any plan to deal with the debt storm.

Yeah, but I don't see the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd Max?  :rolleyes:
 
Where are they?
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on August 24, 2012, 08:11:59 PM

Yeah, but I don't see the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd Max?  :rolleyes:
 
Where are they?
 
GOB


There in the little boats further upstream. Hopefully they will get educated that it's the sewer pipes that need stopping and vote for Ron Paul! in 2016.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on August 24, 2012, 08:33:59 PM
I'm sorry to say I see no individual in the US that can save the day, either in 2012 or 216. I used to think Ron Paul was the answer. That was until I was made aware of his answer to the bad economy by cutting a measly 15% off the Pentagon, same as Obama, and let the poor take most of it with a 64% haircut on food stamps and big cuts to programs to feed poor infants. Good luck to the members here selling themselves to Russians girls with life values like that!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 24, 2012, 09:11:53 PM
I'm sorry to say I see no individual in the US that can save the day, either in 2012 or 216. I used to think Ron Paul was the answer. That was until I was made aware of his answer to the bad economy by cutting a measly 15% off the Pentagon, same as Obama, and let the poor take most of it with a 64% haircut on food stamps and big cuts to programs to feed poor infants. Good luck to the members here selling themselves to Russians girls with life values like that!

You just seem to not get it!  We in the U.S. do not want big government and a large welfare state.  Get it?

Perhaps selling our "life values" to Russian girls will include the idea of her giving food to the needy from our kitchen rather than letting the government give it to the illegals and lazies from our paychecks.

I have no desire to influence your country to change your views to match ours.  You can have whatever system you like.  Perhaps your pacifist attitude toward a strong military will come around to bite you in the ass in the future.  Who will save you this time?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 24, 2012, 09:18:27 PM
I'm sorry to say I see no individual in the US that can save the day, either in 2012 or 216. I used to think Ron Paul was the answer. That was until I was made aware of his answer to the bad economy by cutting a measly 15% off the Pentagon, same as Obama, and let the poor take most of it with a 64% haircut on food stamps and big cuts to programs to feed poor infants. Good luck to the members here selling themselves to Russians girls with life values like that!

Roy, I am afraid while some of what you state is true to an extent, you are missing the boat. Ron Paul is a bit of a quack but with some general good ideas. Which in essence is, stop being a super power, expansionism, dilly dallying in the affairs of other nations and paying them for the privilage of doing so. Basically, start cutting the hair where it does not affect us. Stop with the wasting of federal funds at home and living within our means. All excellent ideas IMHO. He's just not the ideal front man to present it and the libertarian party ideals does not dovetail with the two major parties. Our values are not much different than yours. Your expectations of our country from where you sit are much different from ours.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on August 25, 2012, 03:24:34 AM
You just seem to not get it!  We in the U.S. do not want big government and a large welfare state.  Get it?

Well it depends on which "We in the U.S." you are talking about.   The ever growing number of those who feel the government owes them a living is quite happy to have big government and a large welfare state. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on August 25, 2012, 04:34:14 AM
You just seem to not get it!  We in the U.S. do not want big government and a large welfare state.  Get it?

So the masses of the US cries out for austerity measures for themselves then? Well, that is exactly what you're gonna get. It's all nice and dandy to talk tough when you're in good health and have a decent job. But what if something happened and you find yourself in need of help from others? Being the rugged individual who talk togh, I suppose you will then rather go into the woods and die, so as not to burden the mini state with no funds that you support so much?
 

Perhaps selling our "life values" to Russian girls will include the idea of her giving food to the needy from our kitchen rather than letting the government give it to the illegals and lazies from our paychecks.

I hope you have a really big kitchen. By the way, how many poor people have you fed lately?
 

I have no desire to influence your country to change your views to match ours.  You can have whatever system you like.  Perhaps your pacifist attitude toward a strong military will come around to bite you in the ass in the future.  Who will save you this time?

Pacifist because I'm against attacks on nation states like Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia etc? Hahaha. Oh, how silly of me to not support the troops that bring democracy to all corners of the earth. How about a little Arab spring in Saudi-Arabia? Why is that not on the agenda do you think?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on August 25, 2012, 05:07:40 AM
... Perhaps your pacifist attitude toward a strong military will come around to bite you in the ass in the future.  Who will save you this time?

Huh?  Try reading some history, Doug.  As far as I'm aware, the USA never had any presence in Norway during the Second World War.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on August 25, 2012, 05:49:02 AM
Is it only in the USA that the poor loves the rich parasites, or what?

in the usa, the rich are generally the hosts.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on August 25, 2012, 06:10:06 AM

You have to understand that the US is still a divided country.  In each town there are boundaries, mostly along racial, ethnic and economic lines.  These lines divide school and election districts.  The contrast is simply too stark, and unfortunately pervasive.  The 'melting pot' is filled with ice cubes and no one wants to tender the fire.

One of the most frequent questions when meeting someone new in the US is 'Where do you live'.....  why is that?

I don't know much at all about Norway, but is that question of great importance other than to figure out which is better 'your place or my place'?

In Europe I rarely see those boundaries and If I do, it's mostly economic as in public housing areas hosting a wide mix of peoples.

why beat around the bush?  let's talk plainly...

poor black areas are very distinct.  if not for those, i would say the usa is very well mixed.

and does it make me a racist for wanting to live as far from those neighborhoods as possible?  what is the first thing that any poor black does after he achieves success?  he gets himself away from the hood, too.  those areas are some of the most dangerous in the world.  and if you'd like to experience some real hatred and racism, try walking thru one of those neighborhoods, white boy - if you've got the stones.

and the old 'where did you go to high school?' or 'where did you grow up?' question is the standard lead-in to finding someone that you know in common.  only a person with a serious chip on his shoulder would be offended by that question.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 25, 2012, 06:41:54 AM
what is the first thing that any poor black does after he achieves success?  he gets himself away from the hood, too.

And if they don't get far enough away from the hood (Liberty City and Overtown) in Miami, then this is usually what happens to them:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Taylor)

"Taylor died at the age of 24 on November 27, 2007, from critical injuries from gunshots by intruders at his Miami area home."
 
GOB
 
Liberty City: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_City)
 
Overtown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09SVYZ0vZWg
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 25, 2012, 06:56:36 AM
This is also the reason why GOB's wife legally carries a 9mm Berreta in her pocketbook.  8)
 
GOB

Same model pistol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POrmdriaNJA

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 25, 2012, 09:52:15 AM
This is also the reason why GOB's wife legally carries a 9mm Berreta in her pocketbook.  8)
 
GOB

Same model pistol:


Women generally are very good at hitting the target. When I let my wife shoot my hand gun for the first time she was hitting the target almost as good as me in about 10 minutes!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on August 25, 2012, 11:22:09 AM

Yeah, but I don't see the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd 
 
Where are they?
 
 
They didn't have any boats.
Title: Mitt VS Obama
Post by: tfcrew on August 25, 2012, 11:35:30 AM
   


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Z6QOscKvUjU&NR=1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on August 27, 2012, 06:30:53 AM
Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
 
The sad fact is that those lusting for power could care less if it's done under the guise of democracy, fascism, socialism, or communism.
 
The result is always the same: the obliteration of freedom, the loss of life and untold human suffering.
 
While a selected ruling class sits high up on their perches looking down on the plebes.
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 27, 2012, 07:46:20 AM
Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
 
The sad fact is that those lusting for power could care less if it's done under the guise of democracy, fascism, socialism, or communism.
 
The result is always the same: the obliteration of freedom, the loss of life and untold human suffering.
 
While a selected ruling class sits high up on their perches looking down on the plebes.
 
GOB
It's true, GOB, however in the second half of the 20th century Western Democracies (USA, Canada and Western European countries) achieved a high standart of living where even people who lived in "poverty" by Western standarts would be considered "rich" by people living in Third World countries. Something to think about.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 27, 2012, 10:02:41 PM
I actually took the time to watch CNN tonight. This is what I got out of their telecast...

1. Give it up. Isaac is a storm. Your prayers to turn it into a hurricane is failing miserably..

2. Romney Revealed special had made me a bit more favorable of him albeit cautiously. I will however say that I am very impressed in the manner he's held his family life close to his heart as I am also impressed with his business / management resume.

3. Way to go Marco Rubio in the way you handled Wolf Blitzer!! Wolf tried to bait you so many times only to come out looking like a stooge. I wish there will be a position for you in DC after the election!

4. CNN's comical biased reporting is in full motion.

5. The economy should be the main focus in this election. Bar none.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 27, 2012, 10:07:21 PM
I actually took the time to watch CNN tonight. This is what I got out of their telecast...

1. Give it up. Isaac is a storm. Your prayers to turn it into a hurricane is failing miserably..

2. Romney Revealed special had made me a bit more favorable of him albeit cautiously. I will however say that I am very impressed in the manner he's held his family life close to his heart as I am also impressed with his business / management resume.

3. Way to go Marco Rubio in the way you handled Wolf Blitzer!! Wolf tried to bait you so many times only to come out looking like a stooge. I wish there will be a position for you in DC after the election!

4. CNN's comical biased reporting is in full motion.

5. The economy should be the main focus in this election. Bar none.

+1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 30, 2012, 08:44:49 PM

Just finished watching the RNC - WOW!!! Very inspirational! Ryan's speech was wonderful, Rubio's was awesome - a tear jerker, Clint Eastwood's funny as hell (great to see that not every one in Hollywood is a pinko-lefty). And Romney was great too. As an immigrant/refugee from the USSR who embraced freedom this country afforded me I really identify with everything I heard and I was deeply touched by many things I heard during the speeches from the above mentioned leaders. I hope and pray that many people who watched this RNC feel the same and will vote for Mitt Romney and for Mr. Obama to hit the road (Jack and don 't you come back no more...) Let him live out "The dream from his [communist] father" somewhere else. When I escaped the USSR and came to this country I felt free for the first time in my life and I want my daughters to inherit the same country, the same America that I've learned to love and respect.
Please people, vote this November and vote for Romney! Let's save this wonderful, exceptional country!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on August 30, 2012, 09:02:29 PM
Just finished watching the RNC - WOW!!! Very inspirational!...When I escaped the USSR and came to this country I felt free for the first time in my life and I want my daughters to inherit the same country, the same America that I've learned to love and respect.
Please people, vote this November and vote for Romney! Let's save this wonderful, exceptional country!

This is a paid political broadcast on behalf of the Republican Party  :usd: :naughty:
 
Surely by now this topic has wandered so far away from the Terms of Service that it should die its own death!  Seriously, what have these last few posts got to do with the aims of RWD?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 30, 2012, 09:08:50 PM
Just finished watching the RNC - WOW!!! Very inspirational! Ryan's speech was wonderful, Rubio's was awesome - a tear jerker, Clint Eastwood's funny as hell (great to see that not every one in Hollywood is a pinko-lefty). And Romney was great too. As an immigrant/refugee from the USSR who embraced freedom this country afforded me I really identify with everything I heard and I was deeply touched by many things I heard during the speeches from the above mentioned leaders. I hope and pray that many people who watched this RNC feel the same and will vote for Mitt Romney and for Mr. Obama to hit the road (Jack and don 't you come back no more...) Let him live out "The dream from his [commie] father somewhere else. When I came to this country I felt free for the first time in my life and I want my daughters to inherit the same country, the same America that I've learned to love and respect.


I watched it also and was very impressed.  Clearly there is a much better defined choice in this election that we have had in the past.   Like GOB, I had given up on either party providing a plan that would return America to the greatest country in the world and restore our freedoms that have been whittled away over past administrations.

The only questions I have about Romney/Ryan is whether they will promote legislation that favors Wall Street vs. the blue collar/middle America segment of our population.  It is also disappointing that he did not explain that investment bankers like Bain sometimes have to consolidate and/or close companies for any of them to survive.  The Obama rhetoric has been powerful in making people think that investors should keep failing companies open to save the jobs at those companies.  The reality is that investment firms often will consolidate failing companies/ purchasing market shares, etc. can keep an industry alive that would otherwise fail.  The democrats want to pray on the sympathies of our hearts while avoiding the realistic fundamentals of a free enterprise system.

It is refreshing that Romney/Ryan does not want to move in the direction of Europe and more socialism.  It is clear that Obama wants to go in this direction.  More government, more socialism, etc.

The real question is whether Romney can deliver on his promises better than Obama has done on his?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 30, 2012, 09:11:48 PM

This is a paid political broadcast on behalf of the Republican Party  :usd: :naughty:
 
Surely by now this topic has wandered so far away from the Terms of Service that it should die its own death!  Seriously, what have these last few posts got to do with the aims of RWD?

Since the forum is very broad in its appeal,  not all topics are of interest to everyone.  Since you are not American you have the option of ignoring this thread and live in your own world and not be concerned with the politics of the USA!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on August 30, 2012, 09:21:04 PM
Since the forum is very broad in its appeal,  not all topics are of interest to everyone.  Since you are not American you have the option of ignoring this thread and live in your own world and not be concerned with the politics of the USA!

If only that were true!  However, Doug, you're missing my point, which is that such specific politicising is against the Terms of Service to which we all agreed when we joined (even if some people didn't actually read all the fine print  :D ).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 30, 2012, 09:36:27 PM
The real question is whether Romney can deliver on his promises better than Obama has done on his?
do you really have to ask, Doug? If the media didn't conspire to elect Obama and he would have been properly vetted he would have never been elected in the first place IMO. He was given a free pass. Now that we know some of his background, who his mentors, his spiritual guides his associates and friends were, and his experience (or more like the lack thereof) no one should be surprised at where this country is at 4 years later, economically and politically speaking.
Unlike pres. Obama, Romney's ideology wasn't formed by communists, anti-colonialists, America-haters and socialists. He is a successful businessman who understands that free market economy is what made this country great in the first place and that moving it toward socialism, more debt, more entitlements more regulations and more policies from the left is not going to make things improve.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Mod2 on August 30, 2012, 10:06:27 PM

If only that were true!  However, Doug, you're missing my point, which is that such specific politicising is against the Terms of Service to which we all agreed when we joined (even if some people didn't actually read all the fine print  :D ).


Moderators and Advisors did discuss this point when the thread started.  Consensus was that as long as discourse remains civil, an exception would be in order this election year, as a test and only in this thread.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 30, 2012, 10:17:19 PM

Moderators and Advisors did discuss this point when the thread started.  Consensus was that as long as discourse remains civil, an exception would be in order this election year, as a test and only in this thread.

Thank you!   This is one of the most important elections in our countries history.  It will determine if we move to the socialist left or move back to freedom and individual resonsibility.  We know the history of  socialism.  Our choice is whether we think the individual is resonsibe for their own future or whether we should embrace the 'collective' that has failed over most of the world.   For those not in the USA, we can still respect your views.  It  does not mean that we embrace them.  The world is large enough to have different views and be able to evaluate the performance of various governments and economic systems.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 30, 2012, 10:43:26 PM

This is a paid political broadcast on behalf of the Republican Party  :usd: :naughty:
 
Surely by now this topic has wandered so far away from the Terms of Service that it should die its own death!  Seriously, what have these last few posts got to do with the aims of RWD?

This is the "cultural and political events" section of the forum. You've posted your beliefs, are those the only beliefs that should be allowed?  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 30, 2012, 10:49:08 PM
Thank you!   This is one of the most important elections in our countries history.  It will determine if we move to the socialist left or move back to freedom and individual resonsibility.  We know the history of  socialism.  Our choice is whether we think the individual is resonsibe for their own future or whether we should embrace the 'collective' that has failed over most of the world.   For those not in the USA, we can still respect your views.  It  does not mean that we embrace them.  The world is large enough to have different views and be able to evaluate the performance of various governments and economic systems.

In the context of today, is the 'socialism' you refer to not an artifact of the Cold War past? Or do you refer to the vast majority of industrialized nations around the world?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 30, 2012, 10:58:59 PM
I'm not naive, I understand corruption and special interests. However life is better and people have more freedom when we have politicians in the office who are backed by corporations rather than politicians backed by unions, the left and the likes of George Soros. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 30, 2012, 11:42:06 PM
Eduard,

Yeah right...  Corporations have done wonders for the US economy.. banking and finance in particular.

Fool's Gold.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 31, 2012, 07:05:17 AM
Eduard,

Yeah right...  Corporations have done wonders for the US economy.. banking and finance in particular.

Fool's Gold.
Two points.

1.  Corporations = business.  The opposite is government.  Government has grown to 25% of the nation's GDP.  Government needs to decline.  I believe it has recently come down to 24%, but more decline is needed, not more government stimulus. Instead of creating government jobs, we need to encourage business to grow jobs, particularly small business. 
 
You as a small business owner should recognize this.  However, I get the impression that your business sucks the government teat (or at least does it indirectly, e. g. compliance with government regulations).   If so, you welcome government programs.
 

2.  Banking and finance.  You are correct that financial leveraging created a house of cards.  But why were bank covenants relaxed to allow such?  It started with government "do good" social programs allowing people who could not afford a home to buy a home (and even end up with cash in their pocket).
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 31, 2012, 07:24:08 AM
My take is that the RNC accomplished the following:
 
1.  Revealed that Romney is a decent human being instead of the corporate raider advertised by the Democrats.  His integrity is paramount, yet this was little known because he is a private person and does not have the charisma of Obama.  The RNC avoided contrasting Romney's integrity with Obama's, and I appreciate not slinging mud because much of the questions about Obama's integrity are exactly that, questions and unproven.
 
2.  Made it clear that Romney-Ryan will address the critical issues (e. g., entitlement reform) that have been ignored by Obama and Bush and Clinton and......
 
3.  Focused the campaign on job creation, which is the only way to get out of the hole America is in.
 
4.  Attacked the weak performance of Obama as the President for the past four years, particularly Obama's lack of leadership.
 
5.  Made it evident that everything in Romney's history has prepared him for President (in contrast with Obama who had little experience).
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 31, 2012, 07:29:40 AM
Not a big fan of Romney's speech. Too much rhetorical quips / negative political jabs. We already know Obama sold the country a bill of goods. No need to sit there for another 20 minutes just to hear it again. Eastwood, matters little what or why you think got him in this convention, at least cited what is arguably the most powerful message in the entire campaign in far fewer words...

" If someone doesn't do their job, you just got to let 'em go!" Simple and effective. Kudos to Rubio as well.

So for now, I'm waiting with bated breathe and see/hear exactly why the DNC felt compelled to have Sandra Fluke in their line-up. May as well hear from the horse's mouth - figuratively and literally.

My two cents say the DNC will try and (confuse) convince the gullibles that our economy had improved and are going strong despite the contrary....and they'll roar, cheer, applaud, scream, the balloons will drop and pop and the Kool-aid will gush and CNN/MSNBC/Networks will official declare the ocean had parted and the Messiah had finally arrived to the great state of North Carolina!

Henrietta Hughes and Peggy Joseph will be sitting front row...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 31, 2012, 07:57:05 AM
Romney just doesn't excite me. While his business acumen is stellar and made him a very rich man I still have a nagging suspicion about his motives. Why would a man who has already achieved the wealth and heights he has want to be president? The lust for power. Perhaps he is as good and pure in his heart as "they" proclaim but I have my doubts. Maybe it's a Freudian slip/thing on my part.

I have to say however, his inclusion of Ryan on the ticket does energize me and leave with some hope where I had none. Ryan is youth/intelligence/brass bawls, willing to do what is needed to get government under control. The Republican Party has needed such for a long time. The problem we face as a nation is not as complex as many would want you to believe and Ryan understands that. Government spending has to reverse and government has to shrink. The government teat is much to big and unsustainable

I tend to side with the Libertarian Party and have for the last 10 years. We need government out of our lives. We need to leave other nations to their own devices and keep our assistance on humanitarian levels only.

Obama isn't an option. Four more years of him will cripple the nation with another 16 trillion of debt. A total collapse of the US economy will have serious ripple effects around the world. 2008 was a mere toe in the water and just a bad thunder storm compared to the hurricane that is coming unless serious changes are made. IMHO
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 31, 2012, 08:00:24 AM
Not a big fan of Romney's speech. Too much rhetorical quips / negative political jabs. We already know Obama sold the country a bill of goods. No need to sit there for another 20 minutes just to hear it again.

 
You have already clearly decided how to vote.  Who cares what you think.   :D Romney is reaching out to 1) the undecideds and 2) those who voted for Obama in 2008 and now feel some disappointment.


Quote
My two cents say the DNC will try and (confuse) convince the
gullibles that our economy had improved and are going strong despite the
contrary....

Somehow they will also work in that is is fair to tax success, even though "success" is already paying a disproportionate share of government largess.
 
And Democrats will try to convince that they are the best for the Middle Class.
 
How much will Obama blame the cards he was dealt in 2008?  Will we hear a new version of "Hope and Change?"   Or will we hear negativity (things were bad, and while life is improving it will take a long time to turn this around and Democrats are the best for the Middle Class in such periods)?
 
Quote

....and they'll roar, cheer, applaud, scream, the balloons will drop and pop and the
Kool-aid will gush and CNN/MSNBC/Networks will official declare the ocean had parted and the Messiah had finally arrived to the great state of North Carolina!


Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans, but a hydraulic engineer can show that parting the oceans raises their level.  ;)
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 31, 2012, 08:10:57 AM
Two points.

1.  Corporations = business.  The opposite is government.  Government has grown to 25% of the nation's GDP.  Government needs to decline.  I believe it has recently come down to 24%, but more decline is needed, not more government stimulus. Instead of creating government jobs, we need to encourage business to grow jobs, particularly small business. 
 
You as a small business owner should recognize this.  However, I get the impression that your business sucks the government teat (or at least does it indirectly, e. g. compliance with government regulations).   If so, you welcome government programs.
 

2.  Banking and finance.  You are correct that financial leveraging created a house of cards.  But why were bank covenants relaxed to allow such?  It started with government "do good" social programs allowing people who could not afford a home to buy a home (and even end up with cash in their pocket).
Thank you!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 31, 2012, 08:20:26 AM


I tend to side with the Libertarian Party and have for the last 10 years. We need government out of our lives. We need to leave other nations to their own devices and keep our assistance on humanitarian levels only.



I took one of those online tests about which candidate I should vote for.  Surprise!  The results showed me as more closely aligned with the Libertarians' George Johnson.   Who?  Bigger surprise!  Obama was second. This is because the analysis ranked all issues equally, and I am aligned with the Democrats on some issues and Libertarians on many. 
 
This year I am a single-issue voter - the economy.   To vote for Johnson rather than Romney in a swing state such as Florida could usher in an Obama victory because Johnson has only a snowball's chance of winning.   And Obama would continue the dismal status quo.    Also, I do not know much about Johnson.
 
Quote
  Perhaps he is as good and pure in his heart as "they" proclaim but I have my doubts.   

You are the skeptic.  The man is 65-yo.  If there were questions, should these not have surfaced by now, especially given that our press is mostly liberal?
 
Romney's largest fault - lack of television charisma.  Yet he is so vastly qualified compared to Obama.   Leadership is key, and Romney has proven that in business and the Olympics.  Nevertheless, dealing with Congress is not the same as dealing with a Board of Directors.   How did Obama do with dealing with Congress, even when his Party had plurality?
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 31, 2012, 08:33:20 AM
My take is that the RNC accomplished the following:
 
1.  Revealed that Romney is a decent human being instead of the corporate raider advertised by the Democrats.  His integrity is paramount, yet this was little known because he is a private person and does not have the charisma of Obama
Phil, as you know I am an intuitive person and a pretty good judge of character. When I look at Obama I see a poser, a fake. His act will fool many people, but not all. I, for one don't buy his act.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 31, 2012, 09:17:35 AM

Obama isn't an option. Four more years of him will cripple the nation with another 16 trillion of debt. A total collapse of the US economy will have serious ripple effects around the world. 2008 was a mere toe in the water and just a bad thunder storm compared to the hurricane that is coming unless serious changes are made. IMHO
+1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on August 31, 2012, 09:22:50 AM

You are the skeptic.  The man is 65-yo.  If there were questions, should these not have surfaced by now, especially given that our press is mostly liberal?
 
Romney's largest fault - lack of television charisma.  Yet he is so vastly qualified compared to Obama.   Leadership is key, and Romney has proven that in business and the Olympics.  Nevertheless, dealing with Congress is not the same as dealing with a Board of Directors.   How did Obama do with dealing with Congress, even when his Party had plurality?
Exactly!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 31, 2012, 10:16:44 AM

I took one of those online tests about which candidate I should vote for.  Surprise!  The results showed me as more closely aligned with the Libertarians' George Johnson.   Who?  Bigger surprise!  Obama was second. This is because the analysis ranked all issues equally, and I am aligned with the Democrats on some issues and Libertarians on many. 
 
This year I am a single-issue voter - the economy.   To vote for Johnson rather than Romney in a swing state such as Florida could usher in an Obama victory because Johnson has only a snowball's chance of winning.   And Obama would continue the dismal status quo.    Also, I do not know much about Johnson.

I've taken that quiz a number of times over the years and pretty much stay in the same place. Moderate and closer to Libertarian than either of the other two parties. I consider myself a Constitutionalist and those tenets be adhered to and unchanged. I agree with you on the economy being the single most important issue in this election. The republicans IMHO are best equipped to attack that problem. Obama and the democrats haven't a clue or desire.
 
Quote
You are the skeptic.  The man is 65-yo.  If there were questions, should these not have surfaced by now, especially given that our press is mostly liberal?
 
Romney's largest fault - lack of television charisma.  Yet he is so vastly qualified compared to Obama.   Leadership is key, and Romney has proven that in business and the Olympics.  Nevertheless, dealing with Congress is not the same as dealing with a Board of Directors.   How did Obama do with dealing with Congress, even when his Party had plurality?

Yes I am a skeptic and I freely admit it. I don't trust politicians. The system is corrupt to the core and generally, only the corrupt rise within it. Romney has the DNA, the pedigree, the money and the experience. What is wrong with a man that seemingly has no faults?

Obama has failed miserably in everything particularly, Leadership. Case in point is what you pointed to in his struggles to lead his own party and unite the aisles as was his last campaign promise (among hundreds). The man has proved to be nothing more than a nice suit reading a teleprompter making empty promises
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on August 31, 2012, 11:09:17 AM
 
Romney's largest fault - lack of television charisma.

I hadn't watched much of the political TV at all in the past year or so.
I  had heard a lot  of these comments by others.

But, I did see most of Romney's acceptance speech.
I must say, I thought there was a fair amount of charisma there; and, more important, I  saw a really take charge type guy who inspires a lot of confidence.

I would like him to be in charge when the crises come rolling  along.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 31, 2012, 12:03:29 PM
Two points.

1.  Corporations = business.  The opposite is government.  Government has grown to 25% of the nation's GDP.  Government needs to decline.  I believe it has recently come down to 24%, but more decline is needed, not more government stimulus. Instead of creating government jobs, we need to encourage business to grow jobs, particularly small business. 

Gator,

I agree with you!... with one caveat.  I'm sure you understand the concept of diversification to mitigate risk. Now lets try to apply that to the current Business / Government  'status quo'.  20 or more years ago, Government looked at Business and said 'Hey.... look what they are doing... can't we do that too?.. or even better ask Business to do it for us?'...   In the context of 20+ years ago, we were talking about small and medium businesses providing services to the Government.  Business back then was broken down into Small, Medium and Large..  all were allowed to participate and generally Government got a fair deal.

Over the years though, Business changed..  Mergers, consolidation, buy out's .... basically any small / medium business that was successful was ingested by bigger business in the same field... sort of like little fish gets eaten by bigger fish who get eaten by even bigger fish who get eaten by white sharks and killer whales..

In effect, this limited the possibility of Government not only to distribute risk and receive competitive offers, but also put them in the position of having to deal with white sharks and killer whales, who through massive political lobbying efforts were able to push Government more and more into the sphere of 'Sole source contracting'.... -and you know exactly what that means.....

In essence its sort of like the dwindling middle class topic.. Small and medium businesses today are a dying breed.  This leaves Government facing huge risks with unethical Big Business that have reached the level of 'Too Big To Fail' or 'Too Big To Remedy'.  Just look at big defense contractors, cheating stealing and lying whenever they want, however they want and even when caught red handed only get a slap on the wrist for doing so.

How many times have you heard men come here touting their desire for a 'traditional woman'?  Your desire seems to be the same in the Government / Business context... but such simply does not exist anymore!.  Get used to sharks and killer whales.  That's the norm nowadays with Government and the taxpayer getting screwed right and left.

Government will always be a part of our lives.  Healthcare, even aside from any aspects of Obamacare is ridden with worms.. even snakes, due much to the same aspects I describe above..

I do see however that a large part of Obamacare is trying to rid the system of snakes.  I am not confident that Romney will do so..  I can't recall him ever having mentioned a war on Fraud.

Quote
You as a small business owner should recognize this.  However, I get the impression that your business sucks the government teat (or at least does it indirectly, e. g. compliance with government regulations).   If so, you welcome government programs.

As stated, I do live indirectly from Government.  I provide good, honest and ethical services to 'Big Business'... now what they do with my efforts is their business.   I can't tell you how many times I have asked Government about this or that contract just to hear the words 'Sole source, or No Bid..'  I make a decent living but cannot spend millions or even hundreds of millions to lobby Congress or Presidents.  The teat I suck is another.

Quote
2.  Banking and finance.  You are correct that financial leveraging created a house of cards.  But why were bank covenants relaxed to allow such?  It started with government "do good" social programs allowing people who could not afford a home to buy a home (and even end up with cash in their pocket).

Gator, I pose one simple question.  Just because Government opens doors, does that give a license to steal without penalty?  Maybe this was a case of Government trusting Business too much?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 31, 2012, 12:35:19 PM

I took one of those online tests about which candidate I should vote for.  Surprise!  The results showed me as more closely aligned with the Libertarians' George Johnson.   Who?  Bigger surprise!  Obama was second. This is because the analysis ranked all issues equally, and I am aligned with the Democrats on some issues and Libertarians on many. 
 
This year I am a single-issue voter - the economy.   To vote for Johnson rather than Romney in a swing state such as Florida could usher in an Obama victory because Johnson has only a snowball's chance of winning.   And Obama would continue the dismal status quo.    Also, I do not know much about Johnson.
 
You are the skeptic.  The man is 65-yo.  If there were questions, should these not have surfaced by now, especially given that our press is mostly liberal?
 
Romney's largest fault - lack of television charisma.  Yet he is so vastly qualified compared to Obama.   Leadership is key, and Romney has proven that in business and the Olympics.  Nevertheless, dealing with Congress is not the same as dealing with a Board of Directors.   How did Obama do with dealing with Congress, even when his Party had plurality?

Gator,

By all major indicators the economy is recovering... not as fast as one would like in this age of 'instant satisfaction', but it is indeed getting there.

First review this chart...

http://blytic.com/Player.aspx?key=21644

compare 2009 with 1975.. is it really that different?  When evaluating consider that Big Business during 2009 was able to cut a lot of employment pork and learned to live a bit leaner and meaner.....

Who was President in 1975?

Take a lok at the attached chart... Is Romney's assertion that 'It's not any better' correct?

Review http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57504387-503544/fact-check-mitt-romneys-convention-speech/

and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/ryans-speech-contained-a-litany-of-falsehoods.html

Sure, one can scream bias, but looking closely it's hard to find flaws.

I would vote for Romney / Ryan if there wasn't so much BS being spouted in the hopes of being believed.

A very successful business partner over the years told me...'BC.. when people hear a proposal, they always believe at least half...  so your success will depend on how good you can exaggerate...'

I was up very early this morning to watch the RNC speeches.. I saw a lot of exaggeration.





Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 31, 2012, 01:20:22 PM
Oh... and btw.... I watched Ryan.. I watched Romney...

But I really enjoyed Eastwood.

That's Entertainment!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 31, 2012, 01:24:41 PM
Ohh...

and btw....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 31, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
Isn't it sooo nice...

The Fed breaths optimism and the next moment speculation sucks it dry....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on August 31, 2012, 02:36:32 PM
Isn't it sooo nice...

The Fed breaths optimism and the next moment speculation sucks it dry....

So oil goes up, EUR goes up, USD goes down, gold goes up and stocks go up......

And that's called stabilizing the economy....

You gotta be kidding me...

I'd hate to see what happens when Bernanke farts....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on August 31, 2012, 06:56:14 PM

Moderators and Advisors did discuss this point when the thread started.  Consensus was that as long as discourse remains civil, an exception would be in order this election year, as a test and only in this thread.

Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on August 31, 2012, 07:08:20 PM
Being this year's election is *the* hot topic in most public circle, our golfing club is certainly not immune to the buzz and the discussions that resides within these circles lately. I am a recipient of some shockingly and fairly appalling POVs that some spill-out in support of their political persuasion. Case in point, my good friend 'J'. He's a charter high school teacher, a Democrat and a hard-nosed Obama supporter. He isn't as adamant, voiceful and open about his conviction to anyone else as he is with me. Being an African-American, his seeming comfort with me is arguably a result of my skin coloration. An unspoken 'kinship', if you will...

Anyway, as intelligent as 'J' is, I am shocked at some of the things that come out of him so much so that I've had to periodically (and redundantly) ask him if he was joking. I couldn't for the life of me believe anyone can be so stern in their beliefs that apparently certain reality bears no place in his world.

Here are a couple of example....

1) Obama's economic prowess: According to 'J', he doesn't understand why the Republicans keep harping about the Stimulus Bill being such a waste and that it had done nothing to help the economy. In his mind (thus contention), the Republicans are completely insane to not credit the fact that if it wasn't for the Stim Bill the banks would not have been bailed-out and the '08 financial collapse would've further escalated the crisis.

He vehemently believes GM already paid their debt (bailout) in full. (Sic) Remember that commercial? *WE*, according to him, should be thankful that despite the defiant Republicans, Obama still found a way to push that bill through and avert a total US/global financial collapse. ('Dude, are you serious? You're not joking me, are you?')

2) The evil banking institution (i.e. conspiracy against the black man). 'J' owns a nice condo in a good location. His mortgage prior to the crisis was $200K. He tells me he always knew his unit was amassing a huge amount of equity by virtue of the bank/s constant notices to refinance and take advantage of the windfall. They'd offered creative financing that will net him a tidy sum to do with it as he pleases. So, after a while, he trotted into his bank (Countrywide), signed the dotted line, closed the escrow and handed him an equity princely check in the amount of +/- $100K. He said he was stoked since his monthly payments hardly changed and he's positioned to cut the fat off the hog for a spell with his new-found 'wealth'.

Then the bubble burst. The condo plummeted back down to what it was worth (200K) and his NEW creatively variable rated financed mortgage was hitting the stratosphere and started flooding him some seriously *unexpected* monthly payments. Dire still if you consider his home is seriously underwater.

He blamed Countrywide. He still does today apparently ('J', u kidding me?'). In his heart of hearts he strongly believes he should only 'owe' the bank $200K because that's all it's worth ~ then and now. I casually asked, "FWIW, it must've been nice to have 100K to spend lavishly. Whose money was it that you happily spent after you closed that escrow? Was it yours or the bank's?" Response: *Who cares? I feel it was mine for their attempt to dupe me*.

Today he's in the midst of *re-negotiating* with the bank (now BofA) since he stopped paying his mortgage a year and a half ago and the banks had since levied +$35K on added penalties because of it. His total mortgage obligations today is + $340K, which he feels that if only the bank accepts the fact it's their fault and bring that total down to $200K, then he'll happily sit down and strike a deal with them. He said this (housing programs) is the Republican party's antics to make things more difficult for the less-opportuned (he grosses +80K/yr and will retire with full pension in 7 years - when he turns 50. Teachers retire after teaching for 30 years apparently) folks like him ((sic) color). "It's a conspiracy", he'd say. So they (*we*) must pay for that.

He always say: "Bottom line is, my life seem to be so much better every time a Democrat takes office in DC!" To which I would ask, "Do you know why?', chuckle and remark openly, 'It may have something to do with the fact you belong to the Teacher's union, you know?'

So, in the overall scheme of things, the beauty of our national collectivity and in the spirit of a unified society...his vote will count just as much as mine will.

Always.

Note: This is not about 'race'. *J* could have been as white as Larry Bird and I'd still have the same shocked disbelief response.


More on the RNC:

Mitt Romney SHOULD NOT have used Steve Jobs as an example to make a point for 'business enterprising'. He also should not have brown-nosed his way trying to 'sway' the gender votes. It made him appear desperate, contrived and/or fake.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on August 31, 2012, 08:07:30 PM
BC,
After posting, I played golf in a large Friday skins game, won a a couple of skins, had a few beers,  and am now too tired to study your posts.  And tomorrow is busy.  But I will return and address your comments.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on August 31, 2012, 08:10:31 PM
BC,

I don't know you but am curious about your interest in US politics.  Your avitar indicates you are from Italy.  Are you an American living in Italy or have some other connection to the USA?
Title: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: Erwin on August 31, 2012, 08:55:18 PM
 The top three issues that will have an impact on the election are the economy, Obamacare, and possibly foreign policy. Here is the breakdown:
 
The Economy:
 
Despite the creeping recovery of the economy, Obama can still pull out a win over Romney in this area although it is President Obama’s biggest, if any, weakness. President Obama rescued America's failing automotive industry, and bailed-out the country's largest financial institutions. Surely without these measures taken, most Americans would still be eating canned food and sleeping in a cardboard box. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has an uphill battle if he wants to shake off the image of himself portrayed as a crony-capitalist because of his time at Bain Capital. The Obama camp needs to make certain that the Bain image sticks, and continue to highlight whatever minor successes the administration has had thus far with the economy.
 
Obamacare:
 
Romney cannot touch Obama on this one because of the fact that Obamacare is an inspired version of Romney’s care that he enacted in his own state as governor. And, even though Republicans are harping on the individual mandate as a tax, hoping that an image of Obama as a robber-baron tax-hiker will stick, a recent CBC/New York Times poll shows that only 37% of American favor lowering taxes and cutting spending compared to the 56% who favor raising taxes and increasing spending. There is also the poll by USAToday that shows about only 21% of people will actually vote for the candidate that shares their opinion on Obamacare. This is at a time when about half of Americans support Obamacare. Do you really think that is enough people to turn Obamacare into a nail in the presidential coffin?
 
Foreign Policy:
 
Can you hear that? That is the sound of the GOP getting Barack-slapped on foreign policy with the death of the world’s leading terrorist, Osama Bin Ladin. Add to the death of Al Qaeda's second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, and you have a much weaker Al Qaeda. Not to mention a successful drawdown in Iraq. If you were Romney, would you go anywhere near foreign policy issues in the debates?
 
Of course, there is no cyrstal ball to predict the outcome of any election, and I surely have my doubts, but my instincts tell me that America is not ready to get rid of Barack Obama and steer the nation back in the opposite direction just yet.
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: calmissile on August 31, 2012, 09:17:12 PM
The top three issues that will have an impact on the election are the economy, Obamacare, and possibly foreign policy. Here is the breakdown:
 
The Economy:
 
Despite the creeping recovery of the economy, Obama can still pull out a win over Romney in this area although it is President Obama’s biggest, if any, weakness. President Obama rescued America's failing automotive industry, and bailed-out the country's largest financial institutions. Surely without these measures taken, most Americans would still be eating canned food and sleeping in a cardboard box. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has an uphill battle if he wants to shake off the image of himself portrayed as a crony-capitalist because of his time at Bain Capital. The Obama camp needs to make certain that the Bain image sticks, and continue to highlight whatever minor successes the administration has had thus far with the economy.
 
Obamacare:
 
Romney cannot touch Obama on this one because of the fact that Obamacare is an inspired version of Romney’s care that he enacted in his own state as governor. And, even though Republicans are harping on the individual mandate as a tax, hoping that an image of Obama as a robber-baron tax-hiker will stick, a recent CBC/New York Times poll shows that only 37% of American favor lowering taxes and cutting spending compared to the 56% who favor raising taxes and increasing spending. There is also the poll by USAToday that shows about only 21% of people will actually vote for the candidate that shares their opinion on Obamacare. This is at a time when about half of Americans support Obamacare. Do you really think that is enough people to turn Obamacare into a nail in the presidential coffin?
 
Foreign Policy:
 
Can you hear that? That is the sound of the GOP getting Barack-slapped on foreign policy with the death of the world’s leading terrorist, Osama Bin Ladin. Add to the death of Al Qaeda's second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, and you have a much weaker Al Qaeda. Not to mention a successful drawdown in Iraq. If you were Romney, would you go anywhere near foreign policy issues in the debates?
 
Of course, there is no cyrstal ball to predict the outcome of any election, and I surely have my doubts, but my instincts tell me that America is not ready to get rid of Barack Obama and steer the nation back in the opposite direction just yet.

I won't even comment on most of your post, but sounds like democratic propoganda.   Your comment highlighted in bold above is so absurd, that there is no credibility in the rest of your post.
Where do you live that most Americans would be living out of cardboard boxes?

Some feel that the auto industry and banks should have been allowed to fail and not bailed out with taxpayer money.  We already have bankruptcy procedures that accomodate even the largest companies.  Businesses that are viable are usually picked up by investors at a very good price and the companies restructured with new management manage to get back on their feet.

As far as the crooks at the banks.... let them fail and put the crooks in jail that made the speculative investments with other peoples money!  Why should the everyday taxpayer bail them out?  You noticed I am sure that some execs made millions if not billions on the bailouts and walked away with huge sums in their pockets while not a single one of them is in jail.
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: GQBlues on August 31, 2012, 09:24:36 PM
...President Obama rescued America's failing automotive industry, and bailed-out the country's largest financial institutions. Surely without these measures taken, most Americans would still be eating canned food and sleeping in a cardboard box....

LOL, just like my good buddy 'J'. Are you agreeing with 'J', Edwin, that the bail-out pot came from the Stim Bill, too? 2008 isn't that long ago to forget these things, you know.
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: Faux Pas on August 31, 2012, 11:22:11 PM
LOL, just like my good buddy 'J'. Are you agreeing with 'J', Edwin, that the bail-out pot came from the Stim Bill, too? 2008 isn't that long ago to forget these things, you know.

LOL, my first reaction to Erwin's post was, "are you kidding me"? Nothing more dangerous at election time than ignorance in motion
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 01, 2012, 02:17:29 AM
I'm not naive, I understand corruption and special interests. However life is better and people have more freedom when we have politicians in the office who are backed by corporations rather than politicians backed by unions, the left and the likes of George Soros. Just my opinion.

You can't be serious? I mean, you seem like a really nice man, but what you're calling for here is fascism. A plutocratically run neo-feudalistic system. Great if you're among the tiny elite at the top, but I reckon none here on RWD is there.
 
As far as I see the big picture, that's exactly where it's going, with Obama or Romney. Either will ensure that austerity measures increase and that the development of the destruction of the middle class continue. Webster Tarpley say that with Obama you get death by a thousand cuts, but with Romney it will be swift and that the corporate elite wants Romney because Obama doesn't do the job quickly enough.
 
I understand that goverment can be too big and believe in a balance between private and government. But government and the nation state is the foundation on which people can make changes. Having a corporate goverment and no unions destroy all possibilities for regular people to influence policies and leave them with only the option of open and violent revolt.
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 01, 2012, 03:08:57 AM
I won't even comment on most of your post, but sounds like democratic propoganda...

Considering the amount of Republican propoganda that has been spewed out over the last few months, isn't the other side allowed to contribute?  :D
 
If the Republican platform is so solid, Doug, what harm can this ONE post possibly do?  It obviously won't influence any of the voters on here (nor will anything that BC or I post, because we "don't live there").  It seems such a shame that your two parties can't work TOGETHER to create a better country - but, of course, that will never happen (not even in the blue moon that you guys had last night).
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: calmissile on September 01, 2012, 06:10:07 AM

Considering the amount of Republican propoganda that has been spewed out over the last few months, isn't the other side allowed to contribute?  :D
 
If the Republican platform is so solid, Doug, what harm can this ONE post possibly do?  It obviously won't influence any of the voters on here (nor will anything that BC or I post, because we "don't live there").  It seems such a shame that your two parties can't work TOGETHER to create a better country - but, of course, that will never happen (not even in the blue moon that you guys had last night).

Of course both sides are allowed to contribute.  His statement refering to living in cardboard boxes was so rediculous that not even the democratic party would make such a statement.  It brings into question the rest of his post, which is also inacurate.

My question about why so much interest in our elections, was just that, a curiosity.  It seems that those in Europe are viewing our culture in the light of what those of you in Europe want in a government.  What makes America unique is that we do not want socialism and the government controling our lives from cradle to grave.  It is not the foundation of our beliefs and never has been.

There is much valid criticism about the corruption in our government and the flaws in our system.  That cannot be argued, however we prefer to attempt to resolve those issues as best we can without changing the basic tenants of our fundamental principals as laid out in our constitution.

For the most part, the democratic party used to represent the working middle class following WWII.  The party has gradually become the party, not of the middle class but the welfare and left leaning socialist (collective) class.  Traditionally, in the past the Republican party represented the big business interests.  Small business fell somewhere inbetween often belonging to both parties.
What has happened is that neither party currently represents the (shrinking) middle class. We are faced with a choice of having to decide whether to vote for more socialism and government control over our lives, or the wealthy big business party that wants to reduce the size of government and reduce or eliminate the laws we had on the books for many years that limited the power of big business.   At least in this election we have a clear choice which is the lesser of two evils.

Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: ML on September 01, 2012, 09:54:07 AM
What has happened is that neither party currently represents the (shrinking) middle class.

I am not such an expert on this as others here but . . .

I thought the 'religious right' was firmly in the Republican camp.

And, aren't the majority of them middle class folks?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 01, 2012, 11:26:17 AM
BC,

I don't know you but am curious about your interest in US politics.  Your avitar indicates you are from Italy.  Are you an American living in Italy or have some other connection to the USA?

Calmissile,

I am a very, very long term expat.  Some here claim so long that I have lost perspective.  Lets just say that I have 'seen the green' on both sides of the fences, what I think is a fairly unique view on things both here and there.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 01, 2012, 11:33:04 AM
BC,
After posting, I played golf in a large Friday skins game, won a a couple of skins, had a few beers,  and am now too tired to study your posts.  And tomorrow is busy.  But I will return and address your comments.

Gator,

no problem at all.. have time now for only a couple of short posts... been shopping most of the day and will now enjoy a good pot of lobsters with family.  Prices are very reasonable this year so bought two for each person including our 8 year old who loves them and can handle two easily.  (flown in from US BTW)..  around 12 eur per kilio.. little under 7 bucks a pound live.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 01, 2012, 11:43:32 AM
Calmissile,

I am a very, very long term expat.  Some here claim so long that I have lost perspective.  Lets just say that I have 'seen the green' on both sides of the fences, what I think is a fairly unique view on things both here and there.
sounds like we have more in common than just age  :)
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: calmissile on September 01, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
I am not such an expert on this as others here but . . .

I thought the 'religious right' was firmly in the Republican camp.

And, aren't the majority of them middle class folks?

I was referring the the economic middle class.  And yes of course, the "religious right" are aligned with the Republicans because the party has made religion part of the parties platform and core beliefs.  IMO those in this group are not Republicans because of economic ideals as much as it is their desires to make sure their religious views are embedded in laws that affect everyone.

By the same token there are probably as many, if not more non believers and agnostics associated with the Democratic party.  Some of them are Democrats because they are anti-religion and the democratic party represents their views.  The rest of them have gotten intoxicated with the handouts by governmet over the past couple of generations and there seems no way to ween them off the tit of government.

As has been noted by many posts of others, the "economic middle class" has been screwed over by both political parties.  Our economic problems did not just occur by accident or because of world affairs.  Laws by congress and executive orders by the 'king' (president) created the environment for the failed economy.  There is enough blame to go around for nearly every congressman and president going back 30 years or so.   Laws and regulations passed to accomodate all of the special interests is what took us off the track we were on in the 40's, 50's, 60's, etc.

We drank the big business cool-aid that led us into believing the 'world economy' was what was to drive our thinking and policies without any consideration as to what it would mean to our own future.  Any discussion of reintroducing tarriff controls, anti-trust laws, etc is all met with shouts of 'protectionism'.  Yep, maybe it's time we started re-thinking about taking care of ourselves and not the whole world (including being the worlds policeman).

When we changed our tax laws and tarriff restrictions that allowed large corporations to use slave labor (wages) in foreign countries and created the loss of jobs and tax revenue in the US, it was the beginning of the end.  It also created a large problem in ways that most americans are not even familiar with.  When the electronics manufacturing moved to overseas there were many fallouts that are not obvious.  Not only do we not manufacture many goods in the US anymore, the technology to manufacture them was also lost after a generation or two.  The highly sophisticated equipment that is used in the processes are not even made in the US anymore.  The foreign counties now make their own robotics and other machinery.  The highly technical skilled work force to manufacture the products are also gone, mostly through retirement of the older workers.

Another weakness we now have is that the components to manufacture electronics equipment are no longer made in the US.  That was a huge industry before we lost our manufacturing capability.  Such simple things as resistors, capacitors, semiconductors, hardware, etc. are just to name a few.


Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: Erwin on September 01, 2012, 08:52:42 PM
LOL, just like my good buddy 'J'. Are you agreeing with 'J', Edwin, that the bail-out pot came from the Stim Bill, too? 2008 isn't that long ago to forget these things, you know.
Not sure who your good buddy "J" is, but my good buddy Mr. "T" reminded me of the fact that, in 2008, former Massachusetts Governor Romney published an opinion piece in The New York Times titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” It outlined a process whereby the Tottering Two would go through a managed bankruptcy process with a government guarantee of post-Chapter 11 financing, allowing them to cut costs by shedding dealers and renegotiating labor contracts.
 
Romney probably would object to being linked to the word “bailout,” however. Romney would use that to describe the billions shoveled into the firms by the Bush and Obama administrations prior to the auto firm’s entrance into bankruptcy court in early 2009 – subsidies he opposed.
 
President Obama probably did not clip his piece from the NYT’s dead tree edition and route it to his economic team with a note that said, “This sounds great! Do it!” A managed bankruptcy for the Detroit behemoths was an option many experts talked a lot about at the time.
 
Romney’s tone in regards to Detroit’s situation at the time was a bit bracing as far as Michiganders were concerned. After all, the Romneys are to the Mitten State what the Kennedys are to Massachusetts and the Bushes are to Maine and Texas and wherever else they have houses – political royalty. Mitt’s dad George saved American Motors and then became a beloved Michigan governor. So they hurt along Woodward Avenue when Mitt said in 2009 that the US investment in GM was “a very, very sad circumstance for this country.”
 
According to Mr. T, if it was up to Romney, we’d all be driving foreign cars. Obama, not Romney saved Detroit. Don't you think Obama is more truly attuned to American values?
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: Erwin on September 01, 2012, 09:03:02 PM
I won't even comment on most of your post, but sounds like democratic propoganda.   Your comment highlighted in bold above is so absurd, that there is no credibility in the rest of your post.
Where do you live that most Americans would be living out of cardboard boxes?

Some feel that the auto industry and banks should have been allowed to fail and not bailed out with taxpayer money.  We already have bankruptcy procedures that accomodate even the largest companies.  Businesses that are viable are usually picked up by investors at a very good price and the companies restructured with new management manage to get back on their feet.

As far as the crooks at the banks.... let them fail and put the crooks in jail that made the speculative investments with other peoples money!  Why should the everyday taxpayer bail them out?  You noticed I am sure that some execs made millions if not billions on the bailouts and walked away with huge sums in their pockets while not a single one of them is in jail.

What do you think would have happened to the Detroit auto industry if Romney had been President?
 
That depends on which Romney you are talking about. The Romney that said, IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye" (November 18, 2008), or the Romney that said the president (Obama) did exactly what he suggested and he (Romney) deserves "a lot of credit" because he supported the idea of managed bankruptcy (May 9, 2012). I guess you will have to elect him to see what's in him...probably just a bunch of hot air!
 
Some history, for those who have forgotten: In late 2008, with Wall Street in crisis and the economy grinding to a halt, General Motors and Chrysler revealed they were on the brink of collapse. They'd been struggling for years, paying the price for poor decisions by management and labor, but now things were much worse: They simply didn’t have the money to keep operating. In normal times, the carmakers could have filed for bankruptcy, obtained financing to reorganize and renegotiate contracts, and then emerged as leaner, stronger companies. But these were not normal times. The financial industry was in no position to offer that kind of assistance. Had the companies gone into bankruptcy, the likely result would have been liquidation.
 
And that would have been catastrophic. Closure of Chrysler and General Motors would have forced many of their suppliers to shut down. The economic shock wave would have rippled through the Midwest and quite possibly destroyed Ford, a relatively healthy company that nevertheless depended on the same firms to produce parts. Estimates from the Center for Automotive Research (http://www.cargroup.org/) suggested that the cumulative job losses could have reached three million (http://www.cargroup.org/assets/files/contraction.pdf). That was the worst-case scenario, but even substantially fewer job losses would have been devastating.
 
If you don’t live in the Midwest, you might not grasp just how critical the auto industry is to the region. So my buddy Mr. T used an analogy that will resonate with you in and around Washington, D.C.

Imagine the federal government went out of business, shuttering virtually every agency and putting their employees out of work. Now think of all the companies in the Washington area whose businesses consist of selling goods and services to the agencies and their workers—the grocery stores, the I.T. firms, the contractors, the mom-and-pop dry cleaners. They’d go out of business, too. Pretty soon the city would be an economic Beirut.
 
By 2008 and 2009, parts of the midwest already looked that way, because the American auto companies had been closing their plants for years. If you've been to Flint, or if you've seen Roger and Me (http://dogeatdog.michaelmoore.com/rogerme.html), then you know what I'm talking about. Other communities, like Lansing and the northern Detroit suburbs, had avoided that fate. A total collapse of Chrysler and GM would have crushed them, too.
 
In the waning days of his presidency, President Bush had the good sense to extend the companies a short-term, emergency loan. That put the onus on President Obama, still fresh on the job, to decide their fate. He didn’t give the companies a handout: He insisted they go through bankruptcy, renegotiate their contracts, clean out management, and downsize to an enterprise they could realistically support. Basically, he forced them to do what they would have done in normal economic times. Plenty of skeptics (including me!) worried the treatment was too harsh. But the companies complied and the results have been as good as anybody might rightly have hoped.
 
Since Obama made his decision, the unemployment rate in the auto states has declined steadily and substantially.  A big reason is that the auto companies, profitable again, have stopped firing and started hiring. It remains to be seen just how strong Chrysler and GM can become. They've had some hiccups and I wouldn't be surprised if, someday, Chrysler disappears into the Italian conglomerate that purchased it. But GM's plants are frequently operating at or above capacity, and they happen to make some very good cars. 
 
But the future performance of the companies is almost beside the point. The story of the auto bailout is a story of government saving the Midwest from oblivion. No less important, it is a story of leadership.
 
If you’ve followed this saga, you know that Romney has said multiple, conflicting things about the auto industry rescue (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/103040/romney-fehrnstrom-gm-chrysler-detroit-auto-bailout). Last I heard, he was saying that Detroit carmakers survived because Obama took Romney’s advice and forced them into bankruptcy. At the same time, Romney has said he opposed putting taxpayer money at risk.
 
That, people, is a nonsensical position: The whole point of the rescue was to supply the industry with taxpayer funds, because the financial industry wouldn’t, or couldn’t, provide money of its own. But it really doesn’t matter what Romney is saying now or what he said six months ago or what he said last year. The point is that Romney said different things at each of those moments, in a transparent effort to win the Republican primaries by pleasing angry conservatives without totally alienating the midwest.
 
The contrast with Obama is striking. The auto rescue may be the single best test of Obama's leadership on domestic policy because it was the one instance in which he didn't need Congress to act. He got mixed advice from his economic advisers, who were wary of another shock to the economic system but reluctant to prop up the ailing companies, particularly Chrysler. He also got mixed advice from his political advisers, who were aware of labor's longstanding support but were looking at poll numbers that suggested the public, already weary of bailouts, was in no mood for another industry rescue. Obama approved it anyway.

Obama got plenty wrong in his first term. But he got the Detroit rescue very, very right.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on September 01, 2012, 10:19:43 PM
I went and saw the documentary 2016: tonight at the cinema.  It was not what I expected and was impressed with the movie.  Since Obama has not refuted any of the facts that I am aware of, I have to assume that it was pretty accurate.  The author does present a theory about what motivates Obama in his dreams and actions, but setting that aside there are a lot of facts about his childhood and association with other people that was enlightening.  I would recommend the movie regardless of political or idealogical leanings.

BTW, there was nothing about his birth certificate, college records,  and the usual political arguments.

Title: 2016: Obama's America' Fact-Check
Post by: Erwin on September 01, 2012, 10:37:58 PM
I went and saw the documentary 2016: tonight at the cinema.  It was not what I expected and was impressed with the movie.  Since Obama has not refuted any of the facts that I am aware of, I have to assume that it was pretty accurate.  The author does present a theory about what motivates Obama in his dreams and actions, but setting that aside there are a lot of facts about his childhood and association with other people that was enlightening.  I would recommend the movie regardless of political or idealogical leanings.

BTW, there was nothing about his birth certificate, college records,  and the usual political arguments.

WASHINGTON — "2016: Obama's America," a new conservative film exploring the roots of President Barack Obama's political views, took in $6.2 million to make it one of the highest-grossing movies of last weekend. The film, written and narrated by conservative scholar Dinesh D'Souza, argues that Obama was heavily influenced by what D'Souza calls the "anti-colonial" beliefs of his father, Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan academic who was largely absent from the president's life.
 
To document that claim, D'Souza travels to Kenya to interview members of Obama's extended family as well as to Hawaii and Indonesia, where Obama grew up. He also cites several actions and policy positions Obama has taken to support the thesis that Obama is ideologically rooted in the Third World and harbors contempt for the country that elected him its first black president.
 
The assertion that Obama's presidency is an expression of his father's political beliefs, which D'Souza first made in 2010 in his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best.
 
It's true that Obama's father lived most of his life in Kenya, an African nation once colonized by the British, and that Obama's reverence for his absent father frames his best-selling memoir. D'Souza even sees clues in the book's title: "Notice it says `Dreams From My Father,' not `of' my father," D'Souza says.
 
But it's difficult to see how Obama's political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D'Souza claims. The elder Obama left his wife and young son, the future president, when Obama was 2 and visited his son only once, when Obama was 10. But D'Souza portrays that loss as an event that reinforced rather than weakened the president's ties to his father, who died in an automobile accident when Obama was in college.
 
D'Souza interviews Paul Vitz, a New York University psychologist who has studied the impact of absent fathers on children. In Obama's case, Vitz says, the abandonment meant "he has the tension between the Americanism and his Africanism. He himself is an intersection of major political forces in his own psychology."
 
From there, the evidence D'Souza uses to support his assertion starts to grow thin.
 
D'Souza says Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, shared his father's left-leaning views. After living in Indonesia for several years, D'Souza said, Dunham sent the younger Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii so he would not be influenced by her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian who worked for American oil companies and fought communists as a member of the Indonesian army.
 
"Ann separates Barry from Lolo's growing pro-Western influence," D'Souza says in the film. Obama has said his mother had sent him back to Hawaii so he would be educated in the United States.
 
In Hawaii, D'Souza asserts with no evidence that Obama sympathized with native Hawaiians who felt they had been marginalized by the American government when Hawaii was becoming a state. D'Souza also asserts – again with no evidence – that Obama had been coached to hold those views at Punahou, the prestigious prep school he attended.
 
"Oppression studies, if you will. Obama got plenty of that when he was here in Punahou," D'Souza says, standing on the campus in Honolulu.
 
In Kenya, D'Souza interviews Philip Ochieng, a lifelong friend of the president's father, who claims the elder Obama was "totally anti-colonial." Ochieng also discloses some of his own political views, complaining about U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq and saying the U.S. refuses to "tame" Israel, which he calls a "Trojan horse in the Middle East." D'Souza seems to suggest that if a onetime friend of Obama's late father holds those opinions, so, too, must the president himself.
 
D'Souza then goes through a list of actions Obama has taken as president to support his thesis. Many of them don't hold water:
 
_ D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.
 
_ D'Souza says Obama is "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not mention that Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone strikes that have killed dozens of other terrorists in the region.
 
_D'Souza wrongly claims that Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. The U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations.
 
_D'Souza says Obama has "done nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the severe trade and economic sanctions his administration has imposed on that country to halt its suspected nuclear program. Obama opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, although he says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
 
_ D'Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president's private residence, the White House says.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/2016-obama-america-fact-check_n_1835710.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/2016-obama-america-fact-check_n_1835710.html)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on September 01, 2012, 10:52:29 PM
What would you expect from the huffingtonpost?
Wikipedia......"The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, and is known as a left-leaning commentary outlet".

Still recommend seeing the movie and let people decide for themselves.
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: GQBlues on September 01, 2012, 10:55:21 PM
...According to Mr. T, if it was up to Romney, we’d all be driving foreign cars. Obama, not Romney saved Detroit. Don't you think Obama is more truly attuned to American values?

LOL.

Nothing wrong with driving a Honda, VW, Toyota, etc...autos made in the USA by non-unionized American auto workers. You should test drive one. I bet you'd agree how much more wonderful they are compared to GM and Chrysler.

Erwin-

Like 'J' and apparently Mr. T, you need to get yourself re-tuned. Troubled Asset Relief Program - 2008. You need to get yourself familiar with that because if you do you'll find much of what you posted doesn't hold water. TARP came into fruition on early October 2008 under then -president George Bush aimed to bail-out banks and other financial institutions during the fallout. The auto industry lined up for the loot including UAW's Ron Gettlefinger ( He retired in 2010, cushy and lavishly, courtesy of the US taxpayers conveniently sometime after a brisk labor reorganization in 2009). I'll grant you that under Obama additional 'funding' was given to GM, GMAC and Chrysler, but that'll just blow up the merit of what those 'added' sums really were for considering GM (i.e. the Goverment's Motors) needed financial boost to fund manage it's bankruptcy reorganization in 2009. 

That silly bail-out, especially Obama's additional cash-out extravaganza, was as successful as the silly Chevy VOLT. So screw the taxpayers and one up for the Democrats Unions. Thank you Mr. Hussein! Cash-4-Clunkers (15+ billion USD more), anyone?

Obama, in 2010, sank millions more to flood the airwaves and the Kool-aid pitchers about how profitable the Goverment Motors had been since. Heck, he even went as far as declaring the debt were paid for completely.

http://gm-volt.com/2010/04/25/obama-says-gm-bailout-has-been-a-success/ (http://gm-volt.com/2010/04/25/obama-says-gm-bailout-has-been-a-success/)

Check GM's stock today and tell me how successful they really are.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/043012-609777-general-motors-not-really-repaying-taxpayer-bailout.htm (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/043012-609777-general-motors-not-really-repaying-taxpayer-bailout.htm)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300075/obama-and-gm-cook-books-john-lott-jr (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300075/obama-and-gm-cook-books-john-lott-jr)

So yeppers, man. Romney was right on the money on this one.  :P

Don't you find it strange that a US president can sit there and tell folks like you how we can lose 1 million jobs if he doesn't bail-out GM/Chrysler? Is that one million GM/Chrysler autoworkers? WOW! I find it strange because if you took the time to find out exactly how many autoworkers there really are in the US, including those non-unionized workers from US-based Toyota, Honda, VW, Nissan, etc...it hardly tops that million threshold.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-04-auto-workers-by-state_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-04-auto-workers-by-state_N.htm)

LOL.

Amazing isn't it? That DC clown not only can move mountains and part the red sea, he can dupe millions with hardly an effort, eh?

Obama 2010:

"...Obama also said he believes the additional $50 billion in stock the government has bought from GM will soon be divested. “It wont be too long before the stock the Treasury is holding in GM could be sold,” he said...."

Today's GM stocks... http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/gm (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/gm) ~ You'll need double that (sub 22 USD) just to even up with the taxpayers monies... So kudos for Romney. Had he been president then, we certainly could have prevented more than a few billion non-unionized taxpayers monies to fund Detroit's union, eh?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Erwin on September 01, 2012, 11:17:55 PM
What would you expect from the huffingtonpost?
Wikipedia......"The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, and is known as a left-leaning commentary outlet".

Still recommend seeing the movie and let people decide for themselves.
Let them see this conservative anti-Obama film that wasn't backed by any Hollywood movie studio. Reviews were mostly negative. It premiered in Houston, not Los Angeles or New York.
 
Let them check the facts and make informed decision.
 
Do you know that the movie was distributed by Salt Lake City-based Rocky Mountain Pictures, "2016" and directed by Dinesh D'Souza, a former staffer for President Ronald Reagan, who is now president of King's College in New York and author of several books, including "The Roots of Obama's Rage," the basis for "2016" that claims Obama's beliefs are rooted in the anti-colonialism of his late father, a Kenyan academic who was largely absent from the president's life?
 
Do you know how the progressive Media Matters for America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America), Ryan Chittum (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Chittum&action=edit&redlink=1) in the Columbia Journalism Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Journalism_Review), and others, disputed D'Souza's claims regarding Barack Obama?
 
Do you know how conservative publications also criticized D'Souza's theory. Daniel Larison (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Larison&action=edit&redlink=1) of The American Conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative) states, "Dinesh D’Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written. ... All in all, D’Souza’s article reads like a bad conspiracy theory." Andrew Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ferguson) of The Weekly Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard) writes, "D’Souza always sees absence of evidence as evidence of something or other. ... There is, indeed, a name for the beliefs that motivate President Obama, but it’s not anticolonialism; it’s not even socialism. It’s liberalism!"
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on September 01, 2012, 11:20:44 PM
Quote from GQ
Cash-4-Clunkers (15+ billion USD more), anyone?

It was not totally a useless program... It got a lot of Obama bumper stickers off the road.   LOL

Title: Re: 2016: Obama's America' Fact-Check
Post by: GQBlues on September 01, 2012, 11:56:42 PM
Don't you worry yourself too much about Dinesh D'Souza, Erwin. For every Dinesh D'Souza there's a Micheal Moore lounging about.

 ;)

Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: GQBlues on September 02, 2012, 12:11:00 AM
What do you think would have happened to the Detroit auto industry if Romney had been President?
 
That depends on which Romney you are talking about. The Romney that said, IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye" (November 18, 2008), or the Romney that said the president (Obama) did exactly what he suggested and he (Romney) deserves "a lot of credit" because he supported the idea of managed bankruptcy (May 9, 2012). I guess you will have to elect him to see what's in him...probably just a bunch of hot air!
 
Some history, for those who have forgotten: In late 2008, with Wall Street in crisis and the economy grinding to a halt, General Motors and Chrysler revealed they were on the brink of collapse. They'd been struggling for years, paying the price for poor decisions by management and labor, but now things were much worse: They simply didn’t have the money to keep operating. In normal times, the carmakers could have filed for bankruptcy, obtained financing to reorganize and renegotiate contracts, and then emerged as leaner, stronger companies. But these were not normal times. The financial industry was in no position to offer that kind of assistance. Had the companies gone into bankruptcy, the likely result would have been liquidation.
 
And that would have been catastrophic. Closure of Chrysler and General Motors would have forced many of their suppliers to shut down. The economic shock wave would have rippled through the Midwest and quite possibly destroyed Ford, a relatively healthy company that nevertheless depended on the same firms to produce parts. Estimates from the Center for Automotive Research (http://www.cargroup.org/) suggested that the cumulative job losses could have reached three million (http://www.cargroup.org/assets/files/contraction.pdf). That was the worst-case scenario, but even substantially fewer job losses would have been devastating.
 
If you don’t live in the Midwest, you might not grasp just how critical the auto industry is to the region. So my buddy Mr. T used an analogy that will resonate with you in and around Washington, D.C.

Imagine the federal government went out of business, shuttering virtually every agency and putting their employees out of work. Now think of all the companies in the Washington area whose businesses consist of selling goods and services to the agencies and their workers—the grocery stores, the I.T. firms, the contractors, the mom-and-pop dry cleaners. They’d go out of business, too. Pretty soon the city would be an economic Beirut.
 
By 2008 and 2009, parts of the midwest already looked that way, because the American auto companies had been closing their plants for years. If you've been to Flint, or if you've seen Roger and Me (http://dogeatdog.michaelmoore.com/rogerme.html), then you know what I'm talking about. Other communities, like Lansing and the northern Detroit suburbs, had avoided that fate. A total collapse of Chrysler and GM would have crushed them, too.
 
In the waning days of his presidency, President Bush had the good sense to extend the companies a short-term, emergency loan. That put the onus on President Obama, still fresh on the job, to decide their fate. He didn’t give the companies a handout: He insisted they go through bankruptcy, renegotiate their contracts, clean out management, and downsize to an enterprise they could realistically support. Basically, he forced them to do what they would have done in normal economic times. Plenty of skeptics (including me!) worried the treatment was too harsh. But the companies complied and the results have been as good as anybody might rightly have hoped.
 
Since Obama made his decision, the unemployment rate in the auto states has declined steadily and substantially.  A big reason is that the auto companies, profitable again, have stopped firing and started hiring. It remains to be seen just how strong Chrysler and GM can become. They've had some hiccups and I wouldn't be surprised if, someday, Chrysler disappears into the Italian conglomerate that purchased it. But GM's plants are frequently operating at or above capacity, and they happen to make some very good cars. 
 
But the future performance of the companies is almost beside the point. The story of the auto bailout is a story of government saving the Midwest from oblivion. No less important, it is a story of leadership.
 
If you’ve followed this saga, you know that Romney has said multiple, conflicting things about the auto industry rescue (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/103040/romney-fehrnstrom-gm-chrysler-detroit-auto-bailout). Last I heard, he was saying that Detroit carmakers survived because Obama took Romney’s advice and forced them into bankruptcy. At the same time, Romney has said he opposed putting taxpayer money at risk.
 
That, people, is a nonsensical position: The whole point of the rescue was to supply the industry with taxpayer funds, because the financial industry wouldn’t, or couldn’t, provide money of its own. But it really doesn’t matter what Romney is saying now or what he said six months ago or what he said last year. The point is that Romney said different things at each of those moments, in a transparent effort to win the Republican primaries by pleasing angry conservatives without totally alienating the midwest.
 
The contrast with Obama is striking. The auto rescue may be the single best test of Obama's leadership on domestic policy because it was the one instance in which he didn't need Congress to act. He got mixed advice from his economic advisers, who were wary of another shock to the economic system but reluctant to prop up the ailing companies, particularly Chrysler. He also got mixed advice from his political advisers, who were aware of labor's longstanding support but were looking at poll numbers that suggested the public, already weary of bailouts, was in no mood for another industry rescue. Obama approved it anyway.

Obama got plenty wrong in his first term. But he got the Detroit rescue very, very right.

Erwin-

Before anyone *thinks* the above quoted post, as all your other posts, are *yours*, allow me to cite the source to the above to avoid confusion...I can cite the others too if you want...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106737/ryan-janesville-gm-obama-detroit-rescue (http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106737/ryan-janesville-gm-obama-detroit-rescue)

That's being far too LIBERAL of you.

 :P
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 02, 2012, 02:55:13 AM
...What makes America unique is that we do not want socialism and the government controling our lives from cradle to grave.  It is not the foundation of our beliefs and never has been...

All this shows, Doug, is that you have no idea of how modern socialist governments in Europe and the rest of the world function.  I can't give precise examples of how the government works in European countries because it's a long time since I've been there, but I'm sure Manny, MissAmeno and Ranetka (amongst others) can give examples in the United Kingdom; Sandro, BC, Patagonie, Shadow, The Natural and Ade can all contribute from the Continental side.
 
Although the current New Zealand government is nominally conservative, it is still probably left of centre in US terms, despite the fact that it is extremely friendly to big business.  We do have a "cradle to the grave" safety net for everyone - it's called Social Welfare, and it's the biggest item in our Governmental Budget.  However, the Government doesn't control our lives - it has certain requirements of people who wish to obtain benefit payments (e.g. unemployment or sickness), for example, but it does not dictate how those payments are to be spent.  I don't imagine that this is any different from what exists already in the USA.
 
We are faced with a choice of having to decide whether to vote for more socialism and government control over our lives, or the wealthy big business party that wants to reduce the size of government and reduce or eliminate the laws we had on the books for many years that limited the power of big business.   At least in this election we have a clear choice which is the lesser of two evils.

You can't have it both ways.  If those are your choices then the first option is the only one.  It's not governments that caused the Wall Street crash or the GFC.
Title: Re: How Obama will beat Romney?
Post by: calmissile on September 02, 2012, 11:27:36 AM

All this shows, Doug, is that you have no idea of how modern socialist governments in Europe and the rest of the world function.  I can't give precise examples of how the government works in European countries because it's a long time since I've been there, but I'm sure Manny, MissAmeno and Ranetka (amongst others) can give examples in the United Kingdom; Sandro, BC, Patagonie, Shadow, The Natural and Ade can all contribute from the Continental side.
 
Although the current New Zealand government is nominally conservative, it is still probably left of centre in US terms, despite the fact that it is extremely friendly to big business.  We do have a "cradle to the grave" safety net for everyone - it's called Social Welfare, and it's the biggest item in our Governmental Budget.  However, the Government doesn't control our lives - it has certain requirements of people who wish to obtain benefit payments (e.g. unemployment or sickness), for example, but it does not dictate how those payments are to be spent.  I don't imagine that this is any different from what exists already in the USA.
 
You can't have it both ways.  If those are your choices then the first option is the only one.  It's not governments that caused the Wall Street crash or the GFC.

We probably agree on some things more than you think and disagree on others.
The cradle to grave 'safety net' is a great humanitarian idea.  The problem is in the implementation of it and the size of it.  When I was growing up in the 40's and 50's, we had very little government welfare.  In the small city I was raised, I can remember only two families that got government assistance.  In both cases the women were physically handicapped and UNABLE to care for themselves.  I also remember one family with 20+ kids that were dirt poor, but still survived without government help.  My grandparents,  after retirement supplemented their income by my grandfather (a machinist) having a small business in the basement where he did small contract jobs for Boeing and other companies.  Welfare was not available, so people worked out their own problems.

For the destitute, the majority of assistance came from the churches and charity organizations.  I don't remember seeing or hearing about anyone starving or being homeless.  One thing that seems to be not understood is part of our culture that began with Americans being rugged individualists and being proud to take care of ourselves without government help.  Of course there were exceptions such as during the great depression, but for the most part we only got help from charities and helping each other as needed.

Once welfare became institutionalized and all you had to do was sign up and get free benefits, the system grew out of control.  It  is human nature.  Why work and sweat when you don't have to.  Our system of welfare has gotten totally out of control!   Personally I do not have an problem with the idea of a safety net.  The problem is that it is so easy and now considered an entitlement that people no longer bust their ass to help themselves.

An example of the problem is the idea that people have to work or being actively seeking work to get welfare or unemployment.  Our liberal politicians and activist groups have watered the requirements down so much that you are not expected to put forth any real effort to receive benefits.  Once a large segment of the population is used to receiving the freebies, they have clout in in the lawmaking process and lobby to continue the expansion of benefits.  This is why it is out of control.

I  think we fundamentally agree on the 'safety net' idea, it is in the implementation of it that we might not agree with.

It's not governments that caused the Wall Street crash or the GFC.

We disagree on this one.  The bank failures due to the housing crash, and the bank failures due to speculative investments by the banks WERE caused by the government.  It was deregulation of the banks that led to the problems.  We had sensible/moderate laws prior to this time that required our financial institutions to be more responsible in investing their depositors money.  For the most part, the Republicans fought hard for deregulation of nearly everything they could find.  The cool-aid we were fed was the message that we now live in a 'global economy' and regulation is bad and hampering free enterprise.  Even the institutional investors and pension funds jumped on the bandwagon to deregulate in order to reap the benefits of greater profits.  It was our elected officials (government) that changed the laws and allowed the crash and bank failures to happen.  The corporations could not have done it without their cronies in Washington changing the laws.

Although not directly related, the same thing happened that caused our manufacturing to move offshore and the loss of good jobs and technical skills associated with manufacturing our own consumer goods.  It was our elected officials that made the changes in our laws thanks to the lobbying of the special interest groups.

My disappointment is that there is a general feeling among liberals and progressives that any policies of the past is BAD, and we are too dumb, or stupid to look back and pick what worked when things were good and re-institute those successful policies and laws.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 02, 2012, 04:32:12 PM
calmissile,

Here's another 'take' on your post.

Yes, during the 40's, 50's 60's and even early 70's life was quite 'bare'..  For the most part the only major appliance in most households was a refrigerator.  Folks in a community indeed 'stuck together' in hard times, especially within family units.  Many did not wander far from the place where they were born, family stuck together often providing assistance or at least a communal meals for those less fortunate.  In other words the existing 'social net' was for the most part pretty adequate for the needs. It was a simple but also for the most part a good life. 

But thinking hard about the later years, I think you will find and even agree that striving to be the greatest economic power on Earth also meant that the social net was continually torn apart.  Mobility was key to success.. getting that good job three states away also hit family units hard.  Frequent moving also eroded the sense of community.. today here, somewhere else tomorrow.  Thoughts turned more to 'It's about me' instead of 'us'.

This left many behind with little they could depend on in times of need.  So increases in the government social net became necessary.

Think of it more like a trade-off.

Then economically speaking, despite a good manufacturing base, the economy slumbered somewhat.  Many factory workers could not really afford to buy the goods they were making. To reach the upside again, the powers that be recognized that in order to grow, a means that would allow the masses to afford major purchases was needed.  The answer was credit..  Those factory workers building cars were now in a position to buy one, adding huge strides in GDP.  At the same time, folks started saving for things like education, down payments on a dream home, a vacation to Europe, etc etc....  the bank vaults were filled to capacity..  so banking had to start being even more creative.  The worth of a company's stock was no longer the book value but instead more and more speculative creating bubble after bubble..  In old times folks bought stock in exchange for a moderate dividend and as a underpinning for their retirement hoping that a stock would rise with normal company growth.. Instruments like default swaps where one could also bet against success were unheard of.

Instead of being satisfied with a steady linear growth rate,  the greed wave with all kinds of instruments hit that would heat up the economy based solely on future promises and speculation.  This is where things really went haywire and remains so to this day.  Everyone wanted to be a winner and to do so ethics be damned.  A culture of 'getting what I want' grew and grew..  Living within one's means flew out the window.

The government learned to spend too... With ever increasing federal debt, more taxes were needed.. so there were only two ways to do that.. raise taxes or ease credit so millions of iphones could ber bought by consumers along with a hundred different models of salad shooters and the 'ultimate' toaster.

The upside with this is that as long as interest rates remained low, the interest paid by the government for debt was also low... allowing for evermore debt to be created.  But inflation often times caught up and had to be 'managed' by monetary policies like restricting cash in circulation which drove interest rates up.

I could go on and on, but think about it...  From the lowest to the very top levels all sense of responsibility and ethics are gone.  In fact as far as the stock market goes instability is actually needed to keep it going!  without the ups and downs, money is not changing hands!  What is a roulette table worth if the wheel does not spin?

At the same time all this is happening, the workforce itself, already financially exploited, has not even been kept educated or healthy! 

I really believe that some other countries recognized this and started long ago to ensure their workforce was educated and healthy, that it was a core value of society and government to see that it happens in the interests of long term economic success.

Today, in order to have any chances of survival, the US absolutely must invest heavily in these most important aspects....   There are plenty of jobs out there that need highly skilled, technical workers.  Romney says he will create 12 million jobs.... doing what with poorly educated and unhealthy workers?  Flipping burgers?  He has to get real.. cramming even more sick kids into already crowded classrooms ain't gonna get it done.

Education to the university level and elevated trade schools should be free.  Good, free healthcare should be a given.

Europe is going through a crisis period...  guess who is still succeeding?  Germany and most of the northern countries are doing just fine.. because they have invested in the most important, basic social aspects and are doing a damned good job at it.  All this even with unions, higher taxes, 30 day vacations, universal health care and a social net that may look like pillows to outsiders.  Guess what.. the trick is to make it so that social pillow is not needed that awful much in the first place. 

A study in 2009 showed that 60% of personal bankruptcies were due to medical bills. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml  Guess what... of those bankruptcies 2/3 were insured....  That says a lot IMHO.  Each of these bankruptcies carries aftershocks that include higher insurance costs for others.  What good is insurance when it gets cancelled because one can no longer work for a time?  That just puts folks in the position of not even being able to get well and re-enter the workforce...

I'll poke a stick in the eye of anyone that screams socialism without even knowing what the word means.  For all intents and purposes they can call it 'success' instead.  Whatever their definition of  'socialism' is, I can define it as 'just works'.

As far as Germany and the unemployment in during the latest economic crisis  this chart speaks for itself.  Just a blip.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:de&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+germany#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:de&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

High GDP comes at a huge cost..

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Credit, speculation, external government spending (i.e. wars)

these charts are very interesting....

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sh_med_phys_zs&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Healthcare is also a supply/demand market..  demand is obviously higher than supply.. which also keeps prices high..

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sh_xpd_pcap_pp_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Pay more, get less.

Fear of one misdefined word (socialism) is wreaking havoc.  I simply cannot trust any politician that uses it for the purpose of instilling fear to leverage a vote..  The numbers simply do not add up.

Just my two euro cents at current exchange rates.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 03, 2012, 01:51:46 AM
Europe is going through a crisis period...  guess who is still succeeding?  Germany and most of the northern countries are doing just fine.. because they have invested in the most important, basic social aspects and are doing a damned good job at it.  All this even with unions, higher taxes, and social net that may look like pillows to outsiders.  Guess what.. the trick is to make it so that social pillow is not needed that awful much.


Yes, that's right. Norway, Sweden and Finland is doing fine, Denmark is struggling a bit. The mantra in politics here in Norway has been for as long as I can remember job creation. It is a welfare state yes, and there will always be slackers that take advantage of it. But that shouldn't mean we should abolish it. Not even the conservatives would dream of that. But I can tell you there is a stigma attached to "go on the social" if you're an able person, especially if you live in a small community. And besides, receiving unemployment benefits and other social benefits does not come close to giving you the kind of living standard you have if you have a job.
 
Income tax and and other taxes are higher, yes. But you have to do the whole calculation. You don't need medical insurance unless you travel outside the EU. If you have health problems, a chronic disease and need medicines for a vital drug and medical attention, you pay about 350 dollars on your own in a year and the rest is covered by the society.
 
You get 175 dollars per child per month from age 0 to 16. Kindergarten is subsidized and if you don't use the kindergarten from 13 to 18 months the parents get close to 900 dollars and somewhat less after that. One year paid leave from work for the mother of a new-born. The father also get a few weeks, don't know how many.
 
VAT is 13-14% on food and 25% on most other things. Items like gas, alcohol and tobacco have added taxes which I guess makes it the most expensive in the world. The price level in general is quite higher than most of the rest of Europe, but so are the wages. I paid about 28% income tax last year and is middle class and can live a comfortable middle class life with what I have. Going abroad, to Ukraine for example, is very nice economically as I can spend money in a low cost country with money earned in a high cost/high wage country.
 
The greatest problem in the US and some other countries now is, I think, the large loss of jobs. In Norway there is more than full employment. Anyone willing will find a job and there are thousands of foreigners coming here to get jobs. The fastest growing group of immigrants are Polish and there are many from Sweden and Denmark and other countries as well.
 
No country or system is perfect of course, and there's always plenty to complain about. But I think if you asked people here, I think practically none would exchange the welfare state for the system in USA.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 03, 2012, 03:55:46 AM

The greatest problem in the US and some other countries now is, I think, the large loss of jobs. In Norway there is more than full employment. Anyone willing will find a job and there are thousands of foreigners coming here to get jobs. The fastest growing group of immigrants are Polish and there are many from Sweden and Denmark and other countries as well.
 
No country or system is perfect of course, and there's always plenty to complain about. But I think if you asked people here, I think practically none would exchange the welfare state for the system in USA.

I think this and many other similar articles reflects the subject of unemployment in my previous post.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/14/smallbusiness/trade-schools/index.htm

Quote
"Employers right now need workers with these high-precision skills. But the mismatch is that most of America's unemployed workforce doesn't possess these skills," Smierciak said.
So manufacturers are racing to trade schools like Wilbur Wright, one of only seven schools in Illinois that offer an accredited CNC course, and snapping up newly-minted factory workers as quickly as they can.
The demand for his graduates is so intense that last year's CNC graduating class scored a 100% job placement.

The brunt of unemployment is carried by young people with high school education or less.  Those with good trade school, or university degrees in technical, science and math are doing very well.

Any way one looks at it, jobs can be created only if there are skilled workers to fill them.  -That is the ultimate source of labor market problems and unemployment.  The solution is better education in reading, sciences and math.  According to OECD statistics, the US is about average in reading and science, but low in math.  The countries that excel in BOTH math and sciences tend to do very well as it regards unemployment.  Shanghai, South Korea, Finland, Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, Australia, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Macao etc..

Here's the competition folks.....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 03, 2012, 08:32:32 AM
I'm happy Europeans have their system the way they are in Europe. I'm happy life had always been grand. Really. I'm happy the social system you have work real nice and dandy for all of you. Yipee!

You'll just have to excuse some of the silly news we read here about how Greece is on the brink of default again and that it'll soon see the exit gates from the EU zone. Not far behind is Spain, Slovenia, etc...unless someone bails someone out like we do here with the Unions.

I know, I know...mother Germany is right behind to save the day, or even the EU copy-constitutional member states (sic) itself.

This is one American who firmly believes that social system are nothing more economical pyramid scheme, or the more cosmopolitan term, a Ponzi Scheme. We have that type of system in the US which the majority tax payers are constantly having to rescue (sound familiar?) - UAW and the like.

 Oh yeah, life is good for many folks in those systems. So good in fact, their union bosses can pretty much whisper jump and they'll universally ask, 'How high?". Sometimes they don't even whisper, they just do it from a snap of the fingers.

No thanks, I believe the average American isn't molded in that way. This nation refuses to be mired in mediocrity. Stagnant. Americans are hard-working innovative folks. I'm sure you can attest how much you enjoy the finer things in life that surrounds you these days courtesy of American ingenuity, no?

Social system is good and sustainable for as long as you have a very strong and steady influx of bottom revenue, equal to or greater than pensioners. The problem with that is, the baseline is growing faster and exponentially. Until that scheme maintain the structure, it's fine. The creation of the 'EU' is a good proof (example) of that. It isn't a coincidence that Greece is the best and at the same time the worst example of a social system. It is heralded as the best country in the world for pensioners and social care, and unfortunately at the same time...well...

Moreover, and unless our good neighbors from across the big ocean forget ~ Europe, unlike the US, don't exactly carry the same working assets the US do domestically..40+ million illegal immigrants. Comparing apples to apples, relative number for EU would be closer to 100 million. Now, think for a minute how that many beneficiaries would impact your system, no? Remember Berlin.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 03, 2012, 11:56:52 AM
GQ,

Greece was a known factor when the UE formed.  Everyone knew back then what was going on, but it was a catch 22 situation... the northern countries did not want southern countries to become lucrative, cheap labor countries.  Don't forget that the med countries, Italy, Spain, Greece can basically feed themselves.  Now the north is having to put up or shut up..  Each of these countries have huge 'black economies' that if counted would dramatically change the official figures.  How does Spain with huge unemployment figures survive with low government debt??  Go figure.  Per capita national debt in Spain is less than half that in the US!

Greece has already half defaulted...  sure some folks got burned, the other half will burn some more, but exposure is relatively small.  If Greece exits the Euro, they will thrive as a low wage market, sucking jobs from the north.  That's what keeps them going.  It's already happening...  Last year I booked flights to the US... airtickets24.com..  great deal.. USAIR guess what? Greek travel agent.  This week booked a rental car up 'north' for a week.. economycarrentals.com guess what? great price Sixt.. just saw the AMEX charge for the booking... company in Iraklion Greece. 

They will survive as will the rest of Europe.

As for illegal immigration.. the figures I found for the US are somewhere between 12 and 20 million..  Wasn't able to find a good figure for all of EU, but judging from a country by country search, I don't think 12 million would be unreasonable.  Consider also that legal immigration to Italy, even Canada is higher that to the US..  sure  It's a problem to be dealt with.. most European countries are probably a bit stricter than the US, but maybe for a good reason... the US needs a good cheap labor source, especially in agriculture.  Demographics in many aging countries might even need more of them.  Even there it's a balancing act.  What I do think is wrong is to blame it all on illegal immigration.. unemployment, healthcare cost, social services costs....  It's just another scare tactic and I am fairly surprised, that you allow yourself to be spoon fed this propaganda.  Instead of contempt prior to investigation, dig into the data.. research a bit and think long and hard.

Oh.. btw... the 40 million 'illegals' you mention?... that figure includes both legal AND illegal immigrants living in the US....  Your wife may be or have been one of them..

Quote
The number of foreign-born residents in the United States — including legal and illegal immigrants — reached 40 million last year, the highest figure in American history, new Census Bureau figures disclose.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsiderReport/Immigrant-Population-All-Time-High/2011/11/13/id/417827

Europe has about 32 Million and I don't think  illegal immigrants have been counted. 

If not, that would put EU on par with the US as far as overall immigration goes.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/07/immigration-europe-foreign-citizens

Your assessment seems a bit faulty..  maybe a by a lot.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 03, 2012, 03:34:24 PM
BC-

1) On the pretext, you imply illegal immigration in the EU is on par to that of the US, yet you can't find any study or census done to determine the hard number of illegal immigrants in the EU. Don't you find that rather interesting for something you imply as 'problematic' as it is in the US? Especially since the EU are far less accommodating to illegal immigrants than the US. You tell me my basis is faulty (by a lot) yet you contest it strictly based on a 'guess'?

The 2010 census did in fact cited the numbers you quoted. That may have been my bad when I read the report (legal/illegal). But to have an estimated range with almost a 100% tolerance and/or disparity is perplexing to say the least (11 to 20 million). It's an election year, so I'm not sure how that conveniences the public. Unlike you however, living here, I would have more of a 'feel' exactly what that number is and how it affects our society than you on any given Sunday. Moreover, there was a study done in the US that reported 1 in 6 babies born in the US are from mothers who are an illegal alien. These babies are constitutionally citizens with rights and full privilege as any American but with the distinct difference that they, or their parent's, aren't exactly contributors to our system.

I picked fruits for a little over 1.3 years. I know that industry fairly well. Don't believe mainstream media's story that if the farmers were to hire legal workers somehow the cost of produce will shyrocket to high prices. Truth is, it won't make a whole lot of difference. Why? Because whatever one saves from 'cheap' labor for hiring illegal aliens to pick the fruits isn't passed on to the consumers, but rather stays with the farmers. These silly stories are fueled by the left leaning media. Not everyone in the agricultural industry hire only illegal immigrants. A case for a silly point ~ I haven't yet walked down an aisle in any produce market with a price ad that reads "Save more! Our fruits are picked by illegal immigrants and the savings are passed on to you!"

I won't go into the US and EU's labor distinction between citizens and legal residents working in the US vs. the EU. You know well enough how it is in Europe as I do in the US. What I can tell you in the US, a legal resident is as qualified for any job as any US citizen.

I never blamed illegal immigration as the reason for our socioeconomic, but I will state is it a MAJOR contributor to our internal problems.

2) Your 2 anecdotal samples (i.e. Greece) apparently doesn't quite agree with major financial institution, nor does Germany and EU as a whole. To brush off the Greece situation as blase as you have seem rather strange since one would wonder then why bail them out in the first place. Then again and again.

Besides, the point being made on my post isn't whether or not Greece/Spain/Slovenia/Ireland/Iceland, etc... will be fine in the long run whether they belong to the EU or not. The point we're discussing here is whether or not social system is as perfect some of you would like for everyone to believe. It isn't.

Thus, I firmly stand by my previous sentiment.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on September 03, 2012, 03:59:06 PM
One aspect many people here seem not to know or blithely ignore is that, right after WWII, most of Europe was deeply suffering one way or another: wrecked industries, houses in ruins, damaged infrastructures, unemployment, food shortages, masses of widowed women and orphaned children, cripples, etc. etc - a very grim situation that the US mostly avoided due to their isolated geographical position and later entering into the conflict.

This dramatic situation was probably one of the main reasons for deciding that our governments should take more care of their citizens, and provide the communal 'safety nets' that families alone were no longer in a position to offer ::).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 03, 2012, 04:01:43 PM
good posts by gq.

but no matter what lengths one goes to explain the american aversion to collectivism, i doubt the average european will/can grasp it.

it has to be lived and experienced to be understood.

just as i don't grasp how the benefits of euro socialist services can justify the loss of personal freedoms.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 03, 2012, 05:18:50 PM
...just as i don't grasp how the benefits of euro socialist services can justify the loss of personal freedoms.

Seriously, what personal freedoms do you believe have been lost?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 03, 2012, 06:44:57 PM

Seriously, what personal freedoms do you believe have been lost?

freedom from confiscatory tax rates -- which are implemented under the threat of fines and/or imprisonment for underpayment.
 
(i could name many others, but that's my #1 choice.)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on September 03, 2012, 08:37:04 PM

freedom from confiscatory tax rates -- which are implemented under the threat of fines and/or imprisonment for underpayment.
 
(i could name many others, but that's my #1 choice.)

The right to bear arms!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 03, 2012, 11:43:28 PM
the US needs a good cheap labor source, especially in agriculture.  Demographics in many aging countries might even need more of them.  Even there it's a balancing act.  What I do think is wrong is to blame it all on illegal immigration.. unemployment, healthcare cost, social services costs....  It's just another scare tactic and I am fairly surprised, that you allow yourself to be spoon fed this propaganda.


Though, it could be said that Europe also needs the cheap labor source for its agriculture, but by expanding the European Union, they integrated cheap labour into the union and everybody benefits. I am visiting distant relatives of my wife in Germany, and they refer to the Poles who work for the local farmers. They work in Germany earning many times more that they would back home and in turn they hire even cheaper labour from Belarus to take care of their farms while they are working in Germany  :) Everybody benefits.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 12:48:33 AM
BC-

1) On the pretext, you imply illegal immigration in the EU is on par to that of the US, yet you can't find any study or census done to determine the hard number of illegal immigrants in the EU. Don't you find that rather interesting for something you imply as 'problematic' as it is in the US? Especially since the EU are far less accommodating to illegal immigrants than the US. You tell me my basis is faulty (by a lot) yet you contest it strictly based on a 'guess'?

The 2010 census did in fact cited the numbers you quoted. That may have been my bad when I read the report (legal/illegal). But to have an estimated range with almost a 100% tolerance and/or disparity is perplexing to say the least (11 to 20 million). It's an election year, so I'm not sure how that conveniences the public. Unlike you however, living here, I would have more of a 'feel' exactly what that number is and how it affects our society than you on any given Sunday. Moreover, there was a study done in the US that reported 1 in 6 babies born in the US are from mothers who are an illegal alien. These babies are constitutionally citizens with rights and full privilege as any American but with the distinct difference that they, or their parent's, aren't exactly contributors to our system.

Fair question GQ.  It was a bit amazing not to find much info at all in English which would be common for EU level studies.  I was able to find some info from studies in German though that put the 'official' number of illegals (without residency permit) between 4 and 6 million.  That's about half of the 12 million mentioned in the US.  There are some factors though that bump the EU vs US.  First around 3 times as many asylum seekers each year, 1 million for EU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee .  The amount of amnesties in Europe since the 80's is much higher than the 3 million Reagan issued. In 1990 Spain alone added a million.  Although that may seem like grasping a bit to reach parity with the US it's close enough to reality and in any case shows some of the differences with immigration policies.  Bottom line I think one can safely assume that illegal and 'shadow' migration is a large problem on both sides of the Atlantic rather than being a unique factor.

According to this document http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/125.pdf 8% of births in the US to unauthorized immigration parents.

Quote
I picked fruits for a little over 1.3 years. I know that industry fairly well. Don't believe mainstream media's story that if the farmers were to hire legal workers somehow the cost of produce will shyrocket to high prices. Truth is, it won't make a whole lot of difference. Why? Because whatever one saves from 'cheap' labor for hiring illegal aliens to pick the fruits isn't passed on to the consumers, but rather stays with the farmers. These silly stories are fueled by the left leaning media. Not everyone in the agricultural industry hire only illegal immigrants. A case for a silly point ~ I haven't yet walked down an aisle in any produce market with a price ad that reads "Save more! Our fruits are picked by illegal immigrants and the savings are passed on to you!"

My main point was that in an aging society (and the US is one) there will be demand for younger workers that outstrip supply.  Illegal economic refugees tend to be younger on average than the country population.  If there were no demand, there would be no supply.  It's pretty simple.

Quote
I won't go into the US and EU's labor distinction between citizens and legal residents working in the US vs. the EU. You know well enough how it is in Europe as I do in the US. What I can tell you in the US, a legal resident is as qualified for any job as any US citizen.

Other than asylum seekers in some EU countries, a legal resident is allowed to work here also.  In fact, my wife was allowed to work the day she immigrated, no need for a 'work permit' at all.

Quote
I never blamed illegal immigration as the reason for our socioeconomic, but I will state is it a MAJOR contributor to our internal problems.

As it is a MAJOR contributor to financial problems here.  Maybe it's used a bit less as political leverage here, more along the lines of a being a common problem and not that high on the election agenda.  Ditto topics such as abortion, religion, etc.

Quote
2) Your 2 anecdotal samples (i.e. Greece) apparently doesn't quite agree with major financial institution, nor does Germany and EU as a whole. To brush off the Greece situation as blase as you have seem rather strange since one would wonder then why bail them out in the first place. Then again and again.

The main motivation for 'all possible inclusion' in EU is to level the playing field over as large an area as possible, which negates the possibility of cheap labor countries.  It's a trade off that is grudgingly having to be paid for by the EU as a whole.  What's 303 billion vs EU GDP of almost 13 trillion?

Quote
Besides, the point being made on my post isn't whether or not Greece/Spain/Slovenia/Ireland/Iceland, etc... will be fine in the long run whether they belong to the EU or not. The point we're discussing here is whether or not social system is as perfect some of you would like for everyone to believe. It isn't.

Thus, I firmly stand by my previous sentiment.

No system is 'perfect', but the social system here has been working for many decades. There are still many inefficiencies but in general works quite well, both economically and as it regards the state of citizens health. The US is a true 'newbie' when it comes to universal health care with all disadvantages expounded upon for political reasons with the true, long term benefits generally disregarded, even hidden from the common voter.  On this point I think folks in the US could do a bit more listening and learning.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 01:11:05 AM
good posts by gq.

but no matter what lengths one goes to explain the american aversion to collectivism, i doubt the average european will/can grasp it.

it has to be lived and experienced to be understood.

just as i don't grasp how the benefits of euro socialist services can justify the loss of personal freedoms.


freedom from confiscatory tax rates -- which are implemented under the threat of fines and/or imprisonment for underpayment.
 
(i could name many others, but that's my #1 choice.)
 

Taxes till death do us part..  that's life everywhere.  Once taxes dramatically affect the quality of life of ordinary citizens in a negative manner it is disproportionate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index  I see no correlation with your assertion.

The right to bear arms!


Many here own guns for private purposes.. hunters, collectors,  It's a fairly straightforward process that includes training, mental assessment and insists that they be maintained securely.  Carry permits for pistols are also issued when there is a justified reason to do so.  So we do have the right to bear arms here.. just not ANY firearm, anywhere with the barest of checks and training.

Any other 'limitation of freedom' out there?

Want to talk about more important aspects of life?  How about the right to privacy?  This is one area where I think rights of citizens and residents in the EU are greater than in the US.  Any rebuttals?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 04, 2012, 06:36:26 AM

freedom from confiscatory tax rates -- which are implemented under the threat of fines and/or imprisonment for underpayment.
 
(i could name many others, but that's my #1 choice.)

You obviously have a totally different system of paying taxes from us.  All wage and salary earners in New Zealand have income tax deducted prior to the money ending up in our bank accounts (PAYE - Pay As You Earn).  Most contractors have withholding tax deducted from their payments (usually at a rate of 20%), while self-employed people pay on their assessed income at the end of the financial year (which ends on 31st March, and we have until the following 7th February to actually pay anything owing).  Because the great majority of people don't even see their tax money there are very few problems with our Inland Revenue Department.  Our tax returns are also very straightforward - only 4 or 6 pages, which can usually be finished in half an hour if you have all your business receipts, etc.  These don't even need to be completed by Salaried Joe unless he or she thinks that they will get a refund.
 
The only other tax which we have to worry about is GST (Goods and Services Tax, the equivalent of Europe's VAT), which is levied on nearly everything at a rate of 15%.  By law it is included in all prices, so you don't have to try to work it out and add it on.  This can be claimed back by those self-employed people who are registered for GST.  We don't have any other direct sales taxes or State taxes, although property owners do pay rates to their local City or District Council to cover things such as rubbish and sewage disposal, roading improvements, libraries, etc.
 
Our tax rates certainly aren't "confiscatory" - I pay an average of about 22% a year in income tax.  For that we get (amongst other things) free hospital care and free primary and secondary education.  Our top tax rate is only 33% (which is also the company tax rate), and that applies only to the very top bracket of earners.
 
The right to bear arms!

Doug, I agree with BC on this one.  The gun laws in most of the USA are a total joke, as are the apologists for whichever amendment to the Constitution allows you to bear arms in a manner which was never envisaged by your Founding Fathers.  I live in a country which has stringent gun control, and where handguns are not allowed to be sold except under the most punitive conditions.  Of course criminals still get hold of them, but last year there were only 39 murders in the whole country, of which fewer than 10 were shootings.
 
Contrast that with places such as Detroit and Washington DC, both with much smaller populations than ours, where there is at least one shooting murder PER DAY.  GOB's wife has a Permit to Carry a 9mm (Beretta? Glock?) in her handbag - I'm glad I live in a country where such pemits simply don't exist.  Even our police (in general) are unarmed, although most patrol cars do carry weapons locked away for use if absolutely necessary.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 04, 2012, 06:58:59 AM
Anotherkiwi,
 
Very similar to Norway, what you wrote. I've read before that New Zealand and Norway has very similar systems, population size. But we don't have the warm climate and exotic animals you do  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 04, 2012, 07:14:07 AM
Anotherkiwi,
 
Very similar to Norway, what you wrote. I've read before that New Zealand and Norway has very similar systems, population size. But we don't have the warm climate and exotic animals you do  :D

Warm climate?  Not at the moment, that's for sure!  Saturday was supposedly the first day of spring, and we're struggling to get above 15 degrees.  Auckland has a very mild, temperate climate, and even in summer we might only get to 30 degrees once or twice (we equalled our all-time record of 32.2 last summer).  What we have had is rain - over 40 mm yesterday, another 20 today - and this after my holiday in Australia where I saw no rain in nearly a month!
 
Exotic animals?  You have reindeer!  And bears! And snakes!  We have the tuatara (the last living dinosaur), the kiwi (which most people know), the kakapo (the world's biggest parrot, which is flightless and therefore endangered), and a couple of really weird frogs.  For entertainment we have the kereru, the world's biggest (?) pigeon, many of which have been known to fall out of a tree when drunk on nectar, and the kea, our smiling assasin of a mountain parrot which loves people, has a fetish for rubber (windscreen wiper blades and window seals especially) and murders sheep in its spare time.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 04, 2012, 07:31:31 AM
Once taxes dramatically affect the quality of life of ordinary citizens in a negative manner it is disproportionate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index)  I see no correlation with your assertion.

and what is an 'ordinary citizen'?.... is that someone who is a member of 'the masses'?
 
(as illustrated even by the vocabulary, there is a huge disconnect between the american and the non-american self-images.)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 08:18:25 AM

and what is an 'ordinary citizen'?.... is that someone who is a member of 'the masses'?
 
(as illustrated even by the vocabulary, there is a huge disconnect between the american and the non-american self-images.)

Ordinary citizens as in people that work in exchange for remuneration, but yes, addressing the vast majority or masses.

About the disconnect.. who is non american?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 04, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
forgot that you are an american living in italy.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 04, 2012, 08:58:50 AM
 
i despise the terms 'average citizen'... 'the masses'.
 
i never considered myself anything short of extraordinary.  a great many people that i know carry themselves likewise.
 
i'm sure you don't consider yourself average, either.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 09:28:30 AM

i despise the terms 'average citizen'... 'the masses'.
 
i never considered myself anything short of extraordinary.  a great many people that i know carry themselves likewise.
 
i'm sure you don't consider yourself average, either.

No need to be offended..  It was more along the line of ordinary taxpayers (the term I maybe should have used) which would exclude corporations and other entities like churches, non profits etc etc. who may or may not be taxpayers.

It was not meant to be disparaging.

I am however interested in other 'freedoms' you mentioned I lost by living over here..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 04, 2012, 09:54:55 AM
i wasn't offended, and i understood that you weren't trying to offend.
 
i see progressive taxation (instituted in the usa, but taken to a whole new level in europe) as having the consequence of keeping middle-class income people from moving up into another higher class of income (eg joining the 1%).
 
while money doesn't equal freedom... more of it can certainly make a person more free.  and those who have less are certainly less free.
 
thanks to relative economic freedom and pro-business policies in the usa, i've been able to build a successful business and achieve more personal freedom.  i have serious doubts that i could have accomplished what i accomplished in europe.
 
an environment that is more 'wide open' suits me better.  more risk, but higher potential for reward.
 
i recognize that none of this may apply to you, and that's why i didn't describe you personally as 'less free'.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
i wasn't offended, and i understood that you weren't trying to offend.
 
i see progressive taxation (instituted in the usa, but taken to a whole new level in europe) as having the consequence of keeping middle-class income people from moving up into another higher class of income (eg joining the 1%).
 
while money doesn't equal freedom... more of it can certainly make a person more free.  and those who have less are certainly less free.
 
thanks to relative economic freedom and pro-business policies in the usa, i've been able to build a successful business and achieve more personal freedom.  i have serious doubts that i could have accomplished what i accomplished in europe.
 
an environment that is more 'wide open' suits me better.  more risk, but higher potential for reward.
 
i recognize that none of this may apply to you, and that's why i didn't describe you personally as 'less free'.

Traveler,

I've been self employed 'over here' since '85, so I can't really say that business is any easier or tougher here or there.  Most of my 'brick and mortar' business success was in Germany which is for the most part a very regulated and even playing field.  One follows the rules.  This may seem restrictive, but what many forget is that good, even handed regulation allows for true competition.  This also means that small businesses do have a chance.  This also boils down to the employee level..

I'm going to stick my neck out here a bit...

If you have employees, what paid vacation time do you allow?  Lets say you allow 1 week the first year and 2 weeks the next 5 years...  what happens when a business opens up down the street, selling similar products and/ or services but allows no vacation the first year and only 1 week the next 5 years?  Does that not put you at a disadvantage? Or do you think your productivity would be that much higher for 'happy' employees that get a bit more vacation time? 

 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 04, 2012, 11:03:49 AM
27 years of business ownership?  you definitely don't qualify as one of 'the masses'.  big ups to you on that, bc!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Traveler,

and I'll stick my neck out a bit more.....

You are an employer.  One of your best and most productive employees went out with his pals on a long weekend bar hopping, having a good time and got mugged, ending up with a complex broken collar bone requiring a few screws and hardware plus some cracked ribs that punched his lung.  The perpetrators were not caught. This employee worked in your warehouse so for the next 8 to 12 weeks is basically worthless to you.. 'out of business'.   What do  you do, keep him or fire him?  He's out a couple K for the med bills, doesn't have any sick time accrued and his light, water and mortgage is due.

You really like the guy and want him back.  Will you pay his med bills and keep him above water until he can return?  During his 'down' time he finds another job opening right about the time he is all healed up.  Do you think he will come back if you don't help him out?

In Germany you would just have to cover 6 weeks wages like all other employers, then the state health insurance company would reimburse you for most of his wages thereafter.  He will be happy, you will be happy and he'll be back, ready to go instead of being pissed you had to fire him for just 'one of those many things' that happen in life', maybe going to your competition, raising their bottom line instead.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 11:37:41 AM
27 years of business ownership?  you definitely don't qualify as one of 'the masses'.  big ups to you on that, bc!

Traveler,

as you well know, it takes an initial huge leap in faith to take the steps necessary to go from employee to employer, dependent to independent along with all the risks and pitfalls.  I congratulate you instead.  That feeling of answering to yourself instead of someone else is irreversible despite the huge accrued responsibility.

That feeling may not be one that the 'masses' enjoy, but it is truly universal.  I get the feeling you are riding that 'high'.. and that is great.  Just don't think such is limited by borders.

I personally find that the scary word inappropriately being used- 'socialism' is in essence very much about level playing fields and not much else.

Just my POV.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 04, 2012, 12:04:28 PM
BC-
 
Not to squeeze water out of a rock, I will suppose immigration is far more vital to EU's social system structure than the US. Thus, I am not at all surprised at the heightened number of viable immigation into the EU lately. EU's system is reliant for a steady influx of new workers to insure/sustain viability of their social systems.
 
The tough part for Europe is, which is almost nil with the US, Europe faces a tougher road ahead (immigration) due to the 'preservation of their respective heritage/cultural concerns. Italian will be more concerned to satying 'Italians', as Irish folks remaining 'Irish, etc..already Europe had started to see isolated flashes of this pending cultural growing pains. US, for the most part today, is already a hybrid society. Europe is not, and likely will be fairly unwelcoming of that change or evolution.
 
Economic contraction that everyone faces today is painful the world over. The article below shows, for certain age groups, Europe, the US, and Japan is suffering from a prolonged unemployment. This have a direct impact with our respective socioeconomic viability, But would be more so for areas with social systems.

http://money.msn.com/investing/where-young-people-cant-find-work (http://money.msn.com/investing/where-young-people-cant-find-work)
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 04, 2012, 12:06:58 PM
...You are an employer.  One of your best and most productive employees went out with his pals on a long weekend bar hopping, having a good time and got mugged, ending up with a complex broken collar bone requiring a few screws and hardware plus some cracked ribs that punched his lung.  The perpetrators were not caught. This employee worked in your warehouse so for the next 8 to 12 weeks is basically worthless to you.. 'out of business'.   What do  you do, keep him or fire him?  He's out a couple K for the med bills, doesn't have any sick time accrued and his light, water and mortgage is due.

You really like the guy and want him back.  Will you pay his med bills and keep him above water until he can return?  During his 'down' time he finds another job opening right about the time he is all healed up.  Do you think he will come back if you don't help him out?

In Germany you would just have to cover 6 weeks wages like all other employers, then the state health insurance company would reimburse you for most of his wages thereafter.  He will be happy, you will be happy and he'll be back, ready to go instead of being pissed you had to fire him for just 'one of those many things' that happen in life', maybe going to your competition, raising their bottom line instead.

The joys of the New Zealand system - we have what is called the Accident Compesation Corporation (ACC), a state-funded organisation that covers all legitimate claims for compensation through accidents.  In such a case as your example the employer would be liable to cover only the first week's sick pay (assuming that the employee had sick leave accrued), and then ACC picks up the tab for however long the employee remains off work.  They pay 80% of the person's wage, plus ALL costs associated with treatment and recovery.  This also extends to the self-employed, because we pay levies to ACC based on the risk rate of the industry in which we work.
 
In your example the company will be able to hire a temp to fill in for the employee because it costs them nothing for the employee after the first week (although many companies will top up the wages by paying the remaining 20%, especially if there is still sick leave available).  Of course the temp is highly unlikely to have the same complete skill-set as the employee, but in most cases it's better to have someone doing at least part of the work than nobody at all.
 
Traveler,

...If you have employees, what paid vacation time do you allow? Lets say you allow 1 week the first year and 2 weeks the next 5 years... what happens when a business opens up down the street, selling similar products and/ or services but allows no vacation the first year and only 1 week the next 5 years? Does that not put you at a disadvantage? Or do you think your productivity would be that much higher for 'happy' employees that get a bit more vacation time?

That situation would never apply here because it's the law that all employees must receive a minimum of four weeks' paid leave (plus statutory holidays, although we only have 11 days here compared with the 200 saints' days in France and Italy  :D ).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
BC-
 
Not to squeeze water out of a rock, I will suppose immigration is far more vital to EU's social system structure than the US. Thus, I am not at all surprised at the heightened number of viable immigation into the EU lately. EU's system is reliant for a steady influx of new workers to insure/sustain viability of their social systems.

Indeed.  There have been other periods where immigrants were even invited to another country to work.  Post WWII Germany for example. Worked then, don't see why it could not work today or in the future.  The precedent has been set.
 
Quote
The tough part for Europe is, which is almost nil with the US, Europe faces a tougher road ahead (immigration) due to the 'preservation of their respective heritage/cultural concerns. Italian will be more concerned to satying 'Italians', as Irish folks remaining 'Irish, etc..already Europe had started to see isolated flashes of this pending cultural growing pains. US, for the most part today, is already a hybrid society. Europe is not, and likely will be fairly unwelcoming of that change or evolution.

Europe, with it's close borders has always been a mixed bag. We are neighbors so the effect you describe may end up being rather irrelevant.

Quote
Economic contraction that everyone faces today is painful the world over. The article below shows, for certain age groups, Europe, the US, and Japan is suffering from a prolonged unemployment. This have a direct impact with our respective socioeconomic viability, But would be more so for areas with social systems.

http://money.msn.com/investing/where-young-people-cant-find-work (http://money.msn.com/investing/where-young-people-cant-find-work)


Sure economic stressors always play a role in society.  All in all though there are few hotspots.  Don't forget though that aside from the social net, the family support network still exists in much of EU.  Despite the figures in your link I do not hear anyone has starved to death in Spain aside from some isolated /unrelated incident.

I am confident that EU is robust enough to take a good bit of punishment in stride. 

Patience...

I will leave you with one thought that puzzles me though... when the Euro first came about, it's worth was less than one USD..  even today, despite Greece, PIIGS et al, it is still worth 20% more.

What gives??  Really....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 04, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
Indeed.  There have been other periods where immigrants were even invited to another country to work.  Post WWII Germany for example. Worked then, don't see why it could not work today or in the future.  The precedent has been set.
 
Europe, with it's close borders has always been a mixed bag. We are neighbors so the effect you describe may end up being rather irrelevant.

I understand. It's very likely any open opposition will not take place in our lifetime but the reality is, it is imminent. The global population is growing in alarming rate (x Russia/Ukraine) and it wasn't too long ago I checked on land mass per person for the US and beyond. One needs 'x' amount of workers working in contingent relation to social outlay, pensions, care, infrastructure, etc...Consequently, living space will be a growing premium everywhere.
 
Most places in EU are nearly tapped out with some even shrinking i.e. Venice, Holland (they're even selling floating habitat tied up on moors, etc). With dwindling 'living' space' and rising demands for such it isn't diffocult to 'see' how this will have an effect in the overall internal economies respectively.
 

Take for instance Japan / Hong Kong...a rental apartment wth one room, close to work, are renting for some seriously absurd monies in these places. It's crazy in Tokyo even SK right now...Europe as a region may not be quite that bad yet, but...

Quote
Sure economic stressors always play a role in society.  All in all though there are few hotspots.  Don't forget though that aside from the social net, the family support network still exists in much of EU.  Despite the figures in your link I do not hear anyone has starved to death in Spain aside from some isolated /unrelated incident.

I am confident that EU is robust enough to take a good bit of punishment in stride. 

Patience...

Part of me agrees with you. Europe had always been able to 'survive' tough challenges in the past. I hope this holds true from the type of world facing it in the near future. And us to some extent because Europe is vital to American economy moreso than anyone with a likely eception of Japan, Taiwan and SK. Mainland REDS not too worried about. We owe them so much money they need for us to be around for a long time.
 :P
 
Quote
I will leave you with one thought that puzzles me though... when the Euro first came about, it's worth was less than one USD..  even today, despite Greece, PIIGS et al, it is still worth 20% more.

What gives??  Really....

I'm not BC. I'm always puzzled before why folks think it means something at all. The global market is so different these days especially for those with open trade markets. I'm always 'happy' when the dollar was lower than everyone else...against CD, EURO, POUND, etc..it only means our commodities sell faster and the demand is greater...then folks get to go to work all the time.
 
Just like the mainland Reds and their silly devalued YUANs. Low USD makes for a much robust trade for us. The Chinese know this very well..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on September 04, 2012, 04:18:53 PM
(plus statutory holidays, although we only have 11 days here compared with the 200 saints' days in France and Italy :D ).
Those 200 days are NOT holidays here, and I doubt in France either ;).

Our current list of statutory holidays:

- January 1st, 6th
- April 25th
- May 1st
- June 2nd
- August 15th
- November 1st
- December 8th, 25th, 26th, 31st

Plus Easter Monday and the city patron's day - which makes a total of 13, or less if any happen to fall on a Saturday or Sunday (but refunded extra in paychecks).

Surprise, that's only 2 more than in NZ - you antipodal loafers :D.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 04, 2012, 05:35:33 PM
Those 200 days are NOT holidays here, and I doubt in France either ;) .

Our current list of statutory holidays:

- January 1st, 6th
- April 25th
- May 1st
- June 2nd
- August 15th
- November 1st
- December 8th, 25th, 26th, 31st

Plus Easter Monday and the city patron's day - which makes a total of 13, or less if any happen to fall on a Saturday or Sunday (but refunded extra in paychecks).

Surprise, that's only 2 more than in NZ - you antipodal loafers :D .

Antipodal?  I prefer antipodean.  Loafers?  You're the ones with five or six weeks' annual leave!
 
We have January 1st and 2nd (or 3rd and 4th if the others are on a weekend);
February 6th (Waitangi Day - celebrating our nationhood);
April 25th as well (for us it is ANZAC Day, when we remember those who have fallen in battle);
first Monday in June (Queen's Birthday);
fourth Monday in October (Labour Day, commemorating the introduction of the 40 hour week - and wouldn't we love to see that happen again!);
December 25th and 26th (or 27th and 28th if the others are on a weekend);
plus Good Friday and Easter Monday, and a day to celebrate the anniversary of the founding of the local province (Auckland's Anniversay Day is 29th January, so we get the Monday nearest to that).
 
Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day are not "Mondayised" - if they fall on a weekend, so be it.  We get paid for them only if we actually work on those days.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on September 04, 2012, 05:50:27 PM

The joys of the New Zealand system - we have what is called the Accident Compesation Corporation (ACC), a state-funded organisation that covers all legitimate claims for compensation through accidents.

State-funded you say!

Very interesting.  So the state runs some 'for profit' businesses and uses these profits to fund an organization?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 04, 2012, 06:23:11 PM
State-funded you say!

Very interesting.  So the state runs some 'for profit' businesses and uses these profits to fund an organization?

No, I did mention levies for self-employed people.  I should have mentioned that these are also included in employees' income tax deductions.  Because the risk is spread across the whole working population it works out at only a dollar or two per week per person.
 
It also covers treatment for injuries received overseas if you're a New Zealand resident, so the treatment that I've had since returning home last week has cost me nothing (I received a small gash to my leg in Australia a couple of weeks ago).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 04, 2012, 08:06:33 PM
WOW! Romney/Ryan are toast!

Looking at the tears streaming down off people's faces listening to the Queen Bee herself showed me a collection of folks who'll likely had never bothered, never bother, will not bother to be diligent enough to do any fact-checking of the things they're being fed.

Watching the DNC the first day felt a lot like sitting in a Sunday southern gospel sermon. I could barely hold back my own tears...

4.5 million jobs added since 2009. *I* never knew that. Silly me....

Mewonders if the Union did in fact considered this a paid week off...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 04, 2012, 11:40:51 PM
 
I'm not BC. I'm always puzzled before why folks think it means something at all. The global market is so different these days especially for those with open trade markets. I'm always 'happy' when the dollar was lower than everyone else...against CD, EURO, POUND, etc..it only means our commodities sell faster and the demand is greater...then folks get to go to work all the time.
 
Just like the mainland Reds and their silly devalued YUANs. Low USD makes for a much robust trade for us. The Chinese know this very well..

USD / EUR is back to around the 1.25 levels of 2004-2006 pre crisis levels.  Some seem to think that it is weakness in the EU economy, but considering it hit 1.61 during the US financial crisis, and the US has recovered a fair bit  it doesn't seem that way..  do folks really think the EUR should have gone up to 2.0?  That would be mad... it's a currency, not a stock.  Considering that growth in the US will likely become a bit more conservative over the next years (which is healthy btw) things will probably stay about where they are or maybe with the EUR a wee bit lower, between 1.15 and 1.25 which is also good. That EU continued to export with a prolonged period of high EUR valuation is pretty amazing when you think about it.  At a steady 1.2x  things will pick up even more.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 05, 2012, 01:53:46 PM
USD / EUR is back to around the 1.25 levels of 2004-2006 pre crisis levels.  Some seem to think that it is weakness in the EU economy, but considering it hit 1.61 during the US financial crisis, and the US has recovered a fair bit  it doesn't seem that way.. do folks really think the EUR should have gone up to 2.0?  That would be mad... it's a currency, not a stock.  Considering that growth in the US will likely become a bit more conservative over the next years (which is healthy btw) things will probably stay about where they are or maybe with the EUR a wee bit lower, between 1.15 and 1.25 which is also good. That EU continued to export with a prolonged period of high EUR valuation is pretty amazing when you think about it.  At a steady 1.2x  things will pick up even more.

Quite possibly it looks better to you from the outside looking in but I can assure you, from the inside looking out, recovery is mighty hard to see or even visualize at this juncture. The indicators are false reads with the excessive quantitative easing. Bernanke and the Feds are printing money like Hobos with a stolen press. The idea that we can pay for anything if we print enough money is some very shallow thinking and leads to a false idea of recovery
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 05, 2012, 02:00:39 PM
Quite possibly it looks better to you from the outside looking in but I can assure you, from the inside looking out, recovery is mighty hard to see or even visualize at this juncture. The indicators are false reads with the excessive quantitative easing. Bernanke and the Feds are printing money like Hobos with a stolen press. The idea that we can pay for anything if we print enough money is some very shallow thinking and leads to a false idea of recovery

If I understand correctly, the fed is not controlled by the president or congress.  It does it's own thing regardless....

Is that correct?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 05, 2012, 02:07:36 PM
Quite possibly it looks better to you from the outside looking in but I can assure you, from the inside looking out, recovery is mighty hard to see or even visualize at this juncture. The indicators are false reads with the excessive quantitative easing. Bernanke and the Feds are printing money like Hobos with a stolen press. The idea that we can pay for anything if we print enough money is some very shallow thinking and leads to a false idea of recovery


Amen...


This "quantitative easing" (what a stupid euphemism) will lead to another correction.  Not an if but a when.  The only question is how bad will it get?  My guess is it'll hit mid 2013 and peak (dip) 1st quarter 2014.  The dollar will tank. It's only a question of how far. 




Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 05, 2012, 02:35:40 PM
If I understand correctly, the fed is not controlled by the president or congress.  It does it's own thing regardless....

Is that correct?

Not totally free of the White House Administration no. The Federal Reserve bank does have a board but the Chairman (Bernanke)is appointed by the President. The board itself is usually a result political appointees with set terms

to add: Bernanke has the authority to tell the president no, but he won't
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 05, 2012, 02:42:30 PM

Amen...


This "quantitative easing" (what a stupid euphemism) will lead to another correction.  Not an if but a when.  The only question is how bad will it get?  My guess is it'll hit mid 2013 and peak (dip) 1st quarter 2014.  The dollar will tank. It's only a question of how far.

I'll Amen that.

When the dollar does tank and I too believe not "If" but "When", there will be no degree of quantitative easing including and aside from printing money that will work to any degree. They are only able to do it now based on the strength of the currently relatively  weak Dollar. That value, they are using it up faster than shit through a goose
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 05, 2012, 03:37:22 PM
Slick Willie tonight!
 
Boy, I can't wait.  :rolleyes:
 
Maybe Monica will make a cameo appearance?  >:D
 
GOB
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-will-highlight-convention-tonight/2012/09/05/f6d5dcf2-f797-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-will-highlight-convention-tonight/2012/09/05/f6d5dcf2-f797-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 05, 2012, 07:57:54 PM
I don't know about the rest of the Americans here, but I appreciate the reasoned perspectives from Europe and Down Under.  Such broaden my own perspective and at least compel me to think.  Then I watch the DNC, and the twisted spin makes me shake my head and realize the broad gap between the two choices. 
 
The economy is not discussed much at the DNC, and when discussed is still about blaming others ("much of the mess has been cleaned up and no one could have done it better").  Clinton spoke tonight.  And while Democrats point out that his economic record was good, they fail to point out that Clinton did not believe in big government.  :D
 
What compels a Democrat to stand behind such a bad performance by a President?    I guess that the Democratic Party is filled with people who seek protection and feel that government is the best provider.  Thus, for example, a healthcare safety net is created which is subsidized by the healthy.   
 
Some quick thoughts about some issues raised by many posters.
 
Federal Reserve
The Fed has multiple monetary policy responsibilities aimed at protecting the value of the dollar (price stability), avoiding high unemployment, and stabilizing our banking institutions.  I imagine the Central Banks in Europe are the same.
 
Euro vs. Dollar
 
BC is correct that over the long term the Euro has been stronger than the dollar.  Much of this is due to the fact that Europe has had less debt than America.  However, that is now changing, especially as Europe enters recession and takes on more debt to cover weak fiscal policies in some member countries.  Nevertheless, the currency exchange rate suggests that Europe will somehow resolve this.
 
Weak Dollar
 
Based on the way the world is now, there is no way that the dollar will tank.  The Republicans will at worst keep the House  and this alone will be enough to stalemate further stimulus.     Those who feel the dollar will tank should be moving their assets to non-dollar instruments.  The US may indeed print more money; however, the whole world is printing.  This is an unsynchronized  global monetizing of debt.  Some inflation will occur, yet it is still a year or two away when i thought it would have been here by now.  The US future looks good in such an inflationary scenario because the Fed has borrowed much of its debt in the form of  long term bonds.  If inflation occurs, the Fed can pay these bonds when due with weak dollars.  This will modulate any tanking.

 
Saving the American Auto Industry
 
GM and Chrysler went broke.  Instead of following legal bankruptcy proceedings, the assets were given to the unions rather than the creditors.  Thus, the hard choices were not made but delayed.   GM and Chrysler are far from saved.
 
Freedoms
 
I hear some claim that the Republican party is about freedom.   However, only the Democratic party allows the freedom for women to accept or decline abortion.  They are also the party that gives poofters the freedom to marry their life partner.
 
My Vote
 
I vote for Romney-Ryan because they will 1) address the fiscal changes and entitlement reforms needed to address America's growing debt and 2) stop the growing influence of government in deciding how private money is spent and allocated. And I believe they will show compassion for those who need it.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 06, 2012, 06:10:39 AM
I don't know about the rest of the Americans here, but I appreciate the reasoned perspectives from Europe and Down Under.  Such broaden my own perspective and at least compel me to think.

 
Thank you, but somehow I don't think that GQ will agree with you!
 
I guess that the Democratic Party is filled with people who seek protection and feel that government is the best provider. Thus, for example, a healthcare safety net is created which is subsidized by the healthy.

And what's wrong with that?  There's someone in nearly every family who gets regularly or badly ill.  I'm the opposite - I get colds and sniffles two or three times a year, but I haven't had a day off sick since a really bad bout of flu in 1996 kept me bed-ridden for three weeks.  I have no problem in seeing some of my tax dollars go towards health care for those who need it.  I'm not a religious person, but isn't it one of the main tenets of Christianity (and presumably other religions too) that the strong shall look after the weak?
 
Some quick thoughts about some issues raised by many posters.
...
 
Freedoms
 
I hear some claim that the Republican party is about freedom.   However, only the Democratic party allows the freedom for women to accept or decline abortion.  They are also the party that gives poofters the freedom to marry their life partner.

Is the Republican Party preparing to overturn Roe v Wade?  Sorry, but I just find it so hard to accept the crap that I've been reading about various Republicans' attitudes to things such as this.  The Moral Majority and its ilk has a lot to answer for in making so many people shy away from such topics.
 
And "poofters?"  I had thought better of you, Gator.
 
My Vote
 
I vote for Romney-Ryan because they will 1) address the fiscal changes and entitlement reforms needed to address America's growing debt and 2) stop the growing influence of government in deciding how private money is spent and allocated. And I believe they will show compassion for those who need it.

Numbers 1 and 2 may well be good reasons...BUT do you seriously want someone as Vice-President who is STILL trying to argue that there is such a thing as "legitimate rape?"  As for compassion - how much of that did Mr Billionaire Romney show when he was putting thousands of people out of work while closing down their companies in the name of "efficiency?"
 
All you Republican supporters may well consider Obama to be a bad President (and it's pretty obvious that you do!), but I sure as hell would NOT want to live in a country with Romney and Ryan at the helm.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 06, 2012, 06:14:12 AM
 
Numbers 1 and 2 may well be good reasons...BUT do you seriously want someone as Vice-President who is STILL trying to argue that there is such a thing as "legitimate rape?" 
 

IIRC that was someone else, not Ryan.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 06, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
IIRC that was someone else, not Ryan.

True - the original comment came from Congressman Todd Akin, so I'll withdraw the reference.  However, Ryan was one of the sponsors of Akin's bill which sought to redefine rape.  To me, as an outsider, this article illuminates the Republican Party in rather a bad way.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/why-akins-crazy-claim-of_b_1822796.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/why-akins-crazy-claim-of_b_1822796.html)
 
I'm sure that some Republican supporters on here will decry the Huffington Post as they often do, but this article seems pretty factual.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 06, 2012, 06:54:19 AM

 I have no problem in seeing some of my tax dollars go towards health care for those who need it.  I'm not a religious person, but isn't it one of the main tenets of Christianity (and presumably other religions too) that the strong shall look after the weak?


 
I agree.  America for eons has been a compassionate society.  The problem is that an accelerating number are somehow finding themselves "needy." One trip to an ER would open your eyes.  The system is broke and needs fixing.  Obamacare makes the situation worse.  Obamacare in one sentence:
 
"We're going to be gifted with a healthcare plan
we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't,
which puportedly covers at least 10 million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee
whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a congress that didn't read it
but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a president who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we will be taxed for four years
before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already backrupted social security
and medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese
and financed by a country that's broke."
 
 

 
Quote
And "poofters?"  I had thought better of you, Gator.
 
 
Did this witty term not originate from Down Under?
 
Quote
As for compassion - how much of that did Mr Billionaire Romney show when he was putting thousands of people out of work while closing down their companies in the name of "efficiency?"

Another government worker speaks.  It is called Free Enterprise and produces a more productive and competitive society than government allocation of dollars in the form of job protection, price control, etc. 
 
Strong companies are not taken over.  To reinvigorate a weak company, some fat must be trimmed.  I assert that the job losses would have been worse if these companies were not reinvented.  Also, I read somewhere that Bain Capital takeovers on the whole have more employees today than when taken over.
 
 
Quote
I sure as hell would NOT want to live in a country with Romney and Ryan at the helm.

You would never live here anyway because we don't have cricket, consider "All Blacks" as something to do with segregation, have more people than sheep, etc.  Have a good day.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 06, 2012, 07:11:42 AM
Earlier I mentioned productivity.   The World Economic Forum ranks each year the competitiveness of the world's economies.  Yesterday it reported that the US has slipped to 7th place.  In 2008-2009 this same organization had ranked America first.   
 
The top 10 countries starting with Number One are Switzerland, Singapore. Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, USA, UK, HK, Japan.
 
The Washington Post (a liberal leaning rag but not as much as NY Times) reported:
Quote

 

 
...the authors cite a continued lack of trust in government leaders on the
part of  the business community as well as businesses’ continued criticism of
the public  and private sectors. As for the lack of trust in government leaders,
the authors  write that it is “perhaps not surprising in light of recent
political disputes  that threaten to push the country back into recession
through automatic spending  cuts.”

 
The authors also zing U.S. spending priorities, writing, “the government
 spends its resources relatively wastefully,” a pillar under which the U.S.
ranks  76th. Meanwhile, they continue, “a lack of macroeconomic stability
continues to  be the country’s greatest area of weakness.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/us-slips-in-world-economic-forums-competitiveness-rankings/2012/09/05/22eda50e-f77f-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/us-slips-in-world-economic-forums-competitiveness-rankings/2012/09/05/22eda50e-f77f-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html)
 
Yes, America needs new leadership and a new direction!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 06, 2012, 07:26:30 AM

 
Thank you, but somehow I don't think that GQ will agree with you!

...and with conviction.
 
Quote
..And what's wrong with that?  There's someone in nearly every family who gets regularly or badly ill.  I'm the opposite - I get colds and sniffles two or three times a year, but I haven't had a day off sick since a really bad bout of flu in 1996 kept me bed-ridden for three weeks. I have no problem in seeing some of my tax dollars go towards health care for those who need it.  I'm not a religious person, but isn't it one of the main tenets of Christianity (and presumably other religions too) that the strong shall look after the weak?


LOL.  :rolleyes: At a rate where the line of the *many* separating from the *few* is nearly unrecognizable ~ of course you do..  :rolleyes:

As for tenets of Christianity? Did you mean the story about the man and the fish and the lessons to fish? Or did you mean the saga of inquisitions, war, strife and destruction of entire civilizations, and lately - child abuse and molestation ~ defines the definition of your *Christianity*?
 
Quote
Is the Republican Party preparing to overturn Roe v Wade?  Sorry, but I just find it so hard to accept the crap that I've been reading about various Republicans' attitudes to things such as this.  The Moral Majority and its ilk has a lot to answer for in making so many people shy away from such topics.
 
And "poofters?"  I had thought better of you, Gator.
 
Numbers 1 and 2 may well be good reasons...BUT do you seriously want someone as Vice-President who is STILL trying to argue that there is such a thing as "legitimate rape?"  As for compassion - how much of that did Mr Billionaire Romney show when he was putting thousands of people out of work while closing down their companies in the name of "efficiency?"
 
All you Republican supporters may well consider Obama to be a bad President (and it's pretty obvious that you do!), but I sure as hell would NOT want to live in a country with Romney and Ryan at the helm.

It's simply amazing how technology these days can afford anyone a venue to mainstream media and pretend they actually *know* what they're talking about a situation or region they've either never been to or hardly ever gone to.

AK...in case you haven't noticed, the soundbytes above are nothing more than ploy to deflect the obvious failure to produce any worthy segment of the last 4 years of the present administration. Pro-life/ Pro-choice had been debated for decades and what started out as a debate of moral values had turned into a political grandstanding...you should really quit talking about things you have no clue on.

Stick to Chinese Gooseberry.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 06, 2012, 07:34:38 AM
One trip to an ER would open your eyes.

I've seen plenty already, thank you.
 
The system is broke and needs fixing.

 
I can't see anyone disagreeing.
 
Obamacare makes the situation worse.  Obamacare in one sentence:
 
"We're going to be gifted with a healthcare plan
we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't,
which puportedly covers at least 10 million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee
whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a congress that didn't read it
but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a president who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we will be taxed for four years
before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already backrupted social security
and medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese
and financed by a country that's broke."

Nice little story, but "purchase?"  Again, I come back to our model where hospital care is free.  Sure, we pay for doctors' and dentists' visits, and for private medical insurance and private hospitals if we want to, but the latter are very much optional.
   
And "poofters?" I had thought better of you, Gator.
Did this witty term not originate from Down Under?

From the convicts in the West Island apparently.  :D   That's still no excuse to use it in this refined forum.  :o
   
Another government worker speaks.  It is called Free Enterprise and produces a more productive and competitive society than government allocation of dollars in the form of job protection, price control, etc. 
 
Strong companies are not taken over.  To reinvigorate a weak company, some fat must be trimmed.  I assert that the job losses would have been worse if these companies were not reinvented.  Also, I read somewhere that Bain Capital takeovers on the whole have more employees today than when taken over.

Where on earth do you get "government worker" from?  I worked for my City Council for a while, but that was years ago.  I've never worked for the government and never will.  And I'm sorry, but strong companies DO get taken over.  There's also a big difference between "some fat must be trimmed" and wholesale closures.
 
 
You would never live here anyway because we don't have cricket, consider "All Blacks" as something to do with segregation, have more people than sheep, etc.  Have a good day.

You need to get out more - your national cricket team is actually doing quite well in a tournament in Kuala Lumpur at the moment.  :D   I'll pass on the All Blacks, but agree about the sheep.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 06, 2012, 07:37:36 AM
It's way past my bedtime, GQ - I'll try to think of a witty response tomorrow.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 06, 2012, 08:08:43 AM
AK

Strong companies don't get taken over unless they wish to. Your attempt to cast a shadow on venture capitalists is a hollow one. Free enterprise is the the driving force of the US economy and always has been. Your inference that jobs of weak or inefficient companies should be retained or protected is about as misguided as your media sources. The Huffington post is a liberal rag with an aversion to the truth
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 06, 2012, 08:32:37 AM
Clinton spoke tonight.  And while Democrats point out that his economic record was good, they fail to point out that Clinton did not believe in big government.  :D
 
What compels a Democrat to stand behind such a bad performance by a President?   
Bill Clinton is impressive - very smart. He thinks several steps ahead of most people. One must admire people like that. Me thinks that Hillary is already at that age where the election of 2016 is her last chance at the presidency. If R&R win in November she prolly won't have a chance in 2016. There might be other reasons too off course.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on September 06, 2012, 01:35:58 PM
   And while Democrats point out that his economic record was good, they fail to point out that [Bill] Clinton did not believe in big government.   

 
 
Did...does.
 Hillary too.


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 06, 2012, 05:30:38 PM
Bill Clinton is impressive - very smart. He thinks several steps ahead of most people. One must admire people like that. Me thinks that Hillary is already at that age where the election of 2016 is her last chance at the presidency. If R&R win in November she prolly won't have a chance in 2016. There might be other reasons too off course.

Clinton was impeached for lying. He couldn't point out the Obama's fallacies and lies fast enough when the nomination was between Hillary and Obama. Now he proclaims we should "trust" him. TFF
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 06, 2012, 06:05:27 PM
AK

Strong companies don't get taken over unless they wish to.

I'm not arguing this point - my own company was doing extremely well, but the owners decided that a takeover offer was just too good to ignore.  The three years since the buyout have certainly been interesting from a work point of view.
 
Your attempt to cast a shadow on venture capitalists is a hollow one.

Please point out where I have done so.  I was merely responding to the part of Gator's post regarding compassion, and referring specifically to Romney - nobody else, so don't try to find inferences in my post that aren't there.
 
Free enterprise is the the driving force of the US economy and always has been. Your inference that jobs of weak or inefficient companies should be retained or protected...

Again, I'm not disagreeing with your first point.  However, in respect of the second point, I was AGAIN responding as above, although I do agree with your basic premise.  MY point here is that  I work for a good company, but the work skills that I possess are also transferable around the world.  If the worst should happen and I lose my job through redundancy, I should be able to pick up something comparable fairly quickly, even if I have to move overseas.  Unfortunately a lot of people don't have that same marketability, and many workers in companies that Romney took over would have been in that situation (as would happen in most takeovers).
 
The Huffington post is a liberal rag with an aversion to the truth.

What's wrong with being liberal?  And what part(s) of the article I linked are untrue?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 06, 2012, 06:34:46 PM
LOL.  :rolleyes: At a rate where the line of the *many* separating from the *few* is nearly unrecognizable ~ of course you do..  :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

As for tenets of Christianity? Did you mean the story about the man and the fish and the lessons to fish? Or did you mean the saga of inquisitions, war, strife and destruction of entire civilizations, and lately - child abuse and molestation ~ defines the definition of your *Christianity*?

Certainly not the latter!  More along the lines of Jesus with the loaves and fishes, and the story of the Good Samaritan.
 
It's simply amazing how technology these days can afford anyone a venue to mainstream media and pretend they actually *know* what they're talking about a situation or region they've either never been to or hardly ever gone to.

Yeah, ain't it just?  We get force-fed so much stuff from your part of the world that it's very hard to ignore.  It may not be in quite the same detail as yours, but it's certainly enough.

AK...in case you haven't noticed, the soundbytes above are nothing more than ploy to deflect the obvious failure to produce any worthy segment of the last 4 years of the present administration. Pro-life/ Pro-choice had been debated for decades and what started out as a debate of moral values had turned into a political grandstanding.

 
Perhaps I should elaborate on my comment about Roe v Wade.  I'm well aware that your pro-choice/pro-life argument has been going on since the first abortion in history.  As a Catholic you would have been taught about the sanctity of life and how abortion is a sin - I'm not worried (or interested) whether you agree with that position or not because that's your business, not mine.  However, the information that I've seen recently indicates that there seems to be a big push within the Republican Party to seriously revisit this legislation with a view to overturning it.
 
I'm also well aware that Jerry Falwell and his multitude of followers and imitators have ensured that it now seems to be impossible for anyone to reach a high public office unless they're a committed Christian who attends Church every Sunday, come hell or high water (or, in Romney's case, an obviously religious person from another system of beliefs).  You know - all good Americans believe in God.
 
..you should really quit talking about things you have no clue on.

Stick to Chinese Gooseberry.

You're obviously a very intelligent man, GQ, and I enjoy the great majority of what you write.  But you're also sometimes a patronising PITA if somebody writes something with which you disagree.
 
Have a nice day!  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 06, 2012, 07:16:41 PM

I'm not arguing this point - my own company was doing extremely well, but the owners decided that a takeover offer was just too good to ignore.  The three years since the buyout have certainly been interesting from a work point of view.

Many people, including myself have had jobs that met the same fate. It is a fact of life in a free market system. Anytime a company goes public, it is in play for hostile or friendly takeovers
 
Quote
Please point out where I have done so.  I was merely responding to the part of Gator's post regarding compassion, and referring specifically to Romney - nobody else, so don't try to find inferences in my post that aren't there.

Here; you can deny it if if you wish but I'd wager 9 of 10 who read this got the same inference

Quote
As for compassion - how much of that did Mr Billionaire Romney show when he was putting thousands of people out of work while closing down their companies in the name of "efficiency?"
 
If there was no political undertone in that statement, why would you make it, here in a political discussion? Romney was a venture capitalist. The efficiency factor would being doing his job and protecting his shareholders, isn't it? It is not the position of government to protect jobs from takeover. Possibly in communism and other various systems of socialism but, not in a free market capitalist society.

Quote
Again, I'm not disagreeing with your first point.  However, in respect of the second point, I was AGAIN responding as above, although I do agree with your basic premise.  MY point here is that  I work for a good company, but the work skills that I possess are also transferable around the world.  If the worst should happen and I lose my job through redundancy, I should be able to pick up something comparable fairly quickly, even if I have to move overseas.  Unfortunately a lot of people don't have that same marketability, and many workers in companies that Romney took over would have been in that situation (as would happen in most takeovers).
 

Good for you that you have that flexibility, really. Many people and those that are victims of antiquated processes, businesses and industry don't have that flexibility. Neither Romney nor the free market system put those unfortunates in that position, they themselves did.

Quote
What's wrong with being liberal?  And what part(s) of the article I linked are untrue?

Nothing is wrong with being liberal. What's wrong with being conservative?

As for THP article, I didn't read it and I won't. I don't need to, to know what it contains. You can believe it as the holy grail if you wish. I know better and I have read enough of it in the past. THP is agenda driven disinformation.

You need to understand politics present day in America is polarizing. Most are squarely in one camp or the other and jump from one to the other when it pleases them. Nothing wrong with that. You have a habit, just as you have very recently in this thread of attempting to denigrate one side that you disagree with. Well, you've pissed off half of the Americans with your spreading said disinformation to outright lies just as you have in this thread. Then you want to act surprised when someone lobs one back at you over your bow.

You have no dog in this hunt. You have no vote that counts. You won't have to live here no matter who wins the upcoming presidential election. The fact that you attempt to play hack, lapdog and mouth piece for one side against the other very easily rubs some the wrong way. What makes it worse, much of your beliefs on the situation is derived from the disinformation outlets. You really do come off as stupid to ignorant on the subject. I know your not yet, you persist  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 06, 2012, 08:47:23 PM

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe in your world the needy are but a few and fleeting. What you do not understand since you do NOT live here amongst us is the number of those who had perfected the art of being 'needy. Talent handed down for generations. Being 'needy' is a proven and preferred way of life to a lot of our society's population. You may not mind your neighbor knocking on your door asking to share your bread..for a day, even for a week. I doubt you won't mind it when it becomes a 'religion'.
 
Quote
Certainly not the latter!  More along the lines of Jesus with the loaves and fishes, and the story of the Good Samaritan.

The proverb (it isn't religious, I don't think) of the *man, the fish and the lesson*, ironically enough actually goes like this...

""Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish."
   
Quote
Yeah, ain't it just?  We get force-fed so much stuff from your part of the world that it's very hard to ignore.  It may not be in quite the same detail as yours, but it's certainly enough.

Mark Twain once said: "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

The perfect example of that is the following....
 
Quote
Perhaps I should elaborate on my comment about Roe v Wade.  I'm well aware that your pro-choice/pro-life argument has been going on since the first abortion in history.  As a Catholic you would have been taught about the sanctity of life and how abortion is a sin - I'm not worried (or interested) whether you agree with that position or not because that's your business, not mine.  However, the information that I've seen recently indicates that there seems to be a big push within the Republican Party to seriously revisit this legislation with a view to overturning it.

The Republican party happen to be Pro-Life so I find your denigration of Romney rather confusing. Ironically enough, I have a more 'liberal' position on this debate.
 
Quote
I'm also well aware that Jerry Falwell and his multitude of followers and imitators have ensured that it now seems to be impossible for anyone to reach a high public office unless they're a committed Christian who attends Church every Sunday, come hell or high water (or, in Romney's case, an obviously religious person from another system of beliefs).  You know - all good Americans believe in God.

I listen to Jerry Falwell with as much frequency as I do Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Not.
 
Quote
You're obviously a very intelligent man, GQ, and I enjoy the great majority of what you write.  But you're also sometimes a patronising PITA if somebody writes something with which you disagree.
 
Have a nice day!  :D

I don't believe we've even arrived to a position where we can either agree or disagree. I thought I mentioned this to you in another exchange in this thread, AK. "One can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 06, 2012, 08:52:05 PM
So the BIG 'O" spoke....the crowds were cheering and Obama was spinning...then all of the sudden he shouted two words that hushed the crowd to an eery silence you can hear crickets.

He shouted...."PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES...!!!"

::::::Silence:::::::

LOL, the funniest thing I've seen/heard since Joe Biden's chain remark.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 06, 2012, 09:27:13 PM
So Obama and Clinton would like 4 more years to get the job done, eh....

Obama in 2010:

"Look, I'm at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I've got four years. And … a year from now, I think people are gonna see that we're starting to make some progress. But there's still gonna be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's gonna be a one-term proposition."

Clinton in 2010:

"[Republicans] say: “They had 21 months. Put us back in.” The Democrats are saying something like this: “Look, we found a big hole that we did not dig. And we didn’t get out of it in 21 months, but at least we quit digging. So, don’t go back in reverse. Give us two more years. If it doesn’t work, you have another election in just two years. You can vote us all out then. But for goodness sakes, we quit digging. Don’t bring back the shovel brigade.”
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 06, 2012, 10:33:12 PM
...Here; you can deny it if if you wish but I'd wager 9 of 10 who read this got the same inference...
If there was no political undertone in that statement, why would you make it, here in a political discussion? Romney was a venture capitalist. The efficiency factor would being doing his job and protecting his shareholders, isn't it? It is not the position of government to protect jobs from takeover. Possibly in communism and other various systems of socialism but, not in a free market capitalist society.

For crying out loud, I never mentioned the government, or job protection!  :wallbash:  I simply asked how much compassion Romney showed for those people who were losing their jobs.  He wasn't a Gubernatorial or Presidential candidate at the time, was he, so what the hell is political about that?  I only know that these job losses happened - I don't know if he offered any public expression of sympathy for their plight, or if he arranged for his staff to try to find alternative employment for any of these people.  I would have exactly the same question for anyone - different venture capitalists could quite possibly have different ways of handling large-scale redundancies.

Good for you that you have that flexibility, really. Many people and those that are victims of antiquated processes, businesses and industry don't have that flexibility. Neither Romney nor the free market system put those unfortunates in that position, they themselves did.

You can't call them "victims" and then say in the next sentence that they put themselves in that position.  I'm well aware that I'm lucky to have certain skills, but it's sometimes very difficult for people to get themselves up onto that next rung of the ladder, especially if they're from a family where all the money goes on essentials and there's nothing left over for a rainy day.

Nothing is wrong with being liberal. What's wrong with being conservative? As for THP article, I didn't read it and I won't. I don't need to, to know what it contains. You can believe it as the holy grail if you wish. I know better and I have read enough of it in the past. THP is agenda driven disinformation.

Interesting - you're the first person I've come across who really can read minds!  Congratulations!   Of course I don't believe it as the holy grail - this just seemed to be an interesting article, related to the topic about which I was posting.  I'm so sorry that you've had some traumatic experience with THP in the past.
 
You need to understand politics present day in America is polarizing. Most are squarely in one camp or the other and jump from one to the other when it pleases them. Nothing wrong with that. You have a habit, just as you have very recently in this thread of attempting to denigrate one side that you disagree with. Well, you've pissed off half of the Americans with your spreading said disinformation to outright lies just as you have in this thread. Then you want to act surprised when someone lobs one back at you over your bow.

Yes, I certainly understand that!  As for denigration - you, Calmissile and GQ Blues do exactly the same to the Democrats and Obama, probably far worse in fact than anything I've ever written about the Republicans, so get your own house in order before you start lobbing stones at me.  I disagree with certain aspects of the Republican policy that are in the public domain, nothing more.  There are other aspects of their policies that I happen to agree with, just as there are probably Democratic policies that you can happily live with.
 
You have no dog in this hunt. You have no vote that counts. You won't have to live here no matter who wins the upcoming presidential election.

Quite true.
 
The fact that you attempt to play hack, lapdog and mouth piece for one side against the other very easily rubs some the wrong way. What makes it worse, much of your beliefs on the situation is derived from the disinformation outlets. You really do come off as stupid to ignorant on the subject. I know your not yet, you persist  :D 

"Hack, lapdog and mouthpiece?"  :ROFL:   One small set of posts, on one topic, and I'm suddenly Obama's bum boy?  Obviously my opinions are going to change the whole course of your elections - yeah, right!  Be afraid, FP, be very afraid!  As for beliefs, I've heard these people in live speeches (admittedly within news broadcasts).  How can that be disinformation?  And "stupid to ignorant?"  Stupid, no - ignorant, sure, in the true original meaning of the word.  But, if the Republican candidates are "stupid" enough to utter polarising comments in the public domain they must expect that people will react, even from the other side of the world.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 06, 2012, 10:45:13 PM
Maybe in your world the needy are but a few and fleeting. What you do not understand since you do NOT live here amongst us is the number of those who had perfected the art of being 'needy. Talent handed down for generations. Being 'needy' is a proven and preferred way of life to a lot of our society's population. You may not mind your neighbor knocking on your door asking to share your bread..for a day, even for a week. I doubt you won't mind it when it becomes a 'religion'.

Don't worry, I know what you mean now, because we have plenty of them here as well.  However, I was referring specifically to health care (especially hospitals) rather than unemployment or similar benefits.
 
The proverb (it isn't religious, I don't think) of the *man, the fish and the lesson*, ironically enough actually goes like this...

""Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish."

True, but I don't know if Jesus gave fishing lessons along the way.  Perhaps he left that to Andrew and Simon Peter.
   
Mark Twain once said: "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

The perfect example of that is the following....

Nice quote, but you haven't refuted my point about the possible repeal of the legislation based on Roe v Wade.  Do you think that this is likely to happen if the Republicans form the Government?
 
I listen to Jerry Falwell with as much frequency as I do Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Not.

Glad to hear it.
 
I don't believe we've even arrived to a position where we can either agree or disagree. I thought I mentioned this to you in another exchange in this thread, AK. "One can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

As I posted earlier, you're a very intelligent man.  And, if you look above, you will see that we do actually agree on some things.  It's a start... :welcome:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 07, 2012, 02:56:24 AM
So the BIG 'O" spoke....the crowds were cheering and Obama was spinning...then all of the sudden he shouted two words that hushed the crowd to an eery silence you can hear crickets.

He shouted...."PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES...!!!"

::::::Silence:::::::

LOL, the funniest thing I've seen/heard since Joe Biden's chain remark.

That's the 28 minute mark.

I did not note anything at all awkward.  Is your comment based on the transcript?

http://youtu.be/Hd8MFmUDbg4
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 07, 2012, 04:27:53 AM
That's the 28 minute mark.

I did not note anything at all awkward. 


Same here. Thanks for posting the video.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 07, 2012, 05:49:46 AM
Platitudes and demagoguery.   :puke:
 
I do not blame Obama for taking this stance.  He wants to be reelected, and he knows his supporters want to hear the socialistic platitudes.  They either don't care about the economy or feel that government not business will make the economy better.
 
What did I just say?  If you don't believe me, listen to this 4-minute interview of many DNC delegates.   
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM
 
To be fair Schiff said on CNBC that only 50% of the interviewed delegates favored banning corporate profits.  Only 50%?!?!?!  Do these people not realize where most of the nation's jobs come from, and what motivates corporations to create jobs?  These are educated people too.  This speaks volumes much about the decline of America.
 
 
 
Notice that the video has an ad paid for by the Obama campaign.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 07, 2012, 06:38:02 AM
Lol Gator,

There are some doozies out there.. heck everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y7QS7dgh7s
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 07, 2012, 07:05:25 AM
This one was a bit disconcerting.  In many ways, but not all,  I liked what the candidate had to offer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 07, 2012, 07:13:10 AM
The Polarization of America 
By CASS R. SUNSTEIN, Commentary

Published 8:23 p.m., Thursday, September 6, 2012
 
In 2002, New York University political scientist Russell Hardin wrote a brilliant essay called "The Crippled Epistemology of Extremism." Hardin contended that many extremists, including terrorists, are not stupid, insane or badly educated.
 
The real problem is that their information comes from a sharply limited set of sources, all of which are supportive of their extremist beliefs. Many extremists listen only to one another. They live in self-reinforcing information cocoons. Their "crippled epistemology" can lead to utterly baseless, but firmly held, convictions (and sometimes even violence).
 
Most Democrats and most Republicans are not extremists. But Hardin's argument offers lessons about 21st-century political campaigns in the United States — and about some of the most serious difficulties in contemporary governance.
 
How do you know what you know? You undoubtedly have firsthand knowledge about many things. But how do you know whether George Washington or James Madison really lived, whether matter consists of atoms, whether Bob Dylan wrote "Like a Rolling Stone," or whether Mars and Venus exist?
 
Most of what we know is what we learn from other people. By itself, that is inevitable and nothing to lament.
But here is the problem. When we listen mostly to people who already agree with us, our pre-existing convictions get fortified, and we start to think that those who disagree with us are evil, dumb or duped. Is it any wonder that our politics are highly polarized, so much so that it sometimes seems as if Democrats and Republicans don't merely disagree but live in unfathomably different universes?
 
A few years ago, I participated in some experiments designed to shed light on how people's political beliefs are formed. We assembled a number of people into all-liberal groups and all-conservative groups. We asked the groups to discuss three issues: climate change, affirmative action and civil unions for same-sex couples.
 
We requested group members to state their opinions at three stages. The first occurred before they started to talk, when we recorded their views privately and anonymously. In the second stage, we asked them to discuss the issues with one another and then to reach a kind of group "verdict." In the final stage, we asked people to record their views, after discussion, privately and anonymously.
 
On all three issues, both liberal and conservative groups became more unified and more extreme after talking to one another, both in their public verdicts and private statements. Discussions with one another made conservatives more skeptical of climate change and more hostile to affirmative action and same-sex unions — while liberals showed exactly the opposite pattern. After liberals spoke only with liberals, and conservatives only with conservatives, the divisions between the two groups grew dramatically.
 
Why do groups polarize in this way? One reason involves people's concern for their reputations. If you find yourself in a group of people who hate affirmative action, you might be reluctant to say that you like affirmative action, and your agreement with the group in a public setting might affect what you say privately.

The more interesting reason involves the exchange of information. In conservative groups, for example, people tend to offer a number of arguments against affirmative action, and very few in favor of it. Group members learn from what they hear. Having heard the set of arguments in their group, people become more confident, more unified and more extreme.
 
Can anything be done to address this problem? The most obvious answer is to break out of information cocoons. That is a central goal of the American constitutional system, which was devised to ensure that diverse people would speak with one another.
 
The Anti-Federalists, opponents of the Constitution, urged that self-government required homogeneity and that diversity could create paralysis and chaos. By contrast, the defenders of the Constitution, above all Alexander Hamilton, thought that diversity could be a creative force and that "the jarring of parties" could be productive, because it would "promote deliberation."
 
Political conventions are occasions for group polarization. This is inevitable and by design. But in the best cases, political campaigns get people to escape from their information cocoons — not merely because competing perspectives are available, but because citizens are really listening.
 
When escape proves difficult, it helps to insist on the importance of respecting technical expertise. In politics and government, a healthy respect for the technical expertise of scientists, lawyers and economists usually helps to anchor discussion — and to avoid a crippled epistemology.
 
Many of our political convictions are intensely held, especially in an election season.
 
Some of us are undoubtedly right. But an appreciation of how we know what we know should help to engender a healthy dose of humility, making political campaigns far more productive and sensible governance far more likely.
 
Cass R. Sunstein, the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard University, is a Bloomberg View columnist, former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and author of "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread."

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/The-polarization-of-America-3845991.php#ixzz25nDssXtL (http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/The-polarization-of-America-3845991.php#ixzz25nDssXtL)


 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 07, 2012, 08:08:18 AM
Platitudes and demagoguery.   :puke:
 
I do not blame Obama for taking this stance.  He wants to be reelected, and he knows his supporters want to hear the socialistic platitudes.  They either don't care about the economy or feel that government not business will make the economy better.
 
What did I just say?  If you don't believe me, listen to this 4-minute interview of many DNC delegates.   
 

 
To be fair Schiff said on CNBC that only 50% of the interviewed delegates favored banning corporate profits.  Only 50%?!?!?!  Do these people not realize where most of the nation's jobs come from, and what motivates corporations to create jobs?  These are educated people too.  This speaks volumes much about the decline of America.
 
 
 
Notice that the video has an ad paid for by the Obama campaign.

Yeah, cap corporate profits! That just ain't fair. Funny. Peggy Joseph is still my favorite...there's far more of these folks, add in the union, than the opposition that'll be out there making sure their candidate gets to stay in the big house.

It is no surprised food stamps had peak this week to its highest level. Ever. Job Report comes out in an hour....it'll be interesting to see...

4.5 million private sector jobs just keep on coming!


Quote from: BC
That's the 28 minute mark.

I did not note anything at all awkward.  Is your comment based on the transcript?

No? I suggest you better watch it again, LOL.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 07, 2012, 08:10:12 AM
Good read Muzh. I warn people of the dangers of this often. Seems most people are convinced their information sources are impeccable, listening to only what they want to hear. Although that wasn't the point on topic, it is related
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 07, 2012, 08:22:06 AM
Good read Muzh. I warn people of the dangers of this often. Seems most people are convinced their information sources are impeccable, listening to only what they want to hear. Although that wasn't the point on topic, it is related

Thanks, appreciate the vote of confidence.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on September 07, 2012, 08:36:54 AM
Quote
....President Obama has been talking about the need for corporate tax reform, declaring that the system is too complicated and that companies pay too much.  "Simplify, eliminate loopholes, treat everybody fairly," Obama said in February.
 For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary.  The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore.  In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558#.UEoQbqAjmSo

Nothing will change...if you must only choose, what kind of a choice is that?
GE, Mobile, Exxon & the communications giants have all the politicians they want in their back pockets.

Who is better off than they were four years ago?
Hundreds of thousands--even millions are.
That's why Barack-o will be re-elected I'm afraid.

The Bill Clinton administration held regulations over Wall Street.
This is one way it had good fiscal levels.
Then came the Bush -Chaney gang and lifted them so that their banker buddies could get their jollies.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 07, 2012, 09:03:29 AM
Muzh,
 
A quick response as I must go.
 
You are an intelligent man.  Why would you think the explanation for polarization of America is anything new?  The dynamics and implications of herd and mob mentality have been explained by observers for centuries.
 
Also, your reference cited the issues of climate change, affirmative action, and same sex marriage.    I don't give a damn about these.  They don't affect me, other than climate change may affect my great grandchildren.  In fact, such issues have bored me, and the primary reason I have avoided politics. 
 
The economy concerns me as does the direction our country is headed.   America is declining rapidly as I referenced in the World Economic Forum report.  Why?  The WEF blamed it on bad political leadership and wasteful spending. 
 
Time for Obama and the democrats to go.  If Republicans sweep, God help us because the party has some extreme views.  However, I will still feel better because the economy will improve.
 
Obama had his opportunity.   I wrote many pages ago that when Ronald Reagan took office he had the same plurality as did Obama.  One key difference - Reagan sat down with Tip O'Neil and reached an agreement.  Obama did not. 

We need a leader for the whole country.  Obama is a leader only for a collection of minorities that outnumber the center.   Frankly, I don't know how well Romney  will do.    However, he will at least change the direction of where we are headed.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 07, 2012, 10:31:53 AM
So despite all the other banter and silly rhetorics from both sides of the aisle, it's still all about "the economy stupid!" Come election time, the decision will be based on the devil you know or the devil you don't.

http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite (http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13728411-weak-jobs-growth-beyond-governments-control?lite)
 
The only question now remains which lobbyists of either party have more to gain/lose/spend in this election. Congress is up for auction once again....the bidding starts now and closes in November.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 07, 2012, 12:34:13 PM
Muzh,
 
A quick response as I must go.
 
You are an intelligent man.  Why would you think the explanation for polarization of America is anything new?  The dynamics and implications of herd and mob mentality have been explained by observers for centuries.
 

Consider it a Public Service Announcement; based on some of the comments I've read here and everywhere.
 
Quote
Also, your reference cited the issues of climate change, affirmative action, and same sex marriage.    I don't give a damn about these.  They don't affect me, other than climate change may affect my great grandchildren.  In fact, such issues have bored me, and the primary reason I have avoided politics. 
 

Those three examples may bore you but I've seen people almost come to blows when these three are mentioned AND NOT int the same sentence.
 
Quote

The economy concerns me as does the direction our country is headed.   America is declining rapidly as I referenced in the World Economic Forum report.  Why?  The WEF blamed it on bad political leadership and wasteful spending. 
 

Article is very timely indeed.
 
I just read somewhere that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the DJIA fell by 25 percent, the Standard & Poor's 500 index fell by 39 percent, and the NASDAQ index fell by 47 percent.
 
By contrast, during the years of Obama's administration (Jan. 20, 2009, through Aug. 30, 2012), the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by 60 percent, the S&P 500 has gone up by 74 percent, and the NASDAQ index is up by 112 percent.
 
 
Quote
Time for Obama and the democrats to go.  If Republicans sweep, God help us because the party has some extreme views.  However, I will still feel better because the economy will improve.
 

Well, I believe that Wall Street would disagree with you based on the above numbers.
 
Quote
Obama had his opportunity.   I wrote many pages ago that when Ronald Reagan took office he had the same plurality as did Obama.  One key difference - Reagan sat down with Tip O'Neil and reached an agreement.  Obama did not. 


Ah yes, Tip O'Neil. What a classy gentleman. I don't think I ever heard him say that his primary goal was to make Reagan a one term President. Yes, indeed. Also, I believe the Democrats in those days were NEVER referred to as the Party of NO.
 
Quote
We need a leader for the whole country.  Obama is a leader only for a collection of minorities that outnumber the center.   Frankly, I don't know how well Romney  will do.    However, he will at least change the direction of where we are headed.

Yes. It seems there are many who believe that if Obama wins again every black man in America will have their way with all the white women.
 
As I said, consider the article a Public Service Announcement.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 07, 2012, 01:26:13 PM
Gator,

You know, I tend to be a fact checker, and in this instance had to go back to his DNC speech in 08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ato7BtisXzE

Overall, this time around, the crowd was notably less enthusiastic as in '08, but OTOH still more enthusiastic than what i saw watching Romney's RNC speech.  I give him a very conservative C++ and optimistically a solid B.  He did not promise to do all in a first term, and although not specified in this speech, I do recall him mentioning such in prior or subsequent speeches.

Clinton indeed 'stole the show' and I did not see much difference between Obama's speech in '08 vs '12. 

What I did see however is that he has lived up to many of his '08 promises, maybe not in full, but at least progress has been made and is shown in real, tangible numbers pointing up and not down.

Although the course remains the same, it is in my opinion a logical course and one that does 'add up' and does more good than harm.

I do agree with you that he has not been able to motivate congress to do what has to be done.  The congressional stalemate is indeed his weakness.

But no fear... at least 1/4 of any first term presidency is about getting re-elected. - and Obama will get re-elected.  His course is steady and reasoned.  Like others before him, the second term is a 'go for broke' situation and I am confident he will show brass.

Watch both Romney's and Obama's acceptance speech.  Who is truly the optimist? 

I will be confident when I cast my ballot.  You on the other hand seem not quite so confident.  Almost as if you must instead of want.. That puzzles me.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 07, 2012, 02:59:56 PM
BC

I detect optimism in that post. Mostly optimism that B.O. does get re-elected. Seems you're drinking the kool-aid. One of B.O.'s campaign promises have come to fruition and that was pounded down America's throat and isn't a reality yet (Obamacare). Obama promised leadership and transparency, he has provided none instead only further division, secrecy and backdoor deals.

I'm not so optimistic no matter who wins the election. I do see Romney as the lesser of two evils. Kinda like do I stop in my tracks and get eaten by the lion or run from it through the forest until I can find a cliff to jump from. Either way, the end story isn't good.  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 07, 2012, 04:20:56 PM
...Yes. It seems there are many who believe that if Obama wins again every black man in America will have their way with all the white women...

LOL. This paricular issue had come from you on more than a few occassion, Muzh. Why are so bent in trying to throw in race in these discussions? Are you still that stuck in the '70s? It seems so much more significant with you...why?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on September 07, 2012, 06:16:09 PM
 I was listening to Obama as he mesmerized the DNC.  I forgot to take the battery out of my bullshit detector in time … it overheated, blew up, and I had to throw it away.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 07, 2012, 08:20:24 PM
They were all so full of crap it was really pathetic to listen to them. However I did enjoy Clinton's speech just because of his talent to show a different perspective on things. If they stopped the convention right after Clinton spoke I think many people would start looking at reelecting BHO. But once Biden and BHO took the stage all the BS became so obvious.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 07, 2012, 11:17:11 PM
BC

I detect optimism in that post. Mostly optimism that B.O. does get re-elected. Seems you're drinking the kool-aid. One of B.O.'s campaign promises have come to fruition and that was pounded down America's throat and isn't a reality yet (Obamacare). Obama promised leadership and transparency, he has provided none instead only further division, secrecy and backdoor deals.

I'm not so optimistic no matter who wins the election. I do see Romney as the lesser of two evils. Kinda like do I stop in my tracks and get eaten by the lion or run from it through the forest until I can find a cliff to jump from. Either way, the end story isn't good.  :D

Funny you mentioned KoolAid... we don't get it here.  Will have to pick some up on my upcoming US visit.

IIRC some parts of RomneyObamacare are in effect. 

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/    Did you or your employer receive a rebate check from your healthcare insurer?  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/health-insurance-rebates-is-your-check-in-the-mail/
Isn't 1.1 Billion better than nothing?

Seems even the Republican VP candidate likes KoolAid from time to time.

http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/politicsandgovernment/1693/paul_ryan_quietly_requested_obamacare_cash/

Do take the time to read the attachment..  Is he a closet socialist?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on September 08, 2012, 04:29:50 AM
I was listening to Obama as he mesmerized the DNC.  I forgot to take the battery out of my bullshit detector in time … it overheated, blew up, and I had to throw it away.

+1    LOL
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on September 08, 2012, 04:32:14 AM
BC

I detect optimism in that post. Mostly optimism that B.O. does get re-elected. Seems you're drinking the kool-aid. One of B.O.'s campaign promises have come to fruition and that was pounded down America's throat and isn't a reality yet (Obamacare). Obama promised leadership and transparency, he has provided none instead only further division, secrecy and backdoor deals.

I'm not so optimistic no matter who wins the election. I do see Romney as the lesser of two evils. Kinda like do I stop in my tracks and get eaten by the lion or run from it through the forest until I can find a cliff to jump from. Either way, the end story isn't good.  :D

+1   Agree entirely..... the less of two evils.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 08, 2012, 08:44:57 AM
Funny you mentioned KoolAid... we don't get it here.  Will have to pick some up on my upcoming US visit.

IIRC some parts of RomneyObamacare are in effect. 

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/ (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/)    Did you or your employer receive a rebate check from your healthcare insurer?  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/health-insurance-rebates-is-your-check-in-the-mail/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/health-insurance-rebates-is-your-check-in-the-mail/)
Isn't 1.1 Billion better than nothing?

Seems even the Republican VP candidate likes KoolAid from time to time.

http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/politicsandgovernment/1693/paul_ryan_quietly_requested_obamacare_cash/ (http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/politicsandgovernment/1693/paul_ryan_quietly_requested_obamacare_cash/)

Do take the time to read the attachment..  Is he a closet socialist?

I, for one, thinks you not only have ample cases of Kool-Aid chillin' in the fridge, you've been bathing yourself with it, too BC. This is the problem with leftist folks, especially those who have serious identity problems.

When the Obamacare law becomes effective, it generally replaces previously established federal health and human services programs. To say Paul Ryan is a hypocrite for requesting funding for his community's health center is just plain silly. Appropriation of funds delegated for such requests are available whether it is from previously established federal programs or like programs from Obamacare which presided over them. To make this look as though Ryan is being seedy, wholly omitting the merit of him requesting funding for a district's health center in the same stroke, is symptomatic of Kool-Aid consumption and a fine example of the leftist media campaign.

Didn't you notice that the media reporting this in the manner you've consumed it are from the leftist medium?

I'll give you a good example of the transformation between previously established federal programs to The Affordable Care Act.

The Ryan White Care Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act)

Now read an excerpt in the service care provider's webpage for Ryan White's Care Act transition:

Update:

The health reform law passed in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”), has implications for the Ryan White Program.

Starting in 2014 thousands of Ryan White patients who previously received care and treatment through the Ryan White program will begin to receive coverage through other programs created under the ACA. A majority will become part of the new Medicaid expansion; another portion are likely to gain coverage through the State Insurance Exchanges and the new state Pre-Existing Condition Plans (PCIPs). Because Ryan White is a “payer of last resort” program, those patients who will have access to the new programs must use them first.

However, since the states will have significant flexibility in establishing the new programs, it is possible that some former Ryan White patients may end up with insufficient benefits, inadequate access to medications, or possibly even less than adequate access to care. They may also see new or increased co-pays, deductibles, or other cost-sharing. It is possible that the Ryan White Program may be able to aid in supplementing some of these areas.

Ryan White providers and clinics will likely help transitioning into these new systems, and ensuring inclusion in the new networks of care. Providers need to pay attention to the requirements and opportunities in their state to be included in the billing networks, referral networks, and care networks for their state’s Exchanges and state Medicaid program. 

Most of the provisions of the ACA do not take effect until 2014, and their overall effects of ACA implementation will not become clear until sometime after that. The Ryan White Program as a whole will likely see many changes. Some of these may include the types of patients accessing services, to what services are provided, how those services wrap around the new systems.

However, it seems as though there will ultimately be a significant need for the Ryan White safety net after 2014....


http://aahivm.org/ryanwhite (http://aahivm.org/ryanwhite)

I mean no offense when I say this...now that you've gotten yourself out of the US borders, you ought to also do so with it's politics.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 08, 2012, 12:34:21 PM
I, for one, thinks you not only have ample cases of Kool-Aid chillin' in the fridge, you've been bathing yourself with it, too BC. This is the problem with leftist folks, especially those who have serious identity problems.

GQ,

why is it that the only one selling KoolAid is you.  Have I ever tried to sell it to you?

Quote
When the Obamacare law becomes effective, it generally replaces previously established federal health and human services programs. To say Paul Ryan is a hypocrite for requesting funding for his community's health center is just plain silly. Appropriation of funds delegated for such requests are available whether it is from previously established federal programs or like programs from Obamacare which presided over them. To make this look as though Ryan is being seedy, wholly omitting the merit of him requesting funding for a district's health center in the same stroke, is symptomatic of Kool-Aid consumption and a fine example of the leftist media campaign.

Didn't you notice that the media reporting this in the manner you've consumed it are from the leftist medium?

I don't rely on one media, I look at several before deciding.  When I read, I try to stay politically 'blind' until I have seen both sides of the coin.

Quote
I'll give you a good example of the transformation between previously established federal programs to The Affordable Care Act.

The Ryan White Care Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act)

Now read an excerpt in the service care provider's webpage for Ryan White's Care Act transition:

Update:

The health reform law passed in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”), has implications for the Ryan White Program.

Starting in 2014 thousands of Ryan White patients who previously received care and treatment through the Ryan White program will begin to receive coverage through other programs created under the ACA. A majority will become part of the new Medicaid expansion; another portion are likely to gain coverage through the State Insurance Exchanges and the new state Pre-Existing Condition Plans (PCIPs). Because Ryan White is a “payer of last resort” program, those patients who will have access to the new programs must use them first.

However, since the states will have significant flexibility in establishing the new programs, it is possible that some former Ryan White patients may end up with insufficient benefits, inadequate access to medications, or possibly even less than adequate access to care. They may also see new or increased co-pays, deductibles, or other cost-sharing. It is possible that the Ryan White Program may be able to aid in supplementing some of these areas.

Ryan White providers and clinics will likely help transitioning into these new systems, and ensuring inclusion in the new networks of care. Providers need to pay attention to the requirements and opportunities in their state to be included in the billing networks, referral networks, and care networks for their state’s Exchanges and state Medicaid program. 

Most of the provisions of the ACA do not take effect until 2014, and their overall effects of ACA implementation will not become clear until sometime after that. The Ryan White Program as a whole will likely see many changes. Some of these may include the types of patients accessing services, to what services are provided, how those services wrap around the new systems.

However, it seems as though there will ultimately be a significant need for the Ryan White safety net after 2014....


http://aahivm.org/ryanwhite (http://aahivm.org/ryanwhite)


Laws are not perfect.  Upon implementation any holes will start showing and patches are made.

Some are even addressed in advance. 

Quote
In 2009, Congress passed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act,[7] which was signed by President Obama on October 30, 2009.[8] This bill extends the Ryan White Care Act for an additional four years.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act

If a loophole remains, I don't think Obama would hesitate to extend the Act even longer.

I do sense that the straws are being grasped in your discourse.

Quote

I mean no offense when I say this...now that you've gotten yourself out of the US borders, you ought to also do so with it's politics.

Ok so now you believe that millions of USC's overseas should be disenfranchised?   .... or just those that are unwilling to accept your views?  The ability to see a forest instead of a tree is quite valuable and the 'core' of my little consulting and service business.  I can't tell you how many times I have been invited to work directly in the offices of the companies I work for. I have always refused as it would only force me to wear blinders.  My refusal has assured almost two decades of business aside from a bit more sunny weather, good food and quality time with family.

My unique viewpoint has allowed me to enjoy a 'RomneyObamacare' type environment for many decades.  Sadly, many USC's simply can't doff the blinders and don't 'get it' .  That's quite ok though, more do than don't and I understand that you can't win them all.

One lesson learned over the years is that when one prefaces as you did in your statement above it is simply a PC way to state the opposite..    I would much rather you just told me to take a hike.  I do however applaud the substance in your response (not a preface), as it gives me something I can objectively look at and respond to with facts that adds to discourse instead of subtracting.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 08, 2012, 01:33:02 PM

Those three examples may bore you but I've seen people almost come to blows when
these three are mentioned AND NOT int the same sentence.
 

I suggest that those people need to find a life. 


 
Quote
I just read somewhere that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the DJIA fell by 25 percent, the Standard & Poor's 500 index fell by 39 percent, and the NASDAQ index fell by 47 percent.
 
By contrast, during the years of Obama's administration (Jan. 20, 2009, through Aug. 30, 2012), the Dow Jones
Industrial Average has risen by 60 percent, the S&P 500 has gone up by 74 percent, and the NASDAQ index is up by 112 percent.
 
 
 
Well, I believe that Wall Street would disagree with you based on the
above numbers.

Actually, the rise in the DJIA under Obama's presidency is even more dramatic.   The DJIA on March 9, 2009 hit an intraday low of 6,470, the lowest mark in 12 years.  And that could not be blamed on Obama as he had been in office only 6-7 weeks.  Yesterday the DJIA closed at 13,307 (106% increase in 3 1/2 years).
 
The "fat cat bankers on Wall Street" (Obama's language) are smart when it comes to money.  Based on political contributions it seems that they recognize the correlation between Obama bailouts and a rise in the stock prices of their companies.
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px_qv_ygWeg

Yep, we need to reelect Obama sop that my stock investments will double again.  (tongue in cheek)
 

 
Quote
Ah yes, Tip O'Neil. What a classy gentleman. I don't think I ever heard him say that his primary goal was to make Reagan a one term President.

 
Tip would probably say such if  he and Reagan had not made a deal at the beginning of Reagan's presidency.
 
Quote
Also, I believe the Democrats in those days were NEVER referred to as the Party
of NO.

The Party of No was an interesting turn of events.  Do you have a reliable reference to how this started, particularly what was not done that could have mended fences early?  For sure fiscal conservatives were not interested in stimulus and bailout plans considering the national debt issue.  And they were correct.  For sure Obama intended to create Obamacare, save auto unions, pump money into programs of questionable cost-effectiveness, etc.

 
Quote
It seems there are many who believe that if Obama wins again every black man in America will have their way with all the white women.

Muzh, that is a weird post and it makes no sense.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 08, 2012, 04:52:21 PM
GQ,

why is it that the only one selling KoolAid is you.  Have I ever tried to sell it to you?

Me and Kool-Aid are like oil and water. Fire and rain...So no. No selling around my neck of the woods.

Quote
I don't rely on one media, I look at several before deciding.  When I read, I try to stay politically 'blind' until I have seen both sides of the coin.

Of course. I noted this much from you from your previous declaration...

Quote
...What I did see however is that he has lived up to many of his '08 promises, maybe not in full, but at least progress has been made and is shown in real, tangible numbers pointing up and not down....

Gitmo for starters. Now he's even giving away known insurgents who openly professed destruction of the US back to the Talibans in the name of 'peace' (Research it). Then at the same time bomb citizens of Pakistan and Yemen despite the absence of a war declaration.

Whatever happend the promise of stopping the Big Brother program? Heightened it? No...you don't say...

Let's see...did you fact check the truth behind the '4.5 million jobs created in the private sector* as declared by Emanuel, Clinton, Castro, The shopping Mom, Biden, and the O himself?

Did you actually believe it when they held Obama responsible for stopping the war in Iraq? He voted 'no' for Bush's SURGE, which as far as I'm concerned was what stopped the war exactly as planned according to the submitted time table?

Did you actually believe pumping billions into GM, GMAC (Ally) was to save the Automaker?

Were you moved by the show of masses in the convention? I was too...I've never seen that many Union members holding placards all in one place except when their bosses hold their customary strikes demanding higher pay i.e. higher Union premiums.

Did you fact check how the manufacturing sector had been raised and will soon end the trend of 'outsourcing'?

Did you also note the absence of the parade of coffins in this year's election in the manner it aired ad nauseum in 2008? I was curious because there are more fatalities under Obama in 3.5 years than it was during Bush's 7 year watch despite being 'engaged' on 2 fronts.

Did you notice Van Jones during the convention? he's looking pretty zippy these days, man. Silly me. I thought he's barred from the White House since his 'resignation'.

Quote
Laws are not perfect.  Upon implementation any holes will start showing and patches are made.

Oh yeah. The Union is one HUGE freakin' hole the US taxpayers are now officially, automatically and eternally going to be responsible for.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/obamacare-and-the-unions/ (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/obamacare-and-the-unions/)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM&feature=related



Small 2004/2008 campaign investment really paid major capital returns, man.

A Reader's Digest  overview of the Pros and Cons of Obamacare:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm (http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm)


Quote
Some are even addressed in advance. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act)

If a loophole remains, I don't think Obama would hesitate to extend the Act even longer.

I do sense that the straws are being grasped in your discourse.

You read it but still didn't understand it. Re-authorization doesn't, didn't, shouldn't behold Obama. Bush did it (even modernized it by adding in HIV infected patients and not only AIDS patients). Obama's re-authorization of 2009 was traditionally been done so by previous presidents. So no. No benevolent forsight by your Almighty.

Quote
Ok so now you believe that millions of USC's overseas should be disenfranchised?

No. Just the few who are 'OUT OF TOUCH'.

Quote
  .... or just those that are unwilling to accept your views?

If you haven't yet noticed, it isn't a question of 'views'. Never has been. Information are out there and it is incumbent upon us Americans to sift through them and decide.

Quote
The ability to see a forest instead of a tree is quite valuable and the 'core' of my little consulting and service business.  I can't tell you how many times I have been invited to work directly in the offices of the companies I work for. I have always refused as it would only force me to wear blinders.  My refusal has assured almost two decades of business aside from a bit more sunny weather, good food and quality time with family.

Surprised! There's no monopoly of good life. Everyone has them BC in case you've cocooned yourself too much and actually donned the proverbial blinders you've been flashing yourself.

Quote
My unique viewpoint has allowed me to enjoy a 'RomneyObamacare' type environment for many decades.  Sadly, many USC's simply can't doff the blinders and don't 'get it' .  That's quite ok though, more do than don't and I understand that you can't win them all.

Yeah...and I do hope soon folks like you CAN UNDERSTAND different strokes for different folks.

Quote
One lesson learned over the years is that when one prefaces as you did in your statement above it is simply a PC way to state the opposite..    I would much rather you just told me to take a hike.  I do however applaud the substance in your response (not a preface), as it gives me something I can objectively look at and respond to with facts that adds to discourse instead of subtracting.

Thanks.

The thought of posting what I did may come across as crass to you, hence prefaced it. I had hoped for a higher chance than 50/50 you'd understand the message since I gave you enough credit, in addition to your repeated statement about being an objective bloke, but maybe we were BOTH wrong this time.


p.s. Did you know department:

The Democrats had been blocking the proposition for the Voter ID Cards for this year's election. They're contending it is unconstitutional. LOL. Did you know no one was allowed in the DNC without proper ID and affiliation credits? What was the DNC? A 'private' function?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on September 08, 2012, 05:50:51 PM
Then at the same time bomb citizens of Pakistan and Yemen despite the absence of a war declaration.
IINM, declarations of war became quite unfashionable after WWII ::).

Korea, Viet Nam, the Falklands, the Gulf I and II, Jugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc. etc. - all dispensed with such polite but outdated formalities ;).   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 08, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
IINM, declarations of war became quite unfashionable after WWII ::) .

Korea, Viet Nam, the Falklands, the Gulf I and II, Jugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc. etc. - all dispensed with such polite but outdated formalities ;) .   

The US congress did in fact 'empowered' the president to war against Afghanistan and Iraq (i.e. War on Terror). Post-Vietnam, an act was passed to by-pass any war declaration so long as a congressional empowerment is given - IINM - in the form of congressional resolutions. The purpose to declare war in the US was to officially serve notice to its citizens by bodies of government, as opposed to an individual i.e. president, that pending strife and burden is soon to befall upon the nation.

Yeah, you can call it (war declarations) unfashionable to some degree..but serving public notice is still to be adhered to. (silly if you think how many covert operations takes place in the world today).

The creation of the silly United Nations, with all it's silly political posturing, also allows for military incursions and commitment under its silly resolutions sans congressional empowerment. Sarajevo (u/ NATO ~ not too sure about this), Desert Storm, etc...

None of the above happened to the bombings in Yemen and Pakistan were doing today.

Let me add...the inception of the Nuclear age also greatly questioned the protocol of declarations of war, but nuclear war is hardly an issue with Yemen and/or Pakistan.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 09, 2012, 06:26:29 AM

For the ones who think both Obama and Romney will be bad news for the US people (except Wall Street, Pentagon and the like), I suggest listen to the analysis of historian and economist Webster Tarpley, here:




[size=78%]http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/ (http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/)[/size]



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on September 09, 2012, 07:21:40 AM
The US congress did in fact 'empower' the president to war against Afghanistan and Iraq (i.e. War on Terror).
Pursuant to Article One, Section Eight of your Constitution: "Congress shall have power to ... declare War".

Quote
Post-Vietnam, an act was passed to by-pass any war declaration so long as a congressional empowerment is given - IINM - in the form of congressional resolutions.

Quote
After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93-148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president's claimed powers. Today, Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution.


The purpose to declare war in the US was to officially serve notice to its citizens by bodies of government, as opposed to an individual i.e. president, that pending strife and burden is soon to befall upon the nation.
A limited interpretation, IMHO.
Quote
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another
Quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

I'd say its primary purpose is to inform that a nation is about to start 'legitimately' to kill people, destroy property and occupy territory of another nation, with possible internal consequences like the draft, martial law, rationing, curfew, etc. etc. ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 09, 2012, 07:27:47 AM
GQ,

I answered your post pretty much point for point.  Now it seems you need to expand beyond the scope of the original discourse.  If you research, I responded to many of these points upthread.  I'll chip in again here in short form.

So, to the new meat of your post being thrown into the colosseum.

Gitmo for starters. Now he's even giving away known insurgents who openly professed destruction of the US back to the Talibans in the name of 'peace' (Research it). Then at the same time bomb citizens of Pakistan and Yemen despite the absence of a war declaration.

Yes I was disappointed closing Gitmo did not happen and have mentioned this before.  I continue to be confident that there will be a right time and right place for getting it done. Whether or not to bring the remaining 'combatants' to the US for trial under federal law was a bargaining chip in the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill.  In other words the political process at work.  A compromise if you will.  It's not like he did not try.  It's all here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detention_camp

As to attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, unconventional measures are needed to fight terrorists.  The war on al-Qaeda / terrorism was declared long ago.  Formal or informal the policy seems to be working with few complaints.  If it works, there is little need to fix it.

Quote
Whatever happend the promise of stopping the Big Brother program? Heightened it? No...you don't say...

The Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001.  As senator he said he would vote to repeal it.  As candidate for the Presidency IIRC he said he would revisit it to make sure would be properly used.  The Act  contained several provisions that are in conflict with the Constitution and  would need to be reauthorized on a periodic basis.  Obviously Obama felt these provisions were needed another 4 years.  I do hope they will not be needed longer than that, but not being privy to much of what goes on behind the scenes I simply have to trust his decision. 

Quote
Let's see...did you fact check the truth behind the '4.5 million jobs created in the private sector* as declared by Emanuel, Clinton, Castro, The shopping Mom, Biden, and the O himself?

I guess you are relying on info such as this one http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/fact-check-have-45-million-new-jobs-been-created-under-obama

It is interesting that the blame is placed on those leaving the workforce but does nto mention that the baby boomers are retiring at a rate of 10.000 per day, instead mentioning those going on disability.  There are many ways one can read the statistics.  All leading economic indicators are pointing upwards so I can only interpret that the trend is up and not down since the recession ended.

Quote
Did you actually believe it when they held Obama responsible for stopping the war in Iraq? He voted 'no' for Bush's SURGE, which as far as I'm concerned was what stopped the war exactly as planned according to the submitted time table?

I call such discourse 'Watch' picking, but think it is safe to say that despite opposition, he made sure the timelines were respected in addition to setting a timeline for the war in Afghanistan to wind down

Quote
Did you actually believe pumping billions into GM, GMAC (Ally) was to save the Automaker?

I think the Treasury is on the hook for a remaining 13 Billion or so.  Their stock is unfortunately still down.  I hope it picks up and taxpayers get a little profit out of it all.

Quote
Were you moved by the show of masses in the convention? I was too...I've never seen that many Union members holding placards all in one place except when their bosses hold their customary strikes demanding higher pay i.e. higher Union premiums.

Considering collective bargaining, I am a bit at odds with that practice.  It is however a process that should be allowed to take place.  Some companies rise above all this though by keeping employees very happy, with even participation (stock options). I hope that trend continues and eventually grows to take over the place of unions.  For the short time I was an employee in Germany I felt a bit stifled by being offered 'tariff' wages.  It is however a decent tool to level the playing field a bit if done correctly.  I don't think that is the case in the US.

Quote
Did you fact check how the manufacturing sector had been raised and will soon end the trend of 'outsourcing'?

Give me a few specifics please.  I do think that exchange rates ( a low dollar value ) will help out, but I wonder if it can be maintained.  The 'offshore ethic' is quite powerful but with time and innovation I think the US can get back into the manufacturing businesses that exceed domestic demand and can push up exports even more.

Quote
Did you also note the absence of the parade of coffins in this year's election in the manner it aired ad nauseum in 2008? I was curious because there are more fatalities under Obama in 3.5 years than it was during Bush's 7 year watch despite being 'engaged' on 2 fronts.

http://icasualties.org/

Draw  your own conclusions.  If you are talking Afghanistan casualties, you are right, but overall?  When the 'war' shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan it is logical that casualties followed.  The statistics are remarkably similar.

Again if you rely on sites like http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1043 you see only a part of the picture, the proverbial 'tree' instead of forest.

Quote
Did you notice Van Jones during the convention? he's looking pretty zippy these days, man. Silly me. I thought he's barred from the White House since his 'resignation'.

Ok he bought a ticket like many others.. did he speak? Maybe he bought a ticket to the RNC?  whoopie doo.....

Quote
Oh yeah. The Union is one HUGE freakin' hole the US taxpayers are now officially, automatically and eternally going to be responsible for.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/obamacare-and-the-unions/ (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/obamacare-and-the-unions/)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM&feature=related



Small 2004/2008 campaign investment really paid major capital returns, man.

A Reader's Digest  overview of the Pros and Cons of Obamacare:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm (http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm)

Healthcare has been discussed upthread quite enough.  Refer to my posts on the subject.  Bottom line, there is no reason in the world why one of the very very few industrialized nations on this planet has to pay a third, to half as much as the industrialized countries that have some form of universal healthcare coverage... none.

Quote
You read it but still didn't understand it. Re-authorization doesn't, didn't, shouldn't behold Obama. Bush did it (even modernized it by adding in HIV infected patients and not only AIDS patients). Obama's re-authorization of 2009 was traditionally been done so by previous presidents. So no. No benevolent forsight by your Almighty.

You said it was a problem.  I showed you it wasn't... so what's the deal here? now again 'Who's Watch' wormhole effect?

Quote
No. Just the few who are 'OUT OF TOUCH'.

Out of touch with what... the world?

Quote
If you haven't yet noticed, it isn't a question of 'views'. Never has been. Information are out there and it is incumbent upon us Americans to sift through them and decide.

Surprised! There's no monopoly of good life. Everyone has them BC in case you've cocooned yourself too much and actually donned the proverbial blinders you've been flashing yourself.

Yeah...and I do hope soon folks like you CAN UNDERSTAND different strokes for different folks.

The thought of posting what I did may come across as crass to you, hence prefaced it. I had hoped for a higher chance than 50/50 you'd understand the message since I gave you enough credit, in addition to your repeated statement about being an objective bloke, but maybe we were BOTH wrong this time.


p.s. Did you know department:

The Democrats had been blocking the proposition for the Voter ID Cards for this year's election. They're contending it is unconstitutional. LOL. Did you know no one was allowed in the DNC without proper ID and affiliation credits? What was the DNC? A 'private' function?

I am getting ready for a trip next week, so will just cut it short a bit.  Have some whine with your cheese.  Pick one point, any point and I'll continue discourse, but broadening doesn't help much at all to drill down into the realm of substance... If you can't relate, go ahead and obfuscate.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 09, 2012, 08:11:51 AM
For the ones who think both Obama and Romney will be bad news for the US people (except Wall Street, Pentagon and the like), I suggest listen to the analysis of historian and economist Webster Tarpley...

Did you listen to the whole broadcast?  I started it because I am interested in various opinions.  And I stopped it upon discovering 1) it is an hour in length and 2) Tarpley was formerly associated with the US Labor Party. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 09, 2012, 08:16:50 AM

Did you listen to the whole broadcast?  I started it because I am interested in various opinions.  And I stopped it upon discovering 1) it is an hour in length and 2) Tarpley was formerly associated with the US Labor Party.

It took me about 5 mins to pull the plug on this one.  Opin abounds on all sides.. I'd rather drill down than listen to drivel from either side.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 09, 2012, 08:39:42 AM


It is interesting that the blame is placed on those leaving the workforce but does nto mention that the baby boomers are retiring at a rate of 10.000 per day, instead mentioning those going on disability. 

Having many baby boomers as friends who have been involuntarily RIFed (Reduction in Force), I assure you that most of the 10,000 per day would prefer to keep working.  They feel that they do not have sufficient assets to fund retirement.  It happens so frequently that some supervisors do not have time to meet with the RIFed employees and instead do it over the phone.
 
 
Quote

There are many ways one can read the statistics.  All leading economic indicators are pointing upwards so I can only interpret that the trend is up and not down since the recession ended.

The jobs report last Thursday was dismal suggesting that the Fed will do QE III.  The fact that the Fed believes QEIII can be done without inflation says much about the situation.     From the somewhat liberal leaning CNN:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/07/worse-off-in-2011/?iid=HP_LN (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/07/worse-off-in-2011/?iid=HP_LN)
 


Quote
Bottom line, there is no reason in the world why one of the very very few industrialized nations on this planet has to pay a third, to half as much as the industrialized countries that have some form of universal healthcare coverage... none.

I don't pay much attention to the healthcare debate.  If I understand your post, you question why the US pays so much.  I agree we pay too much.  Healthcare needs reform.   Instead of helping, Obamacare is exacerbating.



Quote
Pick one point, any point and I'll continue discourse, but broadening doesn't help much at all to drill down into the realm of substance...

Good point. I suggest jobs, jobs, jobs.  The election should be about jobs, jobs, jobs.  Both candidates should explain in detail their plan for generating more jobs.   Obama's plan seems to center on more stimulus and other band aids.  Romney's plan seems more intrinsic.  I want more details from both candidates with enough time for independent analysis before the election..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 09, 2012, 08:46:00 AM
It took me about 5 mins to pull the plug on this one.  Opin abounds on all sides.. I'd rather drill down than listen to drivel from either side.

Maybe Natural will provide a summary; however, he is busy enjoying la dolce vita with his woman in Ukraine.  If I were him I would not take the time to clarify a political point. :)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 09, 2012, 09:47:55 AM

What did I just say?  If you don't believe me, listen to this 4-minute interview of many DNC delegates.   
 
To be fair Schiff said on CNBC that only 50% of the interviewed delegates favored banning corporate profits.  Only 50%?!?!?!  Do these people not realize where most of the nation's jobs come from, and what motivates corporations to create jobs?  These are educated people too.  This speaks volumes much about the decline of America.
 

schiff's video cracked me up... hearing all those union reps railing against 'corporate profits'!
 
and what would happen if all the profits were capped from the companies whose stocks are held in their union pension portfolios?
 
they'd all be working into their 70's just like the rest of us.  hahaha!!!
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 09, 2012, 11:59:32 AM

Did you listen to the whole broadcast?  I started it because I am interested in various opinions.  And I stopped it upon discovering 1) it is an hour in length and 2) Tarpley was formerly associated with the US Labor Party.


Yes, I listened to the whole broadcast as I do every time Tarpley release his once a week radio programme. If one is really interested in hearing alternate analysis from the prestitutes on mainstream outlets, I think one would make time for it. After all, these are serious times, wouldn't you agree?



Maybe Natural will provide a summary; however, he is busy enjoying la dolce vita with his woman in Ukraine.  If I were him I would not take the time to clarify a political point. :)



Oh, I'll make time, just for you my friend  ;) My girl is busy in the kitchen now.


Well, Tarpley wrote two books before Obama was elected where he warned about him, so he's no fan of Obama to put it mildly. He talks much now about Romney as Obama is like the devil you know and Romney is the devil you will know. He often these days talk about Romney being a bishop in the Mormon church where his loyalty lies and how the Mormon religion is anti-American and highly racist. Too bad people won't listen to him just because he's not mainstream, viewed as labour or socialist or anything like that, because you might learn a lot from history as well, listening to him. Tarpley say he's a follower of the New Deal of the Rooseveldt administration.


Well, about what will happen, to put it in very short terms, he say that you will get austerity with the both of them. With Obama you will get a reduction in living standard by 10-15%, or death by a thousand cuts. With Romney you will get a reduction of 25-30% which may or may not result in public revolt. They both serve Wall Street interests.


Tarpley talks about a lot of things and also have excellent analyses of what's going on in Europe and the middle-east. He speaks several languages and is in my opinion a genious. I was a Ron Paul supporter as you may remember. That was until Webster Tarpley went on the Alex Jones Show and explained how his program Restore America will result in, not only austerity, but outright genocide by hunger of millions of Americans. Alex Jones went crazy over this, wouldn't listen because he had invested so much faith in Ron Paul. He was of course intellectually destroyed by Tarpley's analyses.


Why be so set in your ways that you don't want to even listen to someone just because that person may be associated to some code words you don't like? I mean, I'm a normal person and I'd much rather ordinary people be bailed out via work programs than bailing out the parasites on Wall street. wouldn't you? I'm certainly not so cold-hearted as to support such criminals.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 10, 2012, 07:20:36 AM
Pursuant to Article One, Section Eight of your Constitution: "Congress shall have power to ... declare War".

Not sure what the uptake is on this Sandro but the US congress empowered (authorized) the Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan (War on Terror), thus in essence they reserved and exercised their constitutional duty accordingly.
 
Quote
A limited interpretation, IMHO.Quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)

I'd say its primary purpose is to inform that a nation is about to start 'legitimately' to kill people, destroy property and occupy territory of another nation, with possible internal consequences like the draft, martial law, rationing, curfew, etc. etc. ;)

Chalk it up to old age. I used to be able to retain things I've read with much more clarity and absolution. Puberty and women have had a definite effect on that but oh well. We all have priorities... :P
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 10, 2012, 07:24:03 AM
GQ,

I answered your post pretty much point for point.  Now it seems you need to expand beyond the scope of the original discourse.  If you research, I responded to many of these points upthread.  I'll chip in again here in short form...

::::: :P ::::::

BC-

Few are as annoyingly redundant as a door knob, certainly being a Democrat is one of them ~ which I'm not, but that's life ~ so let me summarize my response to you in a more efficient and sweeping manner.

1. Promises: Considering the points mentioned were major campaign points for our DC clown, where you see 'promises kept' despite the obvious, I see a royal snow job. Makes little wonder now how Berlusconi held office in the first place.

2. Economy: *Two dozen steps backward, one small step forward* is apparently 'positive progress for you, so let's agree to disagree.

3. OUT OF TOUCH: This is just plain silly to even discuss. Where I see peers, colleagues, friends, associates, known acquiantances, etc...get major cut in pay, getting laid-off, forced retire, companies closing shop, etc...you 'read' news report of progress; where I live in a day-to-day events ground zero (our city is broke, as do many other in California/nationally due largely to Union payroll and pension plans ), you get to 'read' news source to suit your palette ~ I say again, you're out of touch. That's not a bad thing nor an insult. That's just a how things are. I grew up in Santa Monica/Marina del Rey but had been living on the hillside suburbia for a few years now, and guess what, every time we trek over to those beachside haven, I/we note things are changing a bit. I've been 'out-of-touch' to these areas that once were, and still do, 'close to my heart and life, for the very simply reason I no longer live there.

Now, given an opportunity to select their politicians simply by virtue of Googled online articles coupled with my arrogant opinion of myself ~ despite the obvious reality I've been away so long and obviously -out-of-touch, yeah man...It's Kool-Aid time.

4. Ryan White Act: It was given as an example to show transitions of programs through inceptions/accommodations from the old to the new laws in case you've forgotten. It was done to show how silly people can get when they start demonizing Paul Ryan's action simply because they read it on a Googled online article from wherever they are, like Italy for instance, and act as though they somehow know what's good for 'our' country.

Yes, no one denies Obama inherited a tough situation when he came to office. But you know $700+ billion TARP money, $400 Billion Omnibus, $20 Billion S-CHIP, the doozy $800 Billion Stim Bill plus a slew of other dandy candies....one would think our state today should at least be in pretty darn good place now, no?

Oh wait, that's right my bad....millions and millions do in fact feel that way. After all, if nothing else I take solace and consolation to the fact that Democrats, the Union and the social leeching folks are people, too.

I do agree with you about one thing. The economy, unfortunately for America, is and should be front and center in this year's election. All others is nothing more than media/campaign distraction.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 10, 2012, 10:23:28 AM

LOL. This paricular issue had come from you on more than a few occassion, Muzh. Why are so bent in trying to throw in race in these discussions? Are you still that stuck in the '70s? It seems so much more significant with you...why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 10, 2012, 12:11:13 PM
The Natural,
 
Thank you for the summary.  Nevertheless, without ritalin I can not take an hour-long radio lecture. 
 
It seems that you like offbeat opinions.  Because you shared with me, I will share one of my sources:  Taki's Magazine.
 
It claims to be libertarian but seems more paleoconservative.  Whatever it is, the editors are breezy, clever, insolent and offbeat.  They cover politics and culture, and they coin brilliant phrases.  Even Muzh and BC might find entertaining the magazine's description of the DNC in "An Overdose of Hope."
 
http://takimag.com/article/an_overdose_of_hope_takimag#axzz265hQeCkW (http://takimag.com/article/an_overdose_of_hope_takimag#axzz265hQeCkW)
 
 
 
http://takimag.com/article/an_overdose_of_hope_takimag#axzz265hQeCkW (http://takimag.com/article/an_overdose_of_hope_takimag#axzz265hQeCkW)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 10, 2012, 12:13:39 PM
Muzh,
 
I am still confused.  Who is the captor and who is the hostage?  Surely you don't mean that......
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 10, 2012, 12:46:00 PM
Muzh,
 
I am still confused.  Who is the captor and who is the hostage?  Surely you don't mean that......

Gator, some time ago you said you considered me an intelligent man. Why don't you show it?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 10, 2012, 03:03:12 PM
Gator, some time ago you said you considered me an intelligent man. Why don't you show it?

 :D :D :D

I posed the question because  at times I feel the hostage-captor role has been reversed over 150 years, and the captivity is now philosophical rather than physical.   
 
You may respond that as of today I am not a minority and have not felt discriminated against as you did.  Nevertheless, I have been a close witness to change, having been there due to my age, locale and some friends who were leaders. 
 
All I can infer from your posts is that you believe Republicans are anti-black.    Or if I read your posts literally Republicans fear blacks?    If so, I say "Hogwash."     
 
Not many people know this about Mitt's father George.   
 
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/urban-game-changer/2012/mar/13/mitt-romney-civil-rights-governor-george-romney/ (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/urban-game-changer/2012/mar/13/mitt-romney-civil-rights-governor-george-romney/)
 
I trust that you agree with me that his father's actions were necessary, appropriate and not common in 1963.  And his son?  50 years later, I believe jobs will advance race relations far more than social welfare.
 
So if I am barking up the wrong tree (i. e., not smart enough to understand your brilliance), please help me.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 10, 2012, 03:17:16 PM
BC,
 
You talked about promises kept.  This video compiles actual footage of Obama.   For various issues such as healthcare, the deficit, taxes, etc. his promises in 2007-2009 are contrasted with the final outcome.
 
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15290-case-closed-if-moderate-voters-see-this-video-its-over-for-obama/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15290-case-closed-if-moderate-voters-see-this-video-its-over-for-obama/)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 10, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Muzh,
 
You are so intelligent that I know you will see the light.  When you do, you will need one of these kits:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=201pgTaEseQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=201pgTaEseQ)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 10, 2012, 06:08:43 PM
I believe jobs will advance race relations far more than social welfare.

this is pure gold!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 10, 2012, 07:00:07 PM
...
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15290-case-closed-if-moderate-voters-see-this-video-its-over-for-obama/  (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15290-case-closed-if-moderate-voters-see-this-video-its-over-for-obama/)

LOL. I missed this real doozy before but (un)fortunately it is in the video!

"...but we had to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it..." Nanci Pelosi @ 6:41. LOL. Unbelievable!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 11, 2012, 07:50:57 AM
Has anyone been following the teacher's strike in Chicago?  First strike in Chicago in 25 years.
 
Rahm Emanuel is the mayor of Chicago.  Before becoming mayor he was Chief of Staff for Obama.  I dismissed him simply by association with Obama.  However, the strike reveals Rahm has some good ideas.
 

Rahm wants to incentivize teachers' pay such that the best performing teachers are paid more.  The teachers union instead wants pay based on such factors as length of service rather than performance. 
 
Muzh, please do not be shocked but I support the Democrat Rahm in what he is trying to achieve.  It will be better for everyone, except underperforming teachers.   Am I missing something?
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 11, 2012, 08:15:36 AM
Has anyone been following the teacher's strike in Chicago?  First strike in Chicago in 25 years.
 
Rahm Emanuel is the mayor of Chicago.  Before becoming mayor he was Chief of Staff for Obama.  I dismissed him simply by association with Obama.  However, the strike reveals Rahm has some good ideas.
 

Rahm wants to incentivize teachers' pay such that the best performing teachers are paid more.  The teachers union instead wants pay based on such factors as length of service rather than performance. 
 
Muzh, please do not be shocked but I support the Democrat Rahm in what he is trying to achieve.  It will be better for everyone, except underperforming teachers.   Am I missing something?

Rahm is a chameleon that slithers in the grass. Changing whenever it suits him. The Teachers union is another prime example of what is wrong with powerful unions. All the pay and benefits without the performance. Rahm now finds himself surprisingly in management.

edit to add: I heard on a news report this morning that only 15% of students at inner Chicago school system reads at grade level. Can that possibly be right?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 11, 2012, 08:50:45 AM
From Frontpagemag.com(whatever that is)
 
Quote
Seventy-nine percent of the 8th graders in the Chicago Public Schools
are not grade-level proficient in reading, according to the U.S. Department of
Education, and 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math.

Other claims:
Quote

Chicago public school teachers went on strike on Monday and one of the major
issues behind the strike is a new system Chicago plans to use for evaluating
public school teachers in which student improvement on standardized tests will
count for 40 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Until now, the evaluations of
Chicago public school teachers have been based on what a Chicago Sun Times
editorial called a “meaningless checklist."

Chicago teachers have the highest average salary of any city at $76,000 a
year before benefits. The average family in the city only earns $47,000 a year.
Yet the teachers rejected a 16 percent salary increase over four years at a time
when most families are not getting any raises or are looking for work.
The city is being bled dry by the exorbitant benefits packages negotiated by
previous elected officials. Teachers pay only 3 percent of their health-care
costs and out of every new dollar set aside for public education in Illinois in
the last five years, a full 71 cents has gone to teacher retirement
costs.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 11, 2012, 09:29:27 AM
Has anyone been following the teacher's strike in Chicago?  First strike in Chicago in 25 years.
 
Rahm Emanuel is the mayor of Chicago.  Before becoming mayor he was Chief of Staff for Obama.  I dismissed him simply by association with Obama.  However, the strike reveals Rahm has some good ideas.
 

Rahm wants to incentivize teachers' pay such that the best performing teachers are paid more.  The teachers union instead wants pay based on such factors as length of service rather than performance. 
 
Muzh, please do not be shocked but I support the Democrat Rahm in what he is trying to achieve.  It will be better for everyone, except underperforming teachers.   Am I missing something?

An incentive plan for teachers was the subject of an email I sent to Obama several months ago.  I think teachers should have a base salary, then be incentivized much as insurance salesmen with 'residual' payments based on the policies kept in force.  After graduation, based on tax returns a small percentage would be divided between the teachers involved in his / her education. Would only apply to teachers in the public school system.  Of course would take some years to build up, but a good teacher could have a nice nest egg built up by the time they retire.  The incentives would attract good teachers to public schools and help keep them there.

The base salary could be weighted based on grades taught as an elementary teacher would obviously take longer to build up their account.  That might also attract good teachers to lower grades, where learning the three 'R''s counts the most.

Have a good link for Rahm's plan?

I did receive a thank you note, pretty generic, but at least something.


June 19, 2012


Dear [BC]:

Thank you for writing.  As President, it is my privilege to hear from Americans like you who take time to offer their perspective on the serious issues facing our Nation.  I appreciate your message and value your input.
 
From putting Americans back to work to expanding access to medical care, my Administration continues to take bold action to do what is right for our Nation.  We have enacted the most comprehensive financial reforms in decades, rescued and helped retool our auto industry, expanded student aid to millions of young people, helped level the playing field for working women, and made the largest investment in clean energy in our history.  Because of the courageous acts of our service members, we have been able to end the war in Iraq and take down Osama bin Laden.  We have also made historic commitments to provide for our troops as they return home.  Securing our country’s future will take time, but I will not stop working to rebuild the kind of America where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.
 
I am always eager to hear ideas that will help our country adapt to changing times and lead us toward a brighter day.  The enduring American spirit is revealed in the letters I receive, and I remain dedicated to ensuring it is reflected in our efforts to improve the lives of all Americans.
 
Thank you, again, for sharing your views.  I encourage you to explore www.WhiteHouse.gov to learn more about the ways we are moving America forward.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 11, 2012, 09:59:46 AM

Other claims:

Chicago public school teachers went on strike on Monday and one of the major
issues behind the strike is a new system Chicago plans to use for evaluating
public school teachers
in which student improvement on standardized tests will
count for 40 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Until now, the evaluations of
Chicago public school teachers have been based on what a Chicago Sun Times
editorial called a “meaningless checklist."



from the teachers perspective

Quote

While teachers raised issues from evaluations to school privatization to class size to explain why they backed the strike, they were in solid agreement on one thing: public education in Chicago is not working and Mayor Emanuel is making things worse.

English teacher Keith Plum says he’s sick of teaching to the test. “It’s always some big corporation selling a canned curriculum that’s never been tested,” he said, adding that he was told he’d be punished if he deviated from the curriculum’s script.

Plum recalls a sophomore who, three weeks into the school year, raised her hand to ask, “When are going to do some real English work?”

The union singles out poverty as one of the biggest roadblocks to academic achievement. CTU has insistently pointed to disparities within the city, particularly the lack of resources in schools serving low-income Black and Latino students. The union says 160 schools have no library, and many lack playgrounds.
Problems in the schools themselves, the union argues, can be solved by fully funding them, providing a rich curriculum and the wraparound services students need. Class size matters, too. Kindergarten and first-grade classrooms in Chicago are bigger than those in 95 percent of all Illinois schools, according to the CTU’s research.
“How can we learn with a classroom of 50 kids in it with not enough books or materials?” asked Marta Aguirre, a senior at Roosevelt High School, who was walking the picket line with her teachers this morning.



Rahm Emanuel continued Daley’s tornado of closures and privatizations when he took over last year, targeting another 21 schools in December. Indeed, the fight against school closures has only gotten harder. Even the occupation of a local elementary school (http://labornotes.org/2012/02/chicago-occupation-challenges-corporate-school-agenda) earlier in the year by parents was not enough to prevent its shuttering. The onslaught only promises to get worse.

http://labornotes.org/2012/09/behind-chicago-teachers-strike (http://labornotes.org/2012/09/behind-chicago-teachers-strike)

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 11, 2012, 10:55:57 AM
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/budget_justification/pdfs/01_Operation_and_Maintenance/O_M_VOL_1_PARTS/O_M_VOL_1_BASE_PARTS/DoDDE_OP-5.pdf

The department of defense spends 3 billion per year for 60,000 students for  "world class education"

If my math is correct, that's about 50K per child.

These kids are lucky.. I was one of them.

I wonder how that compares to average per child cost for the civilian community.

Closest I could find is http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=5199

Sure, there are additional costs for schools overseas but that much?  Considering additional overhead of 15K, we're talking private school territory at 30/35K per year.

Staff per child is around 10 to 1, that would include principal, secretaries, counselors, nurse, janitors, sports etc. 

IIRC 20 plus students per teacher was high.. over 25 almost unheard of.  I think average was around 18 or so.

I can't recall ever having a 'bad' or uninterested teacher.

Found the tuition rates for DODEA schools

http://www.dodea.edu/aboutDoDEA/upload/SY_1112_TuitionRates.pdf

Significantly higher than any State schools.  More than triple for some, double the average state expenditure.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 11, 2012, 11:06:18 AM
Rahm wants to incentivize teachers' pay such that the best performing teachers are paid more.  The teachers union instead wants pay based on such factors as length of service rather than performance. 


In theory, it is laudable, in practice it all depends on how you will actually evaluate the teachers. You have to ensure that the teachers are teaching children who are comparable. The best way to get a great performance as a teacher is to start off with the best students to begin with. Teaching the children of middle-class parents in the suburbs as opposed to children in poor neighbourhoods who parents may not have completed their own high school education and may be functionally illiterate themselves will do more to ensure the success of the students that whatever pedagogy you bring to the classroom.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 11, 2012, 12:16:48 PM
 
 
There’s no easy, one-stop answer to improving our present public education systems. While there are multitude of things that need to be met to overhaul the current system, there is one common denominator that prevails over everything – accountability.
 
The problems I believe that impacts our education system today are:
 
Illegal Immigration: http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/ (http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/)
 
Unionized Public Sector: If only JFK listened and heeded the warning..  http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions)
 
 
The problem is, as you all saw during both conventions, our politicians continue to pander and play Uncle Jose to our current illegal immigration problems. The problem isn’t in the immigrants who are here illegally. The problems is in the politicians vying for office that find themselves catering to the communities largely related to those who are illegally here.
 
The problem is the monies that come from the Unions during the election years.Then making 'bad' teachers literally immune to any form of accountability.
 
The problem is with the government even having anything to do with educating system in this country to begin with.
Privatized our education system and accountability straight across the board will never be far behind. Parents, teachers, administrators, etc…Every child is entitled to a proper education and there’s no reason in the world these kids should bear the price and burden for the perpetual social jostling our politicians do and the stupidity of the general voting public that continually put them in offices of power.
 
Cut-off all ‘illegitimate’ fringes that are keeping America’s children from proper education.
 
Charter Schools (http://www.pbs.org/closingtheachievementgap/faq.html#q3) is a good start. It at least keeps children of illegal aliens off and get respective parents involved. If only they can find a way to get the Unions out - it'll be close to perfection.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on September 11, 2012, 04:51:30 PM

edit to add: I heard on a news report this morning that only 15% of students at inner Chicago school system reads at grade level. Can that possibly be right?

ever spent any time in near-downtown chicago?  (i'd say 15% sounds a little high.)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 11, 2012, 05:12:37 PM

ever spent any time in near-downtown chicago?  (i'd say 15% sounds a little high.)

Yes I have spent some, near and downtown but only as a spectator and could be inclined to believe it. The figure is alarmingly low it would seem for any school district
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 11, 2012, 10:15:36 PM
 
The problems I believe that impacts our education system today are:
 
Illegal Immigration: http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/ (http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/)
 

The article noted that illegal aliens cost taxpayers 113 billion, but does not mention that illegals also pay taxes to the tune of around 111 billion

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-20/local/29470037_1_sales-taxes-tax-revenue-property-taxes

Quote
Study estimates that illegal immigrants paid $11.2B in taxes last year, unlike GE, which paid zero
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 11, 2012, 11:00:57 PM
The article noted that illegal aliens cost taxpayers 113 billion, but does not mention that illegals also pay taxes to the tune of around 111 billion

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-20/local/29470037_1_sales-taxes-tax-revenue-property-taxes (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-20/local/29470037_1_sales-taxes-tax-revenue-property-taxes)

Then maybe at your leisure explain to us exactly how illegal aliens pay property taxes...and how exactly where they able to determine in exacting figures taxes paid through state sales taxes...being so long ago since you've spent anytime living here, they haven't yet designated a separate line at the cash registers for illegal immigrants...

 :wallbash:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 11, 2012, 11:15:04 PM
Then maybe at your leisure explain to us exactly how illegal aliens pay property taxes...and how exactly where they able to determine in exacting figures taxes paid through state sales taxes...being so long ago since you've spent anytime living here, they haven't yet designated a separate line at the cash registers for illegal immigrants...

 :wallbash:

It's mentioned in the article, also a bit more detail here.  http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-Taxes-Too.htm

Follow the sources.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 12, 2012, 12:03:02 AM
I read it just fine BC, and I still maintain the position maybe you ought to explain exactly where and how YOU got your number of 111 billion.

The article noted that illegal aliens cost taxpayers 113 billion, but does not mention that illegals also pay taxes to the tune of around 111 billion...

Even if given both articled numbers are even remotely close to factual...it looks to me there's still roughly 100+ billion shortfall, no? Of course, we'll assume the numbers we're speaking about are legit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8lLU7XjcWc&lr=1&feature=mhee
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 12, 2012, 07:20:43 AM
These aren't related to US economy but I always knew this clown have an agenda and they aren't what an elected official of the USA have. 4 more years! 4 more years!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html)

He only shows up less than half of his appointed PDB?


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100180493/barack-obama-refuses-to-meet-benjamin-netanyahu-on-his-us-visit-a-rude-snub-to-7-million-israelis/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100180493/barack-obama-refuses-to-meet-benjamin-netanyahu-on-his-us-visit-a-rude-snub-to-7-million-israelis/)

LOL...and this is the 2nd time he had snubbed Israel and Israel's PM...


In light of the latest news coming out of Libya and Egypt, I'm sure this clown is tickled pink...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 12, 2012, 08:00:17 AM

I believe jobs will advance race relations far more than social welfare.
 

this is pure gold!

Ed, just for you. I dare you to read the whole thing. I could have written much of this, oh, about 30 years ago.
 
And Gator, yes, you are barking off the wrong tree.
Just for you check the the highlighted sections.

Confesions of a Former Republican
Jeremiah Goulka
 
September 10, 2012

I used to be a serious Republican, moderate and business-oriented, who planned for a public-service career in Republican politics.  But I am a Republican no longer.
 
There’s an old joke we Republicans used to tell that goes something like this: “If you’re young and not a Democrat, you’re heartless. If you grow up and you’re not a Republican, you’re stupid.” These days, my old friends and associates no doubt consider me the butt of that joke. But I look on my “stupidity” somewhat differently.  After all, my real education only began when I was 30 years old.
 
This is the story of how in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and later in Iraq, I discovered that what I believed to be the full spectrum of reality was just a small slice of it and how that discovery knocked down my Republican worldview.
 
I always imagined that I was full of heart, but it turned out that I was oblivious.  Like so many Republicans, I had assumed that society’s “losers” had somehow earned their desserts.  As I came to recognize that poverty is not earned or chosen or deserved, and that our use of force is far less precise than I had believed, I realized with a shock that I had effectively viewed whole swaths of the country and the world as second-class people.
 
No longer oblivious, I couldn’t remain in today’s Republican Party, not unless I embraced an individualism that was even more heartless than the one I had previously accepted.  The more I learned about reality, the more I started to care about people as people, and my values shifted.  Had I always known what I know today, it would have been clear that there hasn’t been a place for me in the Republican Party since the Free Soil days of Abe Lincoln.
 
Where I Came From

I grew up in a rich, white suburb north of Chicago populated by moderate, business-oriented Republicans.  Once upon a time, we would have been called Rockefeller Republicans. Today we would be called liberal Republicans or slurred by the Right as “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs).
 
We believed in competition and the free market, in bootstraps and personal responsibility, in equality of opportunity, not outcomes.  We were financial conservatives who wanted less government. We believed in noblesse oblige, for we saw ourselves as part of a natural aristocracy, even if we hadn’t been born into it.  We sided with management over labor and saw unions as a scourge.  We hated racism and loved Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., particularly his dream that his children would “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  We worried about the rise of the Religious Right and its social-conservative litmus tests. We were tough on crime, tough on national enemies. We believed in business, full stop.
 
I intended to run for office on just such a platform someday.  In the meantime, I founded the Republican club at my high school, knocked on doors and collected signatures with my father, volunteered on campaigns, socialized at fundraisers, and interned for Senator John McCain and Congressman Denny Hastert when he was House Majority Whip Tom DeLay's chief deputy.
 
We went to mainstream colleges -- the more elite the better -- but lamented their domination by liberal professors, and I did my best to tune out their liberal views.  I joined the Republican clubs and the Federalist Society, and I read theWall Street Journal and the Economist rather the New York Times.  George Will was a voice in the wilderness, Rush Limbaugh an occasional (sometimes guilty) pleasure.
 
Left Behind By the Party

In January 2001, I was one of thousands of Americans who braved the cold rain to attend and cheer George W. Bush’s inauguration.  After eight years hating “Slick Willie,” it felt good to have a Republican back in the White House.  But I knew that he wasn’t one of our guys.  We had been McCain fans, and even if we liked the compassionate bit of Bush’s conservatism, we didn’t care for his religiosity or his social politics.
 
Bush won a lot of us over with his hawkish response to 9/11, but he lost me with the Iraq War.  Weren’t we still busy in Afghanistan?  I didn’t see the urgency.
 
By then, I was at the Justice Department, working in an office that handled litigation related to what was officially called the Global War on Terror (or GWOT).  My office was tasked with opposing petitions for habeas corpusbrought by Guantánamo detainees who claimed that they were being held indefinitely without charge.  The government’s position struck me as an abdication of a core Republican value: protecting the “procedural” rights found in the Bill of Rights.  Sure, habeas corpus had been waived in wartime before, but it seemed to me that waiving it here reduced us to the terrorists’ level.  Besides, since acts of terrorism were crimes, why not prosecute them?  I refused to work on those cases.
 
With the Abu Ghraib pictures my disappointment turned to rage.  The America I believed in didn’t torture people.
 
I couldn’t avoid GWOT work.  I was forced to read reams of allegations of torture, sexual abuse, and cover-ups in our war zones to give the White House a heads-up in case any of made it into the news cycle.
I was so mad that I voted for Kerry out of spite.
 
How I Learned to Start Worrying

I might still have stuck it out as a frustrated liberal Republican, knowing that the wealthy business core of the party still pulled a few strings and people like Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe remained in the Senate -- if only because the idea of voting for Democrats by choice made me feel uncomfortable.  (It would have been so… gauche.)  Then came Hurricane Katrina.  In New Orleans, I learned that it wasn’t just the Bush administration that was flawed but my worldview itself.
 
I had fallen in love with New Orleans during a post-law-school year spent in Louisiana clerking for a federal judge, and the Bush administration’s callous (non-)response to the storm broke my heart.  I wanted to help out, but I didn’t fly helicopters or know how to do anything useful in a disaster, so just I sat glued to the coverage and fumed -- until FEMA asked federal employees to volunteer to help.  I jumped at the chance.
Soon, I was involved with a task force trying to rebuild (and reform) the city’s criminal justice system.  Growing up hating racism, I was appalled but not very surprised to find overt racism and the obvious use of racist code words by officials in the Deep South.
 
Then something tiny happened that pried open my eyes to the less obvious forms of racism and the hurdles the poor face when they try to climb the economic ladder.  It happened on an official visit to a school in a suburb of New Orleans that served kids who had gotten kicked out of every other school around.  I was investigating what types of services were available to the young people who were showing up in juvenile hall and seemed to be headed toward the proverbial life of crime.
 
My tour guide mentioned that parents were required to participate in some school programs.  One of these was a field trip to a sit-down restaurant.
 
This stopped me in my tracks.  I thought: What kind of a lame field trip is that?
It turned out that none of the families had ever been to a sit-down restaurant before.  The teachers had to instruct parents and students alike how to order off a menu, how to calculate the tip.
 
I was stunned.
 
Starting To See

That night, I told my roommates about the crazy thing I had heard that day.  Apparently there were people out there who had never been to something as basic as a real restaurant.  Who knew?

One of my roommates wasn’t surprised.  He worked at a local bank branch that required two forms of ID to open an account.  Lots of people came in who had only one or none at all.
 
I was flooded with questions: There are adults who have no ID?  And no bank accounts?Who are these people?  How do they vote?  How do they live?  Is there an entire off-the-grid alternate universe out there?

From then on, I started to notice a lot more reality. I noticed that the criminal justice system treats minorities differently in subtle as well as not-so-subtle ways, and that many of the people who were getting swept up by the system came from this underclass that I knew so little about.. Lingering for months in lock-up for misdemeanors, getting pressed against the hood and frisked during routine traffic stops, being pulled over in white neighborhoods for ”driving while black:” these are things that never happen to people in my world.
 
Not having experienced it, I had always assumed that government force was only used against guilty people.  (Maybe that’s why we middle-class white people collectively freak out at TSA airport pat-downs.)
 
I dove into the research literature to try to figure out what was going on.  It turned out that everything I was “discovering” had been hiding in plain sight and had been named: aversive racism, institutional racism, disparate impact and disparate treatment, structural poverty, neighborhood redlining, the “trial tax,” the “poverty tax,” and on and on.  Having grown up obsessed with race (welfare and affirmative action were our bêtes noirs), I wondered why I had never heard of any of these concepts.
 
Was it to protect our Republican version of “individual responsibility”?  That notion is fundamental to the liberal Republican worldview. “Bootstrapping” and “equality of opportunity, not outcomes” make perfect sense if you assume, as I did, that people who hadn’t risen into my world simply hadn’t worked hard enough, or wanted it badly enough, or had simply failed.  But I had assumed that bootstrapping required about as much as it took to get yourself promoted from junior varsity to varsity.  It turns out that it’s more like pulling yourself up from tee-ball to the World Series.  Sure, some people do it, but they’re the exceptions, the outliers, the Olympians.

The enormity of the advantages I had always enjoyed started to truly sink in.  Everyone begins life thinking that his or her normal is the normal.  For the first time, I found myself paying attention to broken eggs rather than making omelets.  Up until then, I hadn’t really seen most Americans as living, breathing, thinking, feeling, hoping, loving, dreaming, hurting people.  My values shifted -- from an individualistic celebration of success (that involved dividing the world into the morally deserving and the undeserving) to an interest in people as people.
 
How I Learned to Stop Loving the Bombs

In order to learn more -- and to secure my membership in what Karl Rove sneeringly called the reality-based community” -- I joined a social science research institute.  There I was slowly disabused of layer after layer of myth and received wisdom, and it hurt.  Perhaps nothing hurt more than to see just how far my patriotic, Republican conception of U.S. martial power -- what it’s for, how it’s used -- diverged from the reality of our wars.
 
Lots of Republicans grow up hawks.  I certainly did.  My sense of what it meant to be an American was linked to my belief that from 1776 to WWII, and even from the 1991 Gulf War to Kosovo and Afghanistan, the American military had been dedicated to birthing freedom and democracy in the world, while dispensing a tough and precise global justice.
 
To me, military service represented the perfect combination of public service, honor, heroism, glory, promotion, meaning, and coolness.  As a child, I couldn’t get enough of the military: toys and models, movies and cartoons, fat books with technical pictures of manly fighter planes and ships and submarines.  We went to air shows whenever we could, and with the advent of cable, I begged my parents to sign up so that the Discovery Channel could bring those shows right into our den.  Just after we got it, the first Gulf War kicked off, and CNN provided my afterschool entertainment for weeks.
 
As I got older, I studied Civil War military history and memory.  (I would eventually edit a book of letters by Union Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.)  I thought I knew a lot about war; even if Sherman was right that “war is hell,” it was frequently necessary, we did it well, and -- whatever those misinformed peaceniks said -- we made the world a better place.
 
But then I went to a war zone.
 
I was deployed to Baghdad as part of a team of RAND Corporation researchers to help the detainee operations command figure out several thorny policy issues.  My task was to figure out why we were sort-of-protecting and sort-of-detaining an Iranian dissident group on Washington’s terrorist list.
 
It got ugly fast.  Just after my first meal on base, there was a rumble of explosions, and an alarm started screaming INCOMING! INCOMING! INCOMING!  Two people were killed and dozens injured, right outside the chow hall where I had been standing minutes earlier.
 
This was the “surge” period in 2007 when, I was told, insurgent attacks came less frequently than before, but the sounds of war seemed constant to me.  The rat-tat-tat of small arms fire just across the “wire.”  Controlled detonations of insurgent duds.  Dual patrolling Blackhawks overhead. And every few mornings, a fresh rain of insurgent rockets and mortars.
 
Always alert, always nervous, I was only in Iraq for three and a half weeks, and never close to actual combat; and yet the experience gave me many of the symptoms of PTSD.  It turns out that it doesn’t take much.
 
That made me wonder how the Iraqis took it.  From overhead I saw that the once teeming city of Baghdad was now a desert of desolate neighborhoods and empty shopping streets, bomb craters in the middle of soccer fields and in the roofs of schools. Millions displaced.
 
Our nation-building efforts reeked of post-Katrina organizational incompetence.  People were assigned the wrong roles -- “Why am I building a radio station?  This isn’t what I do.  I blow things up…” -- and given no advance training or guidance.  Outgoing leaders didn’t overlap with their successors, so what they had learned would be lost, leaving each wheel to be partially reinvented again.  Precious few contracts went to Iraqis.  It was driving people out of our military.
 
This incompetence had profound human costs.  Of the 26,000 people we were detaining in Iraq, as many as two-thirds were innocent -- wrong place, wrong time -- or, poor and desperate, had worked with insurgent groups for cash, not out of an ideological commitment.  Aware of this, the military wanted to release thousands of them, but they didn't know who was who; they only knew that being detained and interrogated made even the innocents dangerously angry.  That anger trickled down to family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances.  It was about as good an in-kind donation as the U.S. could have made to insurgent recruitment -- aside from invading in the first place.
 
So much for surgical precision and winning hearts and minds.  I had grown up believing that we were more careful in our use of force, that we only punished those who deserved punishment.  But in just a few weeks in Iraq, it became apparent that what we were doing to the Iraqis, as well as to our own people, was inexcusable.
 
Today, I wonder if Mitt Romney drones on about not apologizing for America because he, like the former version of me, simply isn’t aware of the U.S. ever doing anything that might demand an apology.  Then again, no one wants to feel like a bad person, and there's no need to apologize if you are oblivious to the harms done in your name -- calling the occasional ones you notice collateral damage (“stuff happens”) -- or if you believe that American force is always applied righteously in a world that is justly divided into winners and losers.
 
A Painful Transition
 
An old saw has it that no one profits from talking about politics or religion.  I think I finally understand what it means.  We see different realities, different worlds.  If you and I take in different slices of reality, chances are that we aren’t talking about the same things.  I think this explains much of modern American political dialogue.
 
My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality.  To preserve that worldview, I had to believe that people had morally earned their “just” desserts, and I had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to point out that the world didn’t actually work that way.  I think this shows why Republicans put so much effort into “creat[ing] our own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts, scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it).  It explains why study after study shows that avid consumers of Republican-oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.
 
Waking up to a fuller spectrum of reality has proved long and painful.  I had to question all my assumptions, unlearn so much of what I had learned.  I came to understand why we Republicans thought people on the Left always seemed to be screeching angrily (because we refused to open our eyes to the damage we caused or blamed the victims) and why they never seemed to have any solutions to offer (because those weren’t mentioned in the media we read or watched).
 
My transition has significantly strained my relationships with family, friends, and former colleagues.  It is deeply upsetting to walk on thin ice where there used to be solid, common ground.  I wish they, too, would come to see a fuller spectrum of reality, but I know from experience how hard that can be when your worldview won’t let you.
 
No one wants to feel like a dupe.  It is embarrassing to come out in public and admit that I was so miseducated when so much reality is out there in plain sight in neighborhoods I avoided, in journals I hadn’t heard of, in books by authors I had refused to read.  (So I take courage from the people who have done so before me like Andrew Bacevich.)
 
Many people see the wider spectrum of reality because they grew up on the receiving end. As a retired African-American general in the Marine Corps said to me after I told him my story, “No one has to explain institutional racism to a black man.”

Others do because they grew up in families that simply got it.  I married a woman who grew up in such a family, for whom all of my hard-earned, painful “discoveries” are old news.  Each time I pull another layer of wool off my eyes and feel another surge of anger, she gives me a predictable series of looks.  The first one more or less says, “Duh, obviously.”  The second is sympathetic, a recognition of the pain that comes with dismantling my flawed worldview.  The third is concerned: “Do people actually think that?”
 
Yes, they do.

 
http://www.thenation.com/article/169833/confessions-former-republican?rel=emailNation%22 (http://www.thenation.com/article/169833/confessions-former-republican?rel=emailNation%22)

 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 12, 2012, 08:42:34 AM
Muzh

No doubt that is your former Republican's (and yours) "reality". It's not mine. I didn't grow up in a rich white suburban neighborhood. I didn't get educated in a prestigious university. I don't doubt his reality at all (or yours FTM), it just isn't mine. For the last almost 8 years, I also no longer claim the republican party. George Bush convinced me I wasn't a republican after my transformation from a liberal democrat some 25 years earlier.

I know racism and I know you don't have to be only black to experience it. There are a number of flaws in this guys testimony but, it is his view and "his" reality. It's not mine. I agree and disagree with different aspects of it. I have some life experiences of my own and one of the biggest is, I earned every thing I have ever gotten.

His experiences shaped his reality and my experiences shaped mine. It doesn't make either of us wrong, does it?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 12, 2012, 08:45:03 AM
I read it just fine BC, and I still maintain the position maybe you ought to explain exactly where and how YOU got your number of 111 billion.
GQ,

Indeed... the study mentioned 11.1 and not 112 billion.  I'll hav to put on my glasses.....  I stand corrected. Thanks.. guess I was tending towards optimistic.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 12, 2012, 08:57:55 AM
GQ,

Indeed... the study mentioned 11.1 and not 112 billion.  I'll hav to put on my glasses.....  I stand corrected. Thanks.. guess I was tending towards optimistic.

That said GQ, how do you come up with 113 Billion?

http://personalliberty.com/2009/02/11/how-much-do-illegal-immigrants-really-cost-the-united-states/

I'm seeing much lower figures than the video you posted that did not mention sources or studies.

I even looked at your original link and could not find sources for the figures they came up with.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/

I agree it's going to be hard to drill down the numbers to come close, but the variation seems to be quite wide enough so that nobody really knows..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on September 12, 2012, 10:15:57 AM
The correct story.

Guys and gals, there is a lot of flawed thinking in this thread, and somebody has to inject some logical thinking.  Why not me??   8)

First, let me say that several people here have a much more thorough grasp of the details of individual programs and persons than I do.  But these details are almost irrelevant when it comes to deciding which person or party you are going to vote for.  It is the big picture that is relevant.

And the big picture is that one party is to the left and one party is to the right.  It doesn’t matter if we label this right vs left, conservative vs liberal, etc.  The fact is that there are substantial differences in the way politicians in those parties view the big picture and the way that persons who vote for those parties view the big picture.

The simplest issue to dispense with first is with representatives and senators.  Those who ‘vote for the person’ are the most irrational.  The vast majority of the time, the representatives and senators vote the party line.  So it doesn’t matter how much of a ‘good person with good values’ the candidate is in your view; when you vote for him/her you are really just voting for the party.  Accept this and stop the foolishness of trying to vet the candidates in your mind.

Next, the same principle applies to the presidential candidates to almost the same degree.  Yes, there have been notable times in which a president’s party controls both houses, and yet he cannot get his preferred legislation through congress.  But again, the vast majority of the time, the president and his party in congress are in agreement as to what direction they are trying to head.  So again, to take great pains to try to determine which candidate is ‘best fit’ to be president is a waste of time.  You had better be voting for the president who is of the party that you are in tune with.

Thus, all this detailed analysis we see here about what an individual politician did or did not do or said or did not say, and how this is influencing your decision as to how to vote is silliness at best.  By and large they are going to promote and vote the party line, so best you decide which party best represents your views and vote accordingly.

Then we get to the idea we hear once in a while that: The X party today is not the same party that I used to vote for, so I have switched.  Total nonsense.  There is a ‘to the left position’ and there is a ‘to the right position.’  Yes, on a particular issue, one or both parties may have moved somewhat . . . BUT ONE PARTY IS STILL TO THE LEFT AND ONE TO THE RIGHT.

So it is not the party that has changed its position . . . it is only you who have changed your position.

Is it possible that the party on the left (right) has actually changed so much that is it now to the right (left)?  In the big picture . . . NO.  For an individual issue is it possible . . . Yes, but not likely.

One example we often hear is that the republicans, the party of Lincoln, set the blacks free, but now it is the democrats who do the most for the blacks.  But was it really the republicans, or just Lincoln himself?  And this is not even considering which party can truly do the most for blacks.  Are they better served by a party who ignores their plight as individuals, has a goal of growth in the economy where everyone has a chance to grow with it; or are they better served by a party who tries to give them preferred status and actually keeps them in economic bondage?

So why all this nitpicking about which individual politician did what or said what?  Do you have some convictions about whether the party to the left or the party to the right has the views the big picture in the same way you do?  Then there is your vote.

Unfortunately, some of our friends across the pond have a much more difficult time with their dozens of parties that perhaps does not provide such a clear picture as to which party stands where in the left - right spectrum regarding the big picture.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 12, 2012, 12:03:52 PM
Muzh

No doubt that is your former Republican's (and yours) "reality". It's not mine. I didn't grow up in a rich white suburban neighborhood. I didn't get educated in a prestigious university. I don't doubt his reality at all (or yours FTM), it just isn't mine. For the last almost 8 years, I also no longer claim the republican party. George Bush convinced me I wasn't a republican after my transformation from a liberal democrat some 25 years earlier.

I know racism and I know you don't have to be only black to experience it. There are a number of flaws in this guys testimony but, it is his view and "his" reality. It's not mine. I agree and disagree with different aspects of it. I have some life experiences of my own and one of the biggest is, I earned every thing I have ever gotten.

His experiences shaped his reality and my experiences shaped mine. It doesn't make either of us wrong, does it?

Absolutely.
 
My intent was to show that there are more than one truth.
 
FP, if only it would be this easy to agree to disagree there would not be such animosity during these elections.
 
I'll definitely look you up next time I'm in FLA and have a beer.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 12, 2012, 01:04:02 PM

Absolutely.
 
My intent was to show that there are more than one truth.
 
FP, if only it would be this easy to agree to disagree there would not be such animosity during these elections.
 
I'll definitely look you up next time I'm in FLA and have a beer.

Well at present it's Oklahoma but the way things are going you never know. By then I'm likely to be in FL but I look forward to a beer with you at some point.  ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 12, 2012, 01:07:30 PM
The correct story.

Guys and gals, there is a lot of flawed thinking in this thread, and somebody has to inject some logical thinking.  Why not me??   8)

First, let me say that several people here have a much more thorough grasp of the details of individual programs and persons than I do.  But these details are almost irrelevant when it comes to deciding which person or party you are going to vote for.  It is the big picture that is relevant.

And the big picture is that one party is to the left and one party is to the right.  It doesn’t matter if we label this right vs left, conservative vs liberal, etc.  The fact is that there are substantial differences in the way politicians in those parties view the big picture and the way that persons who vote for those parties view the big picture.

The simplest issue to dispense with first is with representatives and senators.  Those who ‘vote for the person’ are the most irrational.  The vast majority of the time, the representatives and senators vote the party line.  So it doesn’t matter how much of a ‘good person with good values’ the candidate is in your view; when you vote for him/her you are really just voting for the party.  Accept this and stop the foolishness of trying to vet the candidates in your mind.

Next, the same principle applies to the presidential candidates to almost the same degree.  Yes, there have been notable times in which a president’s party controls both houses, and yet he cannot get his preferred legislation through congress.  But again, the vast majority of the time, the president and his party in congress are in agreement as to what direction they are trying to head.  So again, to take great pains to try to determine which candidate is ‘best fit’ to be president is a waste of time.  You had better be voting for the president who is of the party that you are in tune with.

Thus, all this detailed analysis we see here about what an individual politician did or did not do or said or did not say, and how this is influencing your decision as to how to vote is silliness at best.  By and large they are going to promote and vote the party line, so best you decide which party best represents your views and vote accordingly.

Then we get to the idea we hear once in a while that: The X party today is not the same party that I used to vote for, so I have switched.  Total nonsense.  There is a ‘to the left position’ and there is a ‘to the right position.’  Yes, on a particular issue, one or both parties may have moved somewhat . . . BUT ONE PARTY IS STILL TO THE LEFT AND ONE TO THE RIGHT.

So it is not the party that has changed its position . . . it is only you who have changed your position.

Is it possible that the party on the left (right) has actually changed so much that is it now to the right (left)?  In the big picture . . . NO.  For an individual issue is it possible . . . Yes, but not likely.

One example we often hear is that the republicans, the party of Lincoln, set the blacks free, but now it is the democrats who do the most for the blacks.  But was it really the republicans, or just Lincoln himself?  And this is not even considering which party can truly do the most for blacks.  Are they better served by a party who ignores their plight as individuals, has a goal of growth in the economy where everyone has a chance to grow with it; or are they better served by a party who tries to give them preferred status and actually keeps them in economic bondage?

So why all this nitpicking about which individual politician did what or said what?  Do you have some convictions about whether the party to the left or the party to the right has the views the big picture in the same way you do?  Then there is your vote.

Unfortunately, some of our friends across the pond have a much more difficult time with their dozens of parties that perhaps does not provide such a clear picture as to which party stands where in the left - right spectrum regarding the big picture.

I realize this was probably well intentioned ML but, I'm going to call bullshit on this. IMHO, without a doubt one long piece intellectually lazy tripe. Why think at all? Why not just believe everything everyone tells you? Just sign me up for whatever party and vote my proxy. Why even go to the polls?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 12, 2012, 01:47:52 PM
Muzh

No doubt that is your former Republican's (and yours) "reality". It's not mine. I didn't grow up in a rich white suburban neighborhood. I didn't get educated in a prestigious university. I don't doubt his reality at all (or yours FTM), it just isn't mine. For the last almost 8 years, I also no longer claim the republican party. George Bush convinced me I wasn't a republican after my transformation from a liberal democrat some 25 years earlier.

I know racism and I know you don't have to be only black to experience it. There are a number of flaws in this guys testimony but, it is his view and "his" reality. It's not mine. I agree and disagree with different aspects of it. I have some life experiences of my own and one of the biggest is, I earned every thing I have ever gotten.

His experiences shaped his reality and my experiences shaped mine. It doesn't make either of us wrong, does it?
I have to agree with FP since much of his experience resembles mine as well. When I was young I too was a Democrat and very liberal. I know and have experienced racism, prejudice and discrimination. To say that in this day and age your race would prevent you from achieving success in this country is none sense in my opinion.
The liberal welfare policies that were implemented more than 30 years ago destroyed the fabric of a society -  family, especially in the Afro-American community. The attitude of entitlement became normal and common place. Work ethic and the "I can" attitude became a thing of the passed for too many.
I don't believe that it's a "black thing". Look at Haitian immigrants in the US for instance! You don't see many of them on government assistance, they usually have their families intact, they work and they start businesses and succeed. Their skin color is just as dark as American blacks. The only difference is their attitude toward work and family.  IMO the Left liberal policies are destroying this country on every level. I am a Republican not because I embrace all Republican ideas but simply because I have to choose the lesser evil in order to vote and their philosophy is closer to my belief system. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 12, 2012, 03:43:32 PM

 
And Gator, yes, you are barking off the wrong tree.

 

Interesting twist of the common metaphor.  I did not know I was up a tree.    :)
 

Quote

Just for you check the the highlighted sections.

Thanks for helping us slow reading seniors with bad eyesight.    Even though the article was from The Nation, the "flagship for the left," I read every word.   Muzh, this article is not intellectual and certainly not breezy wit.  If I were you, I would worry about my mind becoming stale if I continue to read opinions of bland and sheltered people.
 
I assert Jeremiah was never a conservative.  He feels changed when observing war, becoming appalled upon discovering  American military's  inefficiencies, imprecision and brutality, yet ignoring his own quote by Sherman, "War is hell."   Then Jeremiah feels further changed when observing in New Orleans the existence of institutional racism as if that was something new.  Any white person with a heart who has lived and worked with blacks knows it exists.   
 
Jeremiah simply has led a sheltered life.  Here is news for Jeremiah (and perhaps you too Muzh) - life is not fair.
 
Civil rights has been at or near the forefront of the Federal government for 50 years, yet the problem festers.  This proves that government programs do not work very well other than to remove some blatant discriminatory barriers . 
Jeremiah finds fault yet offers no alternatives.  What can you do for  kids "...who had gotten kicked out of every other school around?"  That started a long time ago when their own family and community failed them. 
 
Muzh, what is your alternative solution?   Here is an alternative - get a job.  Can't find a job because the economy is bad?  Then vote for  political representatives who will facilitate economic improvement.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on September 12, 2012, 07:10:31 PM
When I was young I too was a Democrat and very liberal.

Winston Churchill said  (Note: some question  if it were him who actually said this), "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on September 12, 2012, 07:15:00 PM
I realize this was probably well intentioned ML but, I'm going to call bullshit on this. IMHO, without a doubt one long piece intellectually lazy tripe. Why think at all? Why not just believe everything everyone tells you? Just sign me up for whatever party and vote my proxy. Why even go to the polls?

Why don't you address the points rather than using profanity to label a viewpoint?

For instance, use your logic to refute this first part:

The simplest issue to dispense with first is with representatives and senators.  Those who ‘vote for the person’ are the most irrational.  The vast majority of the time, the representatives and senators vote the party line.  So it doesn’t matter how much of a ‘good person with good values’ the candidate is in your view; when you vote for him/her you are really just voting for the party.  Accept this and stop the foolishness of trying to vet the candidates in your mind.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 12, 2012, 07:24:55 PM
That said GQ, how do you come up with 113 Billion?

http://personalliberty.com/2009/02/11/how-much-do-illegal-immigrants-really-cost-the-united-states/ (http://personalliberty.com/2009/02/11/how-much-do-illegal-immigrants-really-cost-the-united-states/)

I'm seeing much lower figures than the video you posted that did not mention sources or studies.

I even looked at your original link and could not find sources for the figures they came up with.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/ (http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/)

I agree it's going to be hard to drill down the numbers to come close, but the variation seems to be quite wide enough so that nobody really knows..

Well of course no one knows the actual number. I'd wager the 113 billion isn't that farfetched however. The revised estimate of illegal immigrant (*undocumented aliens* - seriously, Sotomayor? They ignored and broke the law of the Constitution you are sworn to uphold Senora) was between 11-20 million. Even at 20 M, I think the actual number is higher.

But even if we consider using the lowest available number, 11 million, putting that in perspective, that's almost equivalent to the entire population of Moscow or Los Angeles. Heck, that's a small country whose fiscal budget expenditure didn't allowed for and its infrastructure planning commission didn't planned for.

So, you'd like a number bigger than a bread box but smaller than a fridge?

For argument's sake, let's say 1/4 of that 11 M are women. Let's assume 1/4 of that 1/4 are pregnant women (trust me on this, anchor babies are first and foremost on these people's to-do-list once they reach the land of bilk the bunny) their first year of arrival. The cost of birth is at an average of $15,000.00 ( doesn't include complications, multi-day stay, etc...) - that alone cost almost 11 billion annually. <700,000 births isn't inconceivable considering the average annual birth count in the US is 4 million.

Then if that isn't enough, baby Jose is now Jose Doe and is entitled for baby care voucher, food voucher, etc...cost for follow-up check-ups, etc...then you get to repeat the process (expense) the next year, and the next year, etc...because these folks' gestate like rabbits, man. Especially during times of good living and lack of a natural predator e.g. Republicans in office.

10-15 little Joses and Carlotas running around in one household - all in 2 years!!! (jk - sure seems like it though). That's 10-15 food vouchers...multiplied by 'a whole bunch of rabbits'. Did you know these folks may actually get tax refunds (per baby credit) by virtue of the earned income credit in our silly tax system. Not sure how that works though.

Then of course it also impacts our school systems, general social administration, yada, yada, yada....anyway, no need to beat a dead horse. Our illegal immigration can't be called a 'problem' if it isn't one. It is fast-eroding the very fiber of our social landscape - the proper education of our young.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 12, 2012, 07:32:03 PM
Confesions of a Former Republican

Muzh, man...are you serious with this silliness?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 12, 2012, 08:26:09 PM
Why don't you address the points rather than using profanity to label a viewpoint?

For instance, use your logic to refute this first part:

The simplest issue to dispense with first is with representatives and senators.  Those who ‘vote for the person’ are the most irrational.  The vast majority of the time, the representatives and senators vote the party line.  So it doesn’t matter how much of a ‘good person with good values’ the candidate is in your view; when you vote for him/her you are really just voting for the party.  Accept this and stop the foolishness of trying to vet the candidates in your mind.

Wow, I wasn't aware that the term bullshit was so offensive to the guy that passes out dildos to his dates. It's a little late in your life for a civics class ML. I will assume you are familiar with the three branches of government? Your representatives and senators are your first line of representation in the federal government. You should vote for them very carefully based on the direction you wish to see the federal government move rather than just accepting "I will vote for my party and hope they do the right thing".

That's bullshit. You hold them accountable. You voice your opinion to them on their vote on the bills that interest or affect you. Do you know who your Congressmen and Senators are? Have you got their phone numbers or ever even spoke to them? Whether you voted for them or not, whether they represent your party or not, they are still your representation and it is your civic duty to hold them accountable rather than just sit back and let things happen around you. Next?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 12, 2012, 08:27:24 PM
Muzh, man...are you serious with this silliness?
Sadly, I think he is...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 12, 2012, 11:02:06 PM
Well of course no one knows the actual number. I'd wager the 113 billion isn't that farfetched however. The revised estimate of illegal immigrant (*undocumented aliens* - seriously, Sotomayor? They ignored and broke the law of the Constitution you are sworn to uphold Senora) was between 11-20 million. Even at 20 M, I think the actual number is higher.

But even if we consider using the lowest available number, 11 million, putting that in perspective, that's almost equivalent to the entire population of Moscow or Los Angeles. Heck, that's a small country whose fiscal budget expenditure didn't allowed for and its infrastructure planning commission didn't planned for.

So, you'd like a number bigger than a bread box but smaller than a fridge?

For argument's sake, let's say 1/4 of that 11 M are women. Let's assume 1/4 of that 1/4 are pregnant women (trust me on this, anchor babies are first and foremost on these people's to-do-list once they reach the land of bilk the bunny) their first year of arrival. The cost of birth is at an average of $15,000.00 ( doesn't include complications, multi-day stay, etc...) - that alone cost almost 11 billion annually. <700,000 births isn't inconceivable considering the average annual birth count in the US is 4 million.

Then if that isn't enough, baby Jose is now Jose Doe and is entitled for baby care voucher, food voucher, etc...cost for follow-up check-ups, etc...then you get to repeat the process (expense) the next year, and the next year, etc...because these folks' gestate like rabbits, man. Especially during times of good living and lack of a natural predator e.g. Republicans in office.

10-15 little Joses and Carlotas running around in one household - all in 2 years!!! (jk - sure seems like it though). That's 10-15 food vouchers...multiplied by 'a whole bunch of rabbits'. Did you know these folks may actually get tax refunds (per baby credit) by virtue of the earned income credit in our silly tax system. Not sure how that works though.

Then of course it also impacts our school systems, general social administration, yada, yada, yada....anyway, no need to beat a dead horse. Our illegal immigration can't be called a 'problem' if it isn't one. It is fast-eroding the very fiber of our social landscape - the proper education of our young.

GQ,

I certainly can agree that illegal aliens are a burden on the rest of society.  How much of one, who knows.

It seems many of the bad apples are being deported, but that true effort to find and deport all may be more complicated and expensive than the 'burden'. 

Consider your thoughts about children born in the US.  I assume the 'rules' have not changed and that such children are US Citizens.  Until that rule changes there is very little need to view such in a negative light.  Now consider both the human and economic impact of deporting parents of USC's....  How much does would it cost the State to raise this child? vs allowing the parents to stay and support him/her?

Maybe it's a 'lesser of two evils' discussion?

Until the 14th Amendment is changed it's just a part of the game, same as US companies 'gaming' the tax system to lessen their US tax burden by stretching the rules and ignoring intent of US tax laws by working around them.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/272876/pinoyabroad/news/us-born-kids-of-illegal-immigrants-have-right-to-tuition-in-florida-judge-rules

I guess what I am trying to say is that a good part of the illegal immigrant problem is a part of the 'freedoms' guaranteed by the Constitution and will just have to be tolerated until the rules are changed.  No modern President or Congress, regardless of political orientation has been successful at taking away rights guaranteed by the Constitution and amendments thereof. 

Nothing is going to change that anytime soon.

Might as well work on making them productive citizens.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 13, 2012, 08:31:58 AM
Romney stubbed his toe somewhat with comments about the first statement issued from the Egyptian embassy being demonstrated against.   Timing was Romney's problem as Obama does have a history of appeasing Muslims.    The embassy withdrew the statement when a subsequent attack in Libya killed the ambassador.
 
I imagine that Obama and Romney are together on most aspects of this event, yet partisan politics during a campaign raised some questions.
 
Romney's foreign policy experience is limited.  By comparison, it makes Obama look better than he actually is.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 13, 2012, 09:04:42 AM
Romney stubbed his toe somewhat with comments about the first statement issued from the Egyptian embassy being demonstrated against.   Timing was Romney's problem as Obama does have a history of appeasing Muslims.    The embassy withdrew the statement when a subsequent attack in Libya killed the ambassador.
 
I imagine that Obama and Romney are together on most aspects of this event, yet partisan politics during a campaign raised some questions.
 
Romney's foreign policy experience is limited.  By comparison, it makes Obama look better than he actually is.
What was Obama's foreign policy experience when he took office?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 13, 2012, 09:10:13 AM
What was Obama's foreign policy experience when he took office?

None in policy, but his foreign experience was broad:  father and stepfather from foreign countries, living in Indonesia, visiting Pakistan, Africa, etc,, educated in America as a foreign student  ;D .... Not bad for a kid born in a hut in East Africa (just kidding).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 13, 2012, 09:24:03 AM

None in policy, but his foreign experience was broad:  father and stepfather from foreign countries, living in Indonesia, visiting Pakistan, Africa, etc,, educated in America as a foreign student  ;D .... Not bad for a kid born in a hut in East Africa (just kidding).
according to this logic I should be the next president!  8)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 13, 2012, 10:22:36 AM
Sadly, I think he is...

This just goes to prove that the previous article I posted was right on the money.
 
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=14359.msg310463#msg310463 (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=14359.msg310463#msg310463)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 13, 2012, 10:47:56 AM
I do my best to stay out of these American political threads, but as an outsider looking in, I have to wonder whether Romney is trying to win. Latest fiasco: he finishes his press conference after the tragic Libyan events with a self-satisfied smirk that is reminiscent of the Cheshire cat  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 13, 2012, 10:56:36 AM
I do my best to stay out of these American political threads, but as an outsider looking in, I have to wonder whether Romney is trying to win. Latest fiasco: he finishes his press conference after the tragic Libyan events with a self-satisfied smirk that is reminiscent of the Cheshire cat  :rolleyes:

Maybe that is what you wanted to see?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 13, 2012, 11:02:03 AM
Maybe that is what you wanted to see?


Well, it is clearly what many people saw. But, feel free to judge for yourself: [size=78%]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVx23KPEk58 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVx23KPEk58)[/size]


Google Romney's smirk and you get close to half-a-million hits  :-X [size=78%] [/size]



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 13, 2012, 11:27:10 AM

Well, it is clearly what many people saw. But, feel free to judge for yourself:


Google Romney's smirk and you get close to half-a-million hits  :-X
all I see is a polite smile accompanying his "Thank you". I see nothing inappropriate.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 13, 2012, 11:39:54 AM
I do my best to stay out of these American political threads, but as an outsider looking in, I have to wonder whether Romney is trying to win. Latest fiasco: he finishes his press conference after the tragic Libyan events with a self-satisfied smirk that is reminiscent of the Cheshire cat  :rolleyes:


Better than the pretentious solemn, sad, demeanor leaders feign during these times when I doubt they really give a darn about anyone who died or even that they died, unless of course those deaths carry a negative impact to their careers.  It takes a special breed of feces to be a politician regardless of party.


Of course, I can't prove that they don't care... but the latter point is rather self evident!  8)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 13, 2012, 02:10:51 PM
...Nothing is going to change that anytime soon.

Might as well work on making them productive citizens.

 …and the politicians better figure this out sooner than later although I seriously doubt anyone can afford to lose votes. I have an idea how to work this…but my time is precious  8)

The irony in this situation is, especially the progressive party since they’re the one who seem to rally behind these issues in our society today, cheap labor borne by the ‘illegal’ hiring of illegal immigrants take away from our labor in the same manner outsourcing does. This is what confuses me about the Democrats (folks - not the stooges in  suits), they rail against conservatives because they blame loss of work for outsourcing companies and corporation, but ‘ignore’ the total impact of illegal immigrants providing ‘cheap labor’ to exploiting employers but shower them with some misguided, silly sensibilities instead. Isn't 'cheap labor' the very impetus of outsourcing our jobs?

Give that some thoughts, BC and tell me how that makes sense…
 
Thought on today’s events:

Bernanke:  Be careful with today’s NYSE. The appearance of the bull is deceiving. The rise is strictly based on negative economics.
Carrying the present interest rates in the credit sector not only hurt ‘real money’ market’ but also dangerously invite another coming of a housing bubble. This is what got us hurt in the first place and I do not understand why Bernanke chose this path. Print money may entice borrowing to build/buy/sell homes, but isn’t that the signature line of the housing bubble?
 
Libya/Egypt (Yemen/Iraq) and the political posturing:

I very strongly disagree with Romney’s antics. An attack against the US is an act of war. You simply do not show anything other than solidarity with your C-I-C during these times. If he has a need to disagree with any of the administration’s action, do so during debate or sometime after this event. I’d fire his campaign manager and convince the Romney's camp to STFU for now.

I won’t be surprise if he shed votes from here on in because of it.

Romney is showing is inexperience in this regard. That’s not leadership quality. He looks like a patronizing buffoon. The more I hear his silliness about this, the more I feel like sitting this election out. Remember Obama’s reaction with the Henry Gates’ affair? 2 Buffoons running for presidency in God's country.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 13, 2012, 03:34:00 PM
Wow, I wasn't aware that the term bullshit was so offensive to the guy that passes out dildos to his dates.


Technically speaking, I think they were G-spot vibrators.. what, exactly, constitutes a dildo? (other than holding political orifice).


Quote


It's a little late in your life for a civics class ML. I will assume you are familiar with the three branches of government? Your representatives and senators are your first line of representation in the federal government. You should vote for them very carefully based on the direction you wish to see the federal government move rather than just accepting "I will vote for my party and hope they do the right thing".

That's bullshit. You hold them accountable. You voice your opinion to them on their vote on the bills that interest or affect you. Do you know who your Congressmen and Senators are? Have you got their phone numbers or ever even spoke to them? Whether you voted for them or not, whether they represent your party or not, they are still your representation and it is your civic duty to hold them accountable rather than just sit back and let things happen around you. Next?


But, how does that change the point ML was attempting to make?  IF they vote along party lines most of the time, why does it matter which party member is elected?  How does voicing one's opinion influence that?  Or holding them accountable?  It seems by virtue of their having been elected that the constituents mostly agree with the party platform in that represented area.


I have three simple rules for voting. 


1) I vote for no one, ever, who mentions "God" in their political platform or who panders to fundamentalist religious idiots (who, if they could get away with it, would behave no better than the 'evil' religious idiots -- all in the name of God.. as usual).


2) I vote for no one, ever, who feels the need to show his family on TV (wow! his dick works!!  Okay, he's qualified..)


3) I vote for no one, ever, who promises to do anything without a clear, well planned and documented strategy to pay for it.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on September 13, 2012, 05:47:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 13, 2012, 06:18:44 PM
some of it is BS though. Like the commentator says that Mitt Romney would let the auto industry die. When in fact Mitt said that he would let it go through bankruptcy, which isn't the same thing. In fact they may still go through  bankruptcy despite billions of taxpayer dollars wasted spent to "save" them.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on September 13, 2012, 06:42:12 PM

I have three simple rules for voting. 

1) I vote for no one, ever, who mentions "God" in their political platform or who panders to fundamentalist religious idiots (who, if they could get away with it, would behave no better than the 'evil' religious idiots -- all in the name of God.. as usual).

2) I vote for no one, ever, who feels the need to show his family on TV (wow! his dick works!!  Okay, he's qualified..)

3) I vote for no one, ever, who promises to do anything without a clear, well planned and documented strategy to pay for it.
And it has been how many decades since you found a candidate you could vote for?   Oh, Nixon was the last. :toocool:
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 13, 2012, 08:23:25 PM

Technically speaking, I think they were G-spot vibrators.. what, exactly, constitutes a dildo? (other than holding political orifice).
da'mater, tomato

Quote
But, how does that change the point ML was attempting to make?  IF they vote along party lines most of the time, why does it matter which party member is elected?  How does voicing one's opinion influence that?  Or holding them accountable?  It seems by virtue of their having been elected that the constituents mostly agree with the party platform in that represented area.

I wasn't trying to change his point. His point is his point. I called it bullshit and lazy and it is.  That is permitting others to do your thinking for you. Voting along party lines in the hope that the elected will march goose step with the party is in essence, bullshit. It is exactly why we find ourselves in the quandary we are in today. That isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they drew up the Constitution nor could it be considered representation IMHO.


Quote
I have three simple rules for voting. 


1) I vote for no one, ever, who mentions "God" in their political platform or who panders to fundamentalist religious idiots (who, if they could get away with it, would behave no better than the 'evil' religious idiots -- all in the name of God.. as usual).


2) I vote for no one, ever, who feels the need to show his family on TV (wow! his dick works!!  Okay, he's qualified..)


3) I vote for no one, ever, who promises to do anything without a clear, well planned and documented strategy to pay for it.

So, you are a Godless heathen who hasn't voted in the last 40 years. There are no metals for that  ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 13, 2012, 10:03:13 PM
40 pages and no mention of women? What's the matter with you guys?
 
The most important thing this election is JOBS! With jobs people have more in their pocket and life is good. Companies create jobs when business is good. From workers and companies, government gets tax money and can do more things with that money... if the economy is good. If people and government don't have money, forget about the other issues. No money to clean the environment, no money for social programs, etc...
 
Some say they are voting for the lesser of two evils. Why vote evil? Neither candidate is evil. They have different ways of doing things and the majority of Americans agree with their means and methods. Are the majority of Americans wrong or evil in their beliefs?
 
If the American economy gets better, so will the rest of the World's. When America sneezes, the World catches a cold and we sneezed.
 
Debt. Used every election to scare people to vote in certain ways. Debt is ugly but I'm not worried about it. America has the most debt but #2 is United Kingdom and guess who they owe the most too? USA. Even China has debt. We owe people and people owe us. America has control over the International monitary fund and World Bank. Why? Because we have the most money! If you ask a country to trade places by accepting our debt and what we own, what do you think they would do?
 
http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html (http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html)
 
Racism. There's worse racism in other countries and I believe most people will vote for the candidate that represent their ideals but there is a small amount of people that will never vote for Obamo or Romney based on the color of their skin. Racists mumber small and the same on both sides and non factor in the election.
 
Economy. Obama didn't get it done. I read an article in the newspaper that said stocks did better when Obama was president compared to Bush. How can this be? Obama said he represents Main Street, not Wall Street.
 
Bush inherited a bad economy from Clinton. Being Presidential and unlike Obama, he never pointed fingers. If the economy was good, Gore would have been president.
 
Not only did Bush inherit a bad economy, shortly after 9/11 happened. After that the housing market crashed and Bush got the blame. Clinton wanted to get poor people into homes. He relaxed the rules to buy homes. Banks didn't want to discriminate and didn't check to see how much money people actually made and if they were actually working. People lied to buy homes or upgrade to better home and extended themselves financially. There's a reason some people are poor. They aren't financially responsible.
 
If Obama had a 9/11 and housing market crash, I don't think the stocks would be where it is today.
 
How can anybody who voted for Obama be satisfied with the results? My dad who never voted for a Republican is voting for Mitt Romney. If a guy doesn't get the job done, fire him and send a message to the rest of the politicians that they better perform.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 13, 2012, 10:18:13 PM
...
1) I vote for no one, ever, who mentions "God" in their political platform or who panders to fundamentalist religious idiots (who, if they could get away with it, would behave no better than the 'evil' religious idiots -- all in the name of God.. as usual).

2) I vote for no one, ever, who feels the need to show his family on TV (wow! his dick works!!  Okay, he's qualified..)

3) I vote for no one, ever, who promises to do anything without a clear, well planned and documented strategy to pay for it.

Agree, and I have just the candidate for you. He's got my vote...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbaeaFCAbU



Sorry Muzh, he's a white dude.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 13, 2012, 10:22:49 PM
Absolute genius!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 14, 2012, 05:57:27 AM

Well, it is clearly what many people saw. But, feel free to judge for yourself: [size=78%]


Google Romney's smirk and you get close to half-a-million hits  :-X [size=78%] [/size]

No, I say again Misha, "that is what you wanted to see". And what you want it to be. You are drinking the kool-aid of sheeple
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 14, 2012, 06:27:58 AM
No, I say again Misha, "that is what you wanted to see". And what you want it to be. You are drinking the kool-aid of sheeple


Well, Faux Pas, it is the American "sheeple" who will vote and IMVHO Romney had better perform very well in the first debate if he wants to turn this around.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 14, 2012, 06:53:35 AM
Word out is that Obama had intelligence that the attack on our embassy in Libya was imminent on 9/11/12, yet nothing was done to secure it and protect the ambassador and the personal. Obama was campaigning for his reelection while our ambassador was sodomised and then killed. Good job Mr. Obama!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 14, 2012, 07:12:12 AM

Well, Faux Pas, it is the American "sheeple" who will vote and IMVHO Romney had better perform very well in the first debate if he wants to turn this around.

You are confused Misha. It is the sheeple who will lap up the disinformation being distributed by the liberal mainstream media and proclaim it as fact. Just such as you did with this "Romney smirk" smear. There is no "smirk" in that clip you presented but, it is obvious you want there to be.

If you don't recognize that the American mainstream media and Hollywood fawning all over Obama at the expense of the truth, you're not looking. It is those sheeple along with the people of the US that will vote in said election.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 14, 2012, 08:12:41 AM

 
Economy. Obama didn't get it done. I read an article in the newspaper that said stocks did better when Obama was president compared to Bush. How can this be? Obama said he represents Main Street, not Wall Street.
 


Muzh raised the same point, and it is true.  Evidently some explanation is needed because Obama had nothing to do with it.  In fact it happened in spite of Obama's programs pullng in the opposite direction.
 
 
The increase in stock value corresponds to monetary easing by the Federal Reserve.  The Fed has a dual mandate, employment and inflation.  For most of its history the Fed has focused on inflation.  However, the continued high unemployment is problematic.   To reduce unemployment the Fed has initiated a series of  programs to accommodate lending, i. e., qualitative easing (QE).
 
The Fed initiated QE1 in November 2008 and it lasted to June 2009.  The economy almost stalled again so the Fed did another phase (QE2) from November 2010 to June 2011.   Again the economy has almost stalled so yesterday the Fed started QE3.  This time the Fed said it would continue indefinitely. :shock:
 
http://www.igindex.co.uk/content/files/qer3_sep11.pdf (http://www.igindex.co.uk/content/files/qer3_sep11.pdf)

 
What happened yesterday upon announcing QE3?  The DJIA (the Dow) jumped over 200 points to a level higher than its peak in 2007 and very near its all time high.
 
   
 
What are the implications?  QE is a surrogate for printing money.  Such is not good as someday we must pay the piper.   Do you recall 1981-82 when the mortgage rate was near 16%!!!!!!  That was the medicine we had to take after a period of inflation during Carter's presidency.  However, the economy is so bad that inflation does not seem like a threat for years to come.   
 
Even with all the economic troubles the European community faces,  in response to QE3 the Euro has continued to advance while the dollar declines.   This illustrates how bad things really are.
 
What to do?  The Fed sets the monetary policy.  Yet without a sound fiscal policy the economic  problems will not be solved.  The Democrats have been in control.   They did not address fiscal policy, and instead worsened it with stimulus programs.   It is time to take our medicine, pay the piper and redirect America.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 14, 2012, 09:06:54 AM
...

I wasn't trying to change his point. His point is his point. I called it bullshit and lazy and it is.  That is permitting others to do your thinking for you. Voting along party lines in the hope that the elected will march goose step with the party is in essence, bullshit. It is exactly why we find ourselves in the quandary we are in today. That isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they drew up the Constitution nor could it be considered representation IMHO.


We are so far off from the vision of the founding fathers that it's ridiculous.  From our Ponzi Scheme Economy, to the raping and murdering of Freedom through executive orders (IMO should be view as an act of treason and treated as such) to the worship of profit at any cost and the ME me ME me ME me ME me society. 


IF they vote along party lines then it makes no difference which party member is elected.  It's more about who looks better on TV...  >:D   SO rather than being bullshit, it's voter downsizing and efficiency at its finest...  ;D


One can make a difference at the local level. The Fed gov't was, by design, almost a non entity at the inception. 


At this point just about the safest course of action would be to make sure to vote opposite party members to anywhere one can.. so neither party has enough power to screw things up further.

Quote
So, you are a Godless heathen who hasn't voted in the last 40 years. There are no metals for that  ;D


I vote religiously (har har) but had to add another rule.. I vote for no one, ever, who is a republican or democrat.   :P [size=78%] [/size]
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 14, 2012, 09:12:36 AM
Agree, and I have just the candidate for you. He's got my vote...



HAH!!  I'll  write him in.... 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 14, 2012, 09:21:59 AM

HAH!!  I'll  write him in....
But he did not  feed the multitude with five loaves of bread and two fish.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 14, 2012, 09:23:23 AM
And it has been how many decades since you found a candidate you could vote for?   Oh, Nixon was the last. :toocool:


LoL.. and I needed my fake ID to vote for Nixon!  Ahhh, a fond memory.. not of Nixon, whose legacy still has not reached the nadir of disaster it one day will, but  rather to the days when the words "made in USA"... ah nevermind...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 14, 2012, 09:28:18 AM
Is anyone feeling deja vu?
 
Carter in 1979, the overthrow of the Shah, and Iran becoming a growing menace.
 
Obama in 2011 allowing the overthrow of Mubarak and Qaddafi. 
 
It is not playing out as fast as it did in Iran, yet there are some parallels.  And I assert the eventual outcome is not clear.
 
BTW Carter also had a bad economy during his tenure.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 14, 2012, 09:31:43 AM

 
Romney  has been a moderate all his life (or otherwise Massachusetts would never have elected him governor).  However, he had to change colors to secure the Republican nomination.   This supports the point ML was making about the party vs, the person.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 14, 2012, 09:36:35 AM

We are so far off from the vision of the founding fathers that it's ridiculous.  From our Ponzi Scheme Economy, to the raping and murdering of Freedom through executive orders (IMO should be view as an act of treason and treated as such) to the worship of profit at any cost and the ME me ME me ME me ME me society. 


IF they vote along party lines then it makes no difference which party member is elected.  It's more about who looks better on TV...  >:D   SO rather than being bullshit, it's voter downsizing and efficiency at its finest...  ;D


One can make a difference at the local level. The Fed gov't was, by design, almost a non entity at the inception. 


At this point just about the safest course of action would be to make sure to vote opposite party members to anywhere one can.. so neither party has enough power to screw things up further.


I vote religiously (har har) but had to add another rule.. I vote for no one, ever, who is a republican or democrat.   :P [size=78%] [/size]

I have voted along party lines when I didn't give a rat's patootie about either candidate. While I was a card carrying Republican I also voted for Democratic candidates. Most generally I will vote for the one that is more in line with my personal political philosophy. Regardless if they have shown their Stepford families on TV  :D

It matters little to me which one wins. I will still follow and watch them closely. I pay attention to Bills introduced and on the floor. I know my Congresspersons and Senators. Most know me. I am quick to contact them for criticism or praise of their performance regardless of their party affiliation. Sometimes they contact me. Quite often they avoid me but, that doesn't slow me down
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 14, 2012, 09:51:21 AM
But he did not  feed the multitude with five loaves of bread and two fish.


Heh... no he did not, but your comment does emphasize a related point -- that Jesus does seem to be the first documented Master of quantitative easing...so when he returns, I'll need to add him to the "Do Not Vote" list..



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on September 14, 2012, 10:18:36 AM

Do you think Romney might be getting a big head?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=WEymNcIHpvc&NR=1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 14, 2012, 10:35:11 AM
Is anyone feeling deja vu?
 
Carter in 1979, the overthrow of the Shah, and Iran becoming a growing menace.
 
Obama in 2011 allowing the overthrow of Mubarak and Qaddafi. 
 
It is not playing out as fast as it did in Iran, yet there are some parallels.  And I assert the eventual outcome is not clear.
 
BTW Carter also had a bad economy during his tenure.

That's more than sheer coincidence. The phrase "those who don't learn from history....".

All this Global Contingency Operation BS is nothing more than trying to brown-nose ourselves behind an arse that we shouldn't be doing in the first place. Carter weakened our global position position in that region and Obama did the exact same thing.

If that isn't enough, the embassy tweet only reinforces the notion we are a country without a leader. When that happens, there's no 'alternative ending' on this re-run. It always ends with brutal take-overs and we're left watching smoke billow out from every fiber of our collective stupidity.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 14, 2012, 11:30:05 AM
That's more than sheer coincidence. The phrase "those who don't learn from history....".

All this Global Contingency Operation BS is nothing more than trying to brown-nose ourselves behind an arse that we shouldn't be doing in the first place. Carter weakened our global position position in that region and Obama did the exact same thing.

If that isn't enough, the embassy tweet only reinforces the notion we are a country without a leader. When that happens, there's no 'alternative ending' on this re-run. It always ends with brutal take-overs and we're left watching smoke billow out from every fiber of our collective stupidity.

+1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on September 14, 2012, 03:26:47 PM
Trying again;


Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the  Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do after November.

...
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as  those who made him their president."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on September 14, 2012, 04:12:15 PM
Thank you, Daveman.

I have no idea why my computer skills suddenly went south when I tried to post that quote.

ABO in 2012.  The repub's could run a cockroach in '12 and he'd still be better than the worm we have in the White House now.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 14, 2012, 04:27:39 PM

Heh... no he did not, but your comment does emphasize a related point -- that Jesus does seem to be the first documented Master of quantitative easing...so when he returns, I'll need to add him to the "Do Not Vote" list..

Fed intervention will bite back.

Problem this time around is that folks are wary of credit and starting to realize the benefits of living within ones means.

God forbid folks should start saving again.. Need low interest and high inflation to combat such thoughts.

Quantitative easing wont work anymore without creating innovation to drive new demand.  Most folks have what they need.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on September 14, 2012, 04:44:29 PM
BC;

Quite right,,, I have some of savings instruments worth $100,000.00 each, and they pay right at $14.00 per month in interest each, hardly worth the time to administer such a worthless return on investment.  I yearn for the days when savings accounts paid 3-4% interest,,, bring on the inflation~!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 14, 2012, 11:17:40 PM

Muzh raised the same point, and it is true.  Evidently some explanation is needed because Obama had nothing to do with it.  In fact it happened in spite of Obama's programs pullng in the opposite direction.
 
 
The increase in stock value corresponds to monetary easing by the Federal Reserve.  The Fed has a dual mandate, employment and inflation.  For most of its history the Fed has focused on inflation.  However, the continued high unemployment is problematic.   To reduce unemployment the Fed has initiated a series of  programs to accommodate lending, i. e., qualitative easing (QE).
 
The Fed initiated QE1 in November 2008 and it lasted to June 2009.  The economy almost stalled again so the Fed did another phase (QE2) from November 2010 to June 2011.   Again the economy has almost stalled so yesterday the Fed started QE3.  This time the Fed said it would continue indefinitely. :shock:
 
http://www.igindex.co.uk/content/files/qer3_sep11.pdf (http://www.igindex.co.uk/content/files/qer3_sep11.pdf)

 
What happened yesterday upon announcing QE3?  The DJIA (the Dow) jumped over 200 points to a level higher than its peak in 2007 and very near its all time high.
 
   
 
What are the implications?  QE is a surrogate for printing money.  Such is not good as someday we must pay the piper.   Do you recall 1981-82 when the mortgage rate was near 16%!!!!!!  That was the medicine we had to take after a period of inflation during Carter's presidency.  However, the economy is so bad that inflation does not seem like a threat for years to come.   
 
Even with all the economic troubles the European community faces,  in response to QE3 the Euro has continued to advance while the dollar declines.   This illustrates how bad things really are.
 
What to do?  The Fed sets the monetary policy.  Yet without a sound fiscal policy the economic  problems will not be solved.  The Democrats have been in control.   They did not address fiscal policy, and instead worsened it with stimulus programs.   It is time to take our medicine, pay the piper and redirect America.


Thank you Gator, I knew you're a smart man. I didn't know they had announced QE3 until I read what you wrote here. So I had a look at Kitco and sure enough, as a result gold is up from 1733 to 1775 and silver is up from 33.00 to 34.71! Then it closed for the week-end. It will be very interesting to see the moves when the markets open next week. Need I say I'm long on gold and silver?  ;)


Sure, printing money is a bad solution but will help Obama in the short run. Don't know what other options USA has in the short run other than stimulus, unless it all comes crashing down. But too bad the funds aren't instead used to create jobs in the real economy for Americans, ditch the idea of globalism, install import tariffs and a tax on every Wall Street transaction. That would be real helpful I think.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 14, 2012, 11:18:51 PM
Word out is that Obama had intelligence that the attack on our embassy in Libya was imminent on 9/11/12, yet nothing was done to secure it and protect the ambassador and the personal. Obama was campaigning for his reelection while our ambassador was sodomised and then killed. Good job Mr. Obama!

Eduard, do you have ANY proof of this?  An autopsy hasn't even been carried out yet (or, at least, no reports have come through since his body was returned to the USA), but all the word from Libya seems to be that the cause of death was most likely smoke inhalation from the fire in the Consulate.
 
The State Department has already said that they did NOT have any forewarning (may of course be untrue), and I know you're anti-Obama, but this is pathetic.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 15, 2012, 12:52:26 AM
Tarpley:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lo-8hBiViQ&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lo-8hBiViQ&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 15, 2012, 06:52:27 AM

Eduard, do you have ANY proof of this?  An autopsy hasn't even been carried out yet (or, at least, no reports have come through since his body was returned to the USA), but all the word from Libya seems to be that the cause of death was most likely smoke inhalation from the fire in the Consulate.
 
The State Department has already said that they did NOT have any forewarning (may of course be untrue), and I know you're anti-Obama, but this is pathetic.
I heard ot on the news, but personally I do not have any proof, I wasn't there
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 15, 2012, 06:55:31 AM
[size=78%] So I had a look at Kitco and sure enough, as a result gold is up from 1733 to 1775 and silver is up from 33.00 to 34.71! Then it closed for the week-end. It will be very [/size]
Soros has been buying gold lately. That alone would raise the price. QE3 will also do that. Some people say that gold is going to hit $2300-$2400 this time
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 15, 2012, 07:53:15 AM
Soros has been buying gold lately. That alone would raise the price. QE3 will also do that. Some people say that gold is going to hit $2300-$2400 this time


I think all of the elite has been stocking up on gold for a long time as they know whats ahead. It's the regular fellow who is totally clueless and unprepared. Some nation states are also stocking up as much as they can. like Russia and China.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 15, 2012, 08:05:39 AM

Eduard, do you have ANY proof of this?  An autopsy hasn't even been carried out yet (or, at least, no reports have come through since his body was returned to the USA), but all the word from Libya seems to be that the cause of death was most likely smoke inhalation from the fire in the Consulate.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/sep/13/kill-every-islamist-and-eat-bacon-their-graves/ (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/sep/13/kill-every-islamist-and-eat-bacon-their-graves/)


Sodomized? He not only was raped and sodomized, they dragged his body down the street. His limo was ambushed coming back to the embassy/consulate. Mainstream media is playing it down because....
 
Quote
...The State Department has already said that they did NOT have any forewarning (may of course be untrue), and I know you're anti-Obama, but this is pathetic.

...Obama was too busy on a Vegas fund-raising when all these started happening. The man had much better things to attend to, like maybe composing his thoughts how to deliver an apology speech for the radicals for their hurt feelings.

IMO, the genesis of these had nothing to do with the silly video, The Innocence of Muslims" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM). Hillary apologized, Obama apologized, the Ambassador's (RIP) office apologized....Obama should schedule another Apology Tour II soon. He can start in Australia considering their citizens/residents are also now attacking protesting at the US embassy. There you can likely witness a different shade of the word definition of 'Ally' unlike what we saw in Libya and Egypt.

"They're not an ally. They're not an enemy." Obama, speaking about Egypt in trying to decsribe what our relationship with them is. For now, we'll just send them 1.3+ billion dollar/yr. Although that's not a big deal. Michelle probably spend that in less than a year romping around shopping with her entourage and kids.

I still don't understand how a moron can be president of the USA.

BTW-

Where's the Foreign Affair expert prince, Joe Biden? Didn't Bozo, the president, chose Biden to be his sidekick because of Biden's alleged expertise in foreign affairs? LOL. The white house circus tent should let him lose right now and let him speak on his own about this global mess, LOL.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 15, 2012, 10:00:01 AM

I think all of the elite has been stocking up on gold for a long time as they know whats ahead. It's the regular fellow who is totally clueless and unprepared. Some nation states are also stocking up as much as they can. like Russia and China.


Not really unprepared. Bullets are cheaper than gold.  When 'what's ahead' unfolds, it will become very interesting as the 'have-nots' begin to waste the 'haves' in vast numbers. 

That's more than sheer coincidence. The phrase "those who don't learn from history....".

... It always ends with brutal take-overs and we're left watching smoke billow out from every fiber of our collective stupidity.


I doubt very seriously people really have a clue what awaits on the horizon.  About the only thing we export now is 'dollars'. That's our business.  Over the past half century the idiots that be took the most technologically advanced, most industrial advanced nation and turned it into a world parasite peddling paper. 


The ironic aspect of this is that most of those who have purchased gold have not taken delivery. They own paper representing gold 'holdings'.  What's that phrase? Oh yeah.. "if you can't hold it, you don't own it"..


When the crap hits the fan, anyone holding paper will at least have something with which to wipe their hind parts as toilet paper will be more expensive than the paper used to purchase it.


They are kicking the can again.  Yep it can work for a while.  How?  It's all about the belief that it will work.


Look, this idiotic world fiat currency system is based on belief. That's it. The dollar is backed by.. belief in the dollar.  How this will pan out is the same as it has always panned out in the 100% failure rate of fiat currencies past.  *Something* will shake this belief.. slowly a trickle of dollar dumping will begin.  The trickle builds as the herd mentality takes over and dollar dumping spreads world wide.  The Dollar Dam bursts.... what happens then?  Hard to predict as the dollar is based on nothing, and uh, how many of the world's currencies are based on the underlying dollar? 


QE may stave it off for a year, maybe a decade, or it could be the very impetus of the mass panic. No one can really predict when the Ponzi scheme will collapse because its outcome is based, positive or negative, on herd psychology.  The only certainty is that it *will* collapse..  at some point. 


It is going to be an interesting century.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 15, 2012, 10:37:53 AM
Sodomized? He not only was raped and sodomized, they dragged his body down the street. His limo was ambushed coming back to the embassy/consulate. Mainstream media is playing it down because....
 
...Obama was too busy on a Vegas fund-raising when all these started happening. The man had much better things to attend to, like maybe composing his thoughts how to deliver an apology speech for the radicals for their hurt feelings.
 Hillary apologized, Obama apologized, the Ambassador's (RIP) office apologized....Obama should schedule another Apology Tour II soon. He can start in Australia considering their citizens/residents are also now attacking protesting at the US embassy. There you can likely witness a different shade of the word definition of 'Ally' unlike what we saw in Libya and Egypt.

"They're not an ally. They're not an enemy." Obama, speaking about Egypt in trying to decsribe what our relationship with them is. For now, we'll just send them 1.3+ billion dollar/yr. Although that's not a big deal. Michelle probably spend that in less than a year romping around shopping with her entourage and kids.

I still don't understand how a moron can be president of the USA.


I find even more insulting is the pure denial coming out of the White House

Quote
CARNEY: We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

4 embassies have been under siege and defaced for close to a week. 4 Americans killed including an ambassador, one embassy fire bombed. The idiots are clinging to the idea that blood thirsty muslim extremist are pissed off over a video. The Middle East is on fire and our hero of a President is in denial favoring to campaign to the next election and snub Netanyahu. Brilliant

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 15, 2012, 12:13:30 PM
BC;

Quite right,,, I have some of savings instruments worth $100,000.00 each, and they pay right at $14.00 per month in interest each, hardly worth the time to administer such a worthless return on investment.  I yearn for the days when savings accounts paid 3-4% interest,,, bring on the inflation~!

jb,

I really think that the US and other 'aging' nations have to come to the realization that the 'baby boom' scenario where a large part of  GDP relies on the consumption of well heeled retirees is out of the question.  That teat has been sucked dry already and more and more will depend on government benefits rather than private funds.

Many forget that the economy is a closed system that is reaching both political and economic equilibrium. The effect of political equilibrium is that only a few percent decide and more are divided than are brought together.  Much the same is happening with the economic situation.  One fact that is quite clear, the markets are not what they were 10 or 20 years ago.  As many can bet against as for progress...  this is indeed the 'root of all evil' that turns Wall Street into nothing more than a huge gambling casino.

The 'booms' AND 'crashes' of the past have been lead with only one instrument.... Credit..   without it we would today be on a more steady and reasonable path rather than depending solely on the exchange of wealth from one entity to another.

I stated long ago that those with great power and wealth are even able to drive the markets into turbulence... that creates conditions for microsecond gains that exceed losses.  I believe that a 4% interest rate on your wealth is quite reasonable over the long term.. but many still profit from your deposits rationalizing that 'free' money, from selling aging debt instruments that the government will gobble up to the tune of 40 Billion a month is worth a few keypunches on their keyboard.  Trickle down simply does not allow enough to trickle down... in any other form other than Credit....

That is the essential problem... the bottom line if you will...  The Fed is allowing others to use your hard earned savings to be thrown away at the mercy of the markets instead of rewarding you for accumulating wealth that will be able to support you in the future.

Demand is down.. and for a good reason.. but no one seems to want to realize why....  When a million in the bank brings only 400 bucks or so something is wrong.... very wrong....

But then again, you could invest a million in some business enterprise.. to sell what? another salad shooter?  Forget it.. those days are over.

When the next iphone influences GDP we're in sad shape... really sad....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 16, 2012, 12:15:49 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/if-the-economy-is-as-bad-as-everyone-says-why-are-stocks-soaring-thank-the-federal-reserve/2012/09/16/3884f804-001c-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_story.html

What it all ads up to is that the next bubble that will burst is the stock market.  Businesses both big and small now have every incentive to build..

It will either happen or it will not.  If not, the wound is still festering despite band-aids and will start to rot.  The first decade of the 21st century was a consumer boom bought with credit.  Easy credit and low interest is again the only hope but folks already have what they need and can afford.  The world will have to adjust to the new environment and no presidential candidate has a silver bullet.  Wall Street success as a measure of economic health has become disjointed with reality.

The decade ahead will be built not on technology which already saturates households but instead on health, education, achieving a state of well being and self-sufficiency not only in terms of energy but basics such as home grown food as well.  I get the feeling folks are tired of banks, stocks, credit and government.  The new status symbol may end up being what is growing in your garden instead of what's parked in your driveway.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on September 16, 2012, 07:36:02 PM
don't bank on education,,, that's in the crapper.

The average entry level college student today is not anywhere near high school level 20 years ago.  We have run down hill since 1990,,, no excuse...

That's a fact.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 16, 2012, 08:03:39 PM
 
I still don't understand how a moron can be president of the USA.



He still has a good chance to be president again. Don't blame Obama, blame the majority of voters if that happens and if the majority of voters are able to vote for guys who can't get the job done, the country will continue to decline.
 
I understand people hate big business, banks, Wall Street, rich people but those guys can create jobs and you have to respect that, to bring them down. I respect a rich guy who creates jobs more than the average guy who works. A rich guy can do much more for the economy and people's families than the average Joe. Many people think the cure to the economy is voting in a president who will lift up average Joe and bring down the guys who give them jobs. Doesn't work that way. France's new president is taxing the rich at 75%. Guys like Louis Vuitton is moving out of country. People of France may love their president for doing that but he is effectively moving money and jobs out of the country.
 
I don't think the economy is going to get better soon. I work in construction and one way to tell if construction is going to get busy is if the architects get busy and they aren't busy. Half the city's inspectors lost their jobs because there's not much to inspect anymore. Not much of Obama's stimulus money went to contruction projects but it did go to green projects and businesses that failed because people don't want to buy those products. Lot's of wind energy got funding but in the state of Washington the government is paying farmers to shut down their windmills because they don't need the electricity all the time and no place to store the excess.
 
At this time 4 years ago I remember on the forum the majority of talk pertaining to politics was how bad the economy was under Bush and to vote Obama. Obama promised hope and change. People did get to hope but nothing changed. He had less wars to deal with, no 9/11 to deal with, and no housing market crash to deal with yet he can't get the job done. Can someone remind me why he won the Nobel Peace Prize right after he was elected with nothing accomplished?
 
don't bank on education,,, that's in the crapper.

The average entry level college student today is not anywhere near high school level 20 years ago.  We have run down hill since 1990,,, no excuse...

That's a fact.


America still has the best colleges in the world. Don't need everyone in the country to be geniuses to make the country a success. Just need the right people in the right places. Some people are good at making big decisions for the economy, others are good at making 99 cent hamburgers at McDonalds.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 16, 2012, 09:04:37 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I don't miss him, yet he was so much better than Obama. 
 
 
 
 
 :ROFL:
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 16, 2012, 11:55:18 PM
 
I understand people hate big business, banks, Wall Street, rich people but those guys can create jobs and you have to respect that, to bring them down. I respect a rich guy who creates jobs more than the average guy who works. A rich guy can do much more for the economy and people's families than the average Joe. Many people think the cure to the economy is voting in a president who will lift up average Joe and bring down the guys who give them jobs. Doesn't work that way. France's new president is taxing the rich at 75%. Guys like Louis Vuitton is moving out of country. People of France may love their president for doing that but he is effectively moving money and jobs out of the country.
 

It's not so much that folks hate..  it is more so that folks have lost their trust in such institutions for building a playing field that is graded towards their interests, unethical conduct and plain fraud and abuse.

I would support your sentiments more if companies would be hiring more people now, getting back to pre crash levels.  But guess what.. it's not happening.  The crash for many industries was a good relief valve for getting rid of excess personnel and are now profiting from being 'leaner and meaner'.  Add that to folks being tired of being in hock up to the gills in order to have the latest and greatest and the result is what you see.

All this is a learning exercise though.. and will prove that trickle down never has really worked.  Business is too reluctant to invest in a long process of putting the workforce back into world class position to compete.  If they don't do it who will?  Credit is dirt cheap, the value of the dollar is way down.  So what's the hold up?  If monetary policies aren't enough to get business back in the game, taxes will by going up, forcing those holding cash to get back into the business of building something with it rather than just sitting on it.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 17, 2012, 07:09:34 AM


Businesses both big and small now have every incentive to build.

Yes and no.  There are many disincentives.   
 

Quote
Easy credit and low interest is again the only hope but folks already have what they need and can afford. 

I guess you own a Nokia rather than an Apple phone.  :D  And in a year or two, it may start again when Apple rolls out its TV.
 
Read about Apple sales, and its effect on the GDP.    And it is done on credit.  AT&T and Verizon are the creditors, subsidizing  new phones in exchange for two-year service contracts.
 
Quote
...... no presidential candidate has a silver bullet. 

Agree, but one has only band-aids, and the other is intent on making intrinsic changes such as having the private sector allocate dollars.
 
Quote
Wall Street success as a measure of economic health has become disjointed with reality.

Disjointed?   The world is awash with cash looking for investment opportunities.  When companies with growth and healthy balance sheets pay a dividends 5x more than bond yields, where would you put your money ?


Quote
I get the feeling folks are tired of banks, stocks, credit and government.  The new status symbol may end up being what is growing in your garden instead of what's parked in your driveway.

Many Russians agree with you, taking pride in their potato crop grown at their dacha.  I get the impression that you were a military brat hippie.   What are you doing today to celebrate the one year anniversary of Occupy Wall Street?  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 17, 2012, 09:12:34 AM

Yes and no.  There are many disincentives. 


And what would they be?
 
Quote
 
I guess you own a Nokia rather than an Apple phone.  :D  And in a year or two, it may start again when Apple rolls out its TV.
 
Read about Apple sales, and its effect on the GDP.    And it is done on credit.  AT&T and Verizon are the creditors, subsidizing  new phones in exchange for two-year service contracts.


 
No, I regularly buy apple products... tried a samsung phone but am not happy with it.  Will probably pick up a discounted 4s while in the US without carrier subsidies.  I don't buy their 'plans', just the phones unlocked.

I rarely if ever buy anything with credit.  If I can't afford something I'll wait before spending even more. Cars, house, phones make no difference.  Lots of folks, not only the poor are following suit.
 
Quote

Agree, but one has only band-aids, and the other is intent on making intrinsic changes such as having the private sector allocate dollars.


All promises without a real plan that has a chance in hell of working, much less pass as legislation.

Quote

Disjointed?   The world is awash with cash looking for investment opportunities.  When companies with growth and healthy balance sheets pay a dividends 5x more than bond yields, where would you put your money ?


It's all speculation isn't it?  A world awash with cash is unhealthy and has repercussions..  The balance is in tilt.  Balloons pop or loose air eventually.  For every loss, someone will likely but not always gain. Essentially free money is fueling Wall Street to a new record high.  Main Street is probably on a more reasonable and responsible growth pattern.  In this world that desires instant gratification, folks have a harder time dealing with 'normal' but they are learning and learning to live with it.
 
Quote

Many Russians agree with you, taking pride in their potato crop grown at their dacha.  I get the impression that you were a military brat hippie.   What are you doing today to celebrate the one year anniversary of Occupy Wall Street?  :D

Lol.. you are correct I was a 'brat' hippie back then, but reality set in long ago so that's what I deal with today.  I gave  up growing veggies, just took too much time and the neighbor gives us a lot for free..  but I can plant if needed.  Several thousand square meters ready if It comes down to that.  Plenty of fruit trees keep us 'Occupied' and makes great jam.  The only qualm I have with Wall Street is emphasis on short term gain instead of long term progress.  I think a great start would be to put a hold on stocks purchased, at least 24 hours should pass before being able to sell them again with gains taxed as ordinary income.  Losses? bad luck.  People who invest in the markets and keep their stock for at least 10 years should not have to pay taxes on their gains and not able to use them as collateral during that time.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 17, 2012, 09:19:15 AM
It's not so much that folks hate..  it is more so that folks have lost their trust in such institutions for building a playing field that is graded towards their interests, unethical conduct and plain fraud and abuse.


BC,  was not it Adam Smith who wrote and warned in his "The Wealth of Nations"

Quote
"The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

and Thomas Jefferson

Quote
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."

 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page049.db&recNum=640 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page049.db&recNum=640)

 Abraham Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

Quote
"... I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

And here is an interesting documentary "Iraq for sale: The war profiteers" about exactly what Lincoln worried.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5GXaYq1iCo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR--nfNh33E

As Louis Vuitton was mentioned why not to mention he made a good profit as well collaborating with Nazis and supporting Vichy regime.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 17, 2012, 10:11:58 AM
Olga,

Thanks for the history lesson.  It was one subject I thought as a young kid was quite irrelevant. 

I was wrong.. very wrong.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 17, 2012, 07:20:15 PM
It's not so much that folks hate..  it is more so that folks have lost their trust in such institutions for building a playing field that is graded towards their interests, unethical conduct and plain fraud and abuse.



There's always going to be fraud and abuse but should we trust the average guy or below average guy to run the show? Abuse, fraud, and unethical conduct isn't a trait reserved for the rich. Give those guys a billion dollars each and one guy will create a thousand jobs with that money, the average guy may take the money and run toward retirement and travel the world, the below average guy may dope himself till death.

 
Can't hate the businesses and institutions that create the jobs because they're doing better for the economy than the average guy. It's better to trust and like the guy that's giving you a job than the guy that would rather sit on his money giving you nothing.

 
I would support your sentiments more if companies would be hiring more people now, getting back to pre crash levels.  But guess what.. it's not happening.  The crash for many industries was a good relief valve for getting rid of excess personnel and are now profiting from being 'leaner and meaner'.  Add that to folks being tired of being in hock up to the gills in order to have the latest and greatest and the result is what you see.


 
Again you blame business. I run a business and I'm not responsible for 9/11 or the house market crash. I blame the housing market crash on Clinton's government to ease the rules for borrowing so poor people can buy a home and the banks for buying into those new rules since the government will loan to the banks and the people for buying homes they can't afford when they lied on their applications.

 
You believe businesses became leaner and meaner and in essence became worse. I don't believe they wanted to do that but the factors I listed above is the reason they had to do what they did. If business didn't cut the inefficiencies, and get rid of the worst workers, the alternative is bankruptcy. That could mean forced restructuring by the government or out of business and where everybody loses their jobs. Going into survival mode isn't a evil thing.
 

All this is a learning exercise though.. and will prove that trickle down never has really worked.

 
What will work? What country in this work has a economic system in place that will make it so they surpass America's? It's easy to point fingers at problems yet it's hard for people to offer a solution that fixes all. Even with all it's faults, the system we have in place here is still superior to elsewhere.
 

  Business is too reluctant to invest in a long process of putting the workforce back into world class position to compete.  If they don't do it who will?  Credit is dirt cheap, the value of the dollar is way down.  So what's the hold up?  If monetary policies aren't enough to get business back in the game, taxes will by going up, forcing those holding cash to get back into the business of building something with it rather than just sitting on it.

 
Here you are blaming businesses again. I know many developers that can't get a loan from banks for their projects to build their business. They are frustrated the banks won't loan money even though they got bailed out. Obama's government bailed out the banks unconditionally. Obama should have told banks to use the money to invest in business because business creates jobs.

 
Another mistake Obama made was with his program to trade in your car for a more fuel efficient car and you get money from the government. American car companies specialize in mid to large cars and trucks so people were buying foreign cars 4-1 over American cars. Our tax money was being used to help other countries economies before our own with this program.
 

Lot's of tax money was given to companies specializing in green energy. Few people buys that stuff since it's way overpriced so many of the companies went out of business. Too bad money didn't go to struggling companies who actually made products people need or want to buy. A little help for those companies that are important to people's lives may actually save jobs.

 
The only good news I have for my company is I'm surviving while many of my competitors are out of business. Although there are fewer construction projects up for grabs, there are fewer construction companies which means less competition and finally after many years I can actually bid a job for a profit and win the bid. Maybe you think evil companies are getting leaner and meaner and making huge amounts of money but I believe they're just trying to survive.
 
BC, I believe you believe Obama can do the job better than Romney but did you 4 years ago believe the economy would be where it is today when Obama was elected? Surely you have to be disappointed. Obama didn't have to deal with a 9/11 or housing market crash so why is the economy stalling? Blaming this on Wall Street and business is a lame excuse at this point. Remember, it was Obama who promised hope and change if he were elected and it won him a Noble Peace Prize. Hope he delivered, change he did not.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 17, 2012, 08:01:42 PM
Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer

By Nick Hanauer on December 07, 2011

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.

I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc.

Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

Theory of Evolution

When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.

It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.

That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years.

Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income.

One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on September 17, 2012, 08:12:13 PM
Stupidity is not only for poor people.
There are plenty of very stupid wealthy people.
Such stupidity among those who have inherited their wealth is easily understood.
But, as the recent post shows, some who created their own wealth can still be pretty stupid.
Some business people have creative talent, but are still stupid with respect to how economics works.
They are somewhat analogous to singers, actors, etc. who have great wealth, and yet rail against business owners and managers who also attain great wealth.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on September 17, 2012, 08:15:20 PM
Oh no; Romney stepped in it again.
He was candid enough to state that some 49% of Americans don't pay any Federal Income tax and he knew those folks would never vote for him.
Unfortunately, a 'traitor' was amongst the 'private' group, recorded his remarks, and put them on the Internet.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 17, 2012, 08:45:45 PM
...
You believe businesses became leaner and meaner and in essence became worse. I don't believe they wanted to do that but the factors I listed above is the reason they had to do what they did. If business didn't cut the inefficiencies, and get rid of the worst workers, the alternative is bankruptcy. That could mean forced restructuring by the government or out of business and where everybody loses their jobs....


Well, that pretty much describe the Union now, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 17, 2012, 08:55:59 PM
Stupidity is not only for poor people.
There are plenty of very stupid wealthy people.
Such stupidity among those who have inherited their wealth is easily understood.
But, as the recent post shows, some who created their own wealth can still be pretty stupid.
Some business people have creative talent, but are still stupid with respect to how economics works.
They are somewhat analogous to singers, actors, etc. who have great wealth, and yet rail against business owners and managers who also attain great wealth.

ML, name calling and labeling doesn't require too much intelligence either  ;)

So, why the US business, for example, should invest into the construction of new buildings if they will not be able to sell it?

or why a metallurgical factory should hire more people and produce more metal without taking into account "demand and supply" on the market? or why automobile industry should produce more car than it can be sold? Plus take into that nowadays not every business need "human hands" but just the the machine operators.

Healthy capitalist market is based on the healthy competition, and the core of the healthy market is the small and middle size business.  Corporations like monopolization doesn't help to keep healthy competition including the job market.

BTW, one of our friend is running his two clinics. No, he will not hire an extra nurse but he doesn't mind to leave 50K in Las Vegas during his weekend. ))
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 17, 2012, 08:56:15 PM
Oh no; Romney stepped in it again.
He was candid enough to state that some 49% of Americans don't pay any Federal Income tax and he knew those folks would never vote for him.
Unfortunately, a 'traitor' was amongst the 'private' group, recorded his remarks, and put them on the Internet.

IMO what he said echoed what I stated in this thread before, It's tough to beat Obama for no other reason than the majority of his voting base are the social leeches in this society. Why would anyone 'vote' for someone else other than the one who promises to reward them for doing absolutely NOTHING. Not for themselves or for society at large.

Go Obama!

On another matter, FWIW, here's the personal income tax table from 1999-2009:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 17, 2012, 09:39:40 PM
Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.


I guarantee you with France's new 75% tax on the people who earn 1 million euros, some of those people are going to leave the country taking their money and business with them. Out of 66 million people, 3000 in France is in that group. Taxing that small group more isn't going to help their economy much but it'll make a lot of poor folks feel better that the upper class is brought down closer to their level even at the cost of jobs.
 
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

Theory of Evolution

When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.


That's nice. Whoever wrote that article wants to make a politically correct statement saying that the ordinary consumer is the primary all important job creator. Products need to be made. Who do you respect more? The guy who buys it or the guy who invents it, manufactures it, markets it, and distribute it to millions of people and hires lots of people along the way to create the product, market it, and deliver it? Let's get real here.
 
I have no problem a person gets rewarded for their efforts. Walking into Walmart, buying a t-shirt and paying for doesn't take much effort.
 
So, why the US business, for example, should invest into the construction of new buildings if they will not be able to sell it?

or why a metallurgical factory should hire more people and produce more metal without taking into account "demand and supply" on the market? or why automobile industry should produce more car than it can be sold?
.

I agree and that is an area Obama is not smart in. Developers I know who are trying to get loans from banks have a real need for this loan since they want to create a product that will sell. Since houses aren't selling well, apartments are doing well. Although the economy is bad, population grows and people still need a place to live. Some roads in the city is in serious need of repair. Obama put lots of money into green energy and that is not selling. Too expensive and too little return on green energy.
 
BTW, one of our friend is running his two clinics. No, he will not hire an extra nurse but he doesn't mind to leave 50K in Las Vegas during his weekend. ))

Olga, you should not worry about other people's business. If you're friend earned his money, it is his money to spend any way he likes. If partying in Vegas is his type of fun, that is his business. How would you feel if everyone criticizes you on how you spend your money. It's none of their business.
 
You imply he should hire a nurse with this Vegas money but in the same post you lecture about business shouldn't create without demand. Your friend owns two clinics. I'm sure he's smart enough to realize when demand is there, he will create another job for it. With the extra profits, he can then take 60K to Vegas and they'll love him more since he creates even more jobs for the entertainment industry.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 17, 2012, 09:53:26 PM

Olga, you should not worry about other people's business. If you're friend earned his money, it is his money to spend any way he likes. If partying in Vegas is his type of fun, that is his business. How would you feel if everyone criticizes you on how you spend your money. It's none of their business.
 
You imply he should hire a nurse with this Vegas money but in the same post you lecture about business shouldn't create without demand. Your friend owns two clinics. I'm sure he's smart enough to realize when demand is there, he will create another job for it. With the extra profits, he can then take 60K to Vegas and they'll love him more since he creates even more jobs for the entertainment industry.

BillyB, you have a big imagination that is far from reality. Where in my post I have made any critics on our friend  :D As he said he set for life and doing well and doesn't need to hire any extra nurse, but extra money he gets he happy to party off, and in his 60s he doesn't plan any extra hiring at all.  He also invested his money into different stocks.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 17, 2012, 10:03:22 PM
Since houses aren't selling well, apartments are doing well. Although the economy is bad, population grows and people still need a place to live.

Ah, exactly, so, how many extra empty condos should be built for rent?

http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/empty-condos-hold-opportunity-in-u-s-housing-crunch/ (http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/empty-condos-hold-opportunity-in-u-s-housing-crunch/)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 17, 2012, 10:18:34 PM
Ah, exactly, so, how many extra empty condos should be built for rent?

http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/empty-condos-hold-opportunity-in-u-s-housing-crunch/ (http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/empty-condos-hold-opportunity-in-u-s-housing-crunch/)

Condos are like homes, it has to be bought. Many people don't have the credit to buy so they rent. Your article actually supports what I said ealier. It mentions there's a lack of affordable apartments. Since there is a lack, developers should build but they can't get loans from banks. Obama bailed them out with your and my money and he should have told them to invest that money back into the economy.
 
Olga or anybody here can answer this. If you were President and had to make decisions to fix a bad economy what path would you take? Give more welfare to poor people to ease their pain? Their votes would be nice to have. Give more to the middle working class to ease their pain? Their votes would be nice to have. Assist businesses to survive and thrive. Call it trickle economics if you want but with job creating that helps everybody and with taxes collected on paychecks and businesses, government will have more money for social programs to help the poor.
 
Helping businesses/ business owners won't get you a lot of votes but it may be the right thing to do. The bad part of this is if you help one group of people, others will feel neglected or carry more burden through taxes but if you had to help one group of people, which group is most capable of helping the others when it's healthy?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 17, 2012, 10:39:09 PM
In Foxconn City
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

An eight-hour drive from that glass factory is a complex, known informally as Foxconn City, where the iPhone is assembled. To Apple executives, Foxconn City was further evidence that China could deliver workers — and diligence — that outpaced their American counterparts.

That’s because nothing like Foxconn City exists in the United States.

The facility has 230,000 employees, many working six days a week, often spending up to 12 hours a day at the plant. Over a quarter of Foxconn’s work force lives in company barracks and many workers earn less than $17 a day. When one Apple executive arrived during a shift change, his car was stuck in a river of employees streaming past. “The scale is unimaginable,” he said.

Foxconn employs nearly 300 guards to direct foot traffic so workers are not crushed in doorway bottlenecks. The facility’s central kitchen cooks an average of three tons of pork and 13 tons of rice a day. While factories are spotless, the air inside nearby teahouses is hazy with the smoke and stench of cigarettes.

Foxconn Technology has dozens of facilities in Asia and Eastern Europe, and in Mexico and Brazil, and it assembles an estimated 40 percent of the world’s consumer electronics for customers like Amazon, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, Samsung and Sony.

“They could hire 3,000 people overnight,” said Jennifer Rigoni, who was Apple’s worldwide supply demand manager until 2010, but declined to discuss specifics of her work. “What U.S. plant can find 3,000 people overnight and convince them to live in dorms?”
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 17, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Your article actually supports what I said ealier. It mentions there's a lack of affordable apartments. Since there is a lack, developers should build but they can't get loans from banks. Obama bailed them out with your and my money and he should have told them to invest that money back into the economy.

So how many new affordable apartments  developers should build?

or it would be better to convert the empty condos?

"In March 2011, New York finally announced the first closing under HARP to convert 26 stalled condo units on Lefferts Avenue in Brooklyn into 46 rental units. The units had never been completed or sold on the market in the first place. All units will be affordable to middle-income, but not low-income, families"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 17, 2012, 11:10:28 PM
Helping businesses/ business owners won't get you a lot of votes but it may be the right thing to do. The bad part of this is if you help one group of people, others will feel neglected or carry more burden through taxes but if you had to help one group of people, which group is most capable of helping the others when it's healthy?

Helping businesses? It depends on a business. Businesses that outsources the jobs, no need help, but more taxation on their products  ;) And more taxation on any products from overseas.  Businesses that do care about their US workers and employees they do need a help, but it doesn't mean they should run wild  ;) without environmental responsibilities and safety regulations  forcing workers to work for pennies per hour.

Personally I found that food in our small family restaurants and cafes are much more better and healthy than at some kind corporations  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 18, 2012, 02:54:52 AM


There's always going to be fraud and abuse but should we trust the average guy or below average guy to run the show? Abuse, fraud, and unethical conduct isn't a trait reserved for the rich. Give those guys a billion dollars each and one guy will create a thousand jobs with that money, the average guy may take the money and run toward retirement and travel the world, the below average guy may dope himself till death.


No mention of average guy or below average guy.  I was referring to financial institutions and other large businesses that act in unethical manners with impunity - unless they get caught.  It's a high stakes cat and mouse game with little punishment involved other than fines and plea agreements.  Bottom line, unethical conduct by business and financial institution are pervasive.  Just healthcare fraud and waste alone runs into the hundreds of billions.  http://www.smpresource.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutSMPs/MedicareFraudEstimatesAMovingTarget/Medicare_Fraud_Estimates.pdf

Quote

Can't hate the businesses and institutions that create the jobs because they're doing better for the economy than the average guy. It's better to trust and like the guy that's giving you a job than the guy that would rather sit on his money giving you nothing.

Again, no mention of average joe or jane.  The guy that sits on his money pays less taxes by letting others earn money for him.  Romney is a prime example.  A businessman that pays 15% taxes from investments rather than roughly double that for a small businessman dealing in brick, mortar and people operations.  The larger international companies rely on massive offshore operations to lower their tax bill.  The playing field is not level and more people are recognizing this.  I recently rented a car from Dollar car rentals, best price around.  They are being bought by Herz which has some of the highest prices around.  Do you really expect that Dollar rates will remain the lowest on the block?  I don't.  9 major rental companies are in effect being reduced to three.. http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-08-27/hertz-buys-dollar-thrify/57343078/1  Is that good for competition?  I think not.
 
Quote
Again you blame business. I run a business and I'm not responsible for 9/11 or the house market crash. I blame the housing market crash on Clinton's government to ease the rules for borrowing so poor people can buy a home and the banks for buying into those new rules since the government will loan to the banks and the people for buying homes they can't afford when they lied on their applications.

It's always easy to point fingers, but before you do so check some facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis  It's a long read but worth it to understand a bit more.

Some portions:
Quote
Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[121]

Quote
In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[123]

Quote
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause."[128][129] GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.[62]

Quote
Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is probably not correct.[1] [120] Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations.
lots more inside.

Quote
You believe businesses became leaner and meaner and in essence became worse. I don't believe they wanted to do that but the factors I listed above is the reason they had to do what they did. If business didn't cut the inefficiencies, and get rid of the worst workers, the alternative is bankruptcy. That could mean forced restructuring by the government or out of business and where everybody loses their jobs. Going into survival mode isn't a evil thing.

Please re read my post.  It said nothing near what you say that I marked bold.  What I was saying is that demand has adjusted to new levels, a new ballgame if you will.
 
Quote

What will work? What country in this work has a economic system in place that will make it so they surpass America's? It's easy to point fingers at problems yet it's hard for people to offer a solution that fixes all. Even with all it's faults, the system we have in place here is still superior to elsewhere.

In terms of 'superior' in absolute numbers maybe, but what is it all about?  Happiness....  That folks are happy and not just showing good numbers.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/00000010500  use the slider scale and put happiness at the top of the list.  Quite a few countries are on par or better than the US.

Quote

Here you are blaming businesses again. I know many developers that can't get a loan from banks for their projects to build their business. They are frustrated the banks won't loan money even though they got bailed out. Obama's government bailed out the banks unconditionally. Obama should have told banks to use the money to invest in business because business creates jobs.

Oh... but that would be government interfering in business or?  You surely don't want that.. Can't have it both ways.  It's supposed to trickle down or?    Oh... and btw

Quote
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Quote

Another mistake Obama made was with his program to trade in your car for a more fuel efficient car and you get money from the government. American car companies specialize in mid to large cars and trucks so people were buying foreign cars 4-1 over American cars. Our tax money was being used to help other countries economies before our own with this program.

Maybe fuel efficiency was a factor? Maybe even a goal?  Obviously US car makers were not able to meet the demands of customers.

Quote
Lot's of tax money was given to companies specializing in green energy. Few people buys that stuff since it's way overpriced so many of the companies went out of business. Too bad money didn't go to struggling companies who actually made products people need or want to buy. A little help for those companies that are important to people's lives may actually save jobs.

The US solar panel market crashed from huge glut of panels produced in China and subsequent dumping.  This had a huge worldwide effect on prices causing many companies to fold.  The US got in the manufacturing game way too late and too little to compete.  That's business.. can't blame Obama and others for not trying though.
 
Quote
The only good news I have for my company is I'm surviving while many of my competitors are out of business. Although there are fewer construction projects up for grabs, there are fewer construction companies which means less competition and finally after many years I can actually bid a job for a profit and win the bid. Maybe you think evil companies are getting leaner and meaner and making huge amounts of money but I believe they're just trying to survive.
 
BC, I believe you believe Obama can do the job better than Romney but did you 4 years ago believe the economy would be where it is today when Obama was elected? Surely you have to be disappointed. Obama didn't have to deal with a 9/11 or housing market crash so why is the economy stalling? Blaming this on Wall Street and business is a lame excuse at this point. Remember, it was Obama who promised hope and change if he were elected and it won him a Noble Peace Prize. Hope he delivered, change he did not.

The economy is not stalling.  All indicators are going up, certainly not at the pace some would want, but indeed progressing.  Can't expect a boom recovery, but a slower, steady recovery is probably more healthy in the long run.  I'm certainly not going to change your vote, but you might want to dig into the overall picture a bit more.  Are you doing better or worse since the crash?  Are you able to compete better in a more 'normal' construction environment that is not overheated by credit and speculative booms?

As for Obama, folks have a good feel for his policies now whereas Romney is unable to present a concrete plan.  In fact he says he won't even have to do anything to boost things..  Yeah right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5iazS-hjv0
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 18, 2012, 06:08:41 AM

The economy is not stalling.   

The FOMC disagrees with you.  Nevertheless the vote for QE3 was not unanimous. 
 

Quote
    All indicators are going up, certainly not at the pace some would want, but indeed progressing.           

Up?  The signals are mixed but generally suggest the slowest of growth in the US (less than 2%), a recession in Europe and hopefully some improvement at the margin in the emerging world.  However, the year so far is disappointing.
 
The future?  How this morning's AP news from the global bellweather "best of breed" FedEx:

 
Quote
FedEx says the global economy is worsening and it's again cutting its forecast for the fiscal year ending in May.  The package delivery company also expects net income for the current quarter ending in November to fall well below
last year's quarter.

Shipments are down and more customers are declining the option of faster shipments.   
 
The prospects for the economy are not good.  There is a race between FOMC and Apple for what will happen first,  QE6 or iPhone 6. ;)  Why would we want another four years of dismal leadership?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 18, 2012, 06:29:32 AM

And what would they be?
 

You asked me about disincentives to job growth.  I would assume that at the top of the list is economic uncertainty.  There is no direction from Washington, and it is needed.
 
Government regulations are severe burdens and growing.  These regulations take many forms.  Most regulations were written in better economic times, and while many are effective and necessary, many are dubious.  And Washington has not stopped writing regulations, e. g. the "employer mandate" under Obamacare and changes in labor and immigration laws.   While banks have money, new regulations are inhibiting lending, thus restricting business expansion.
 
Also, states add another level of regulation.  Texas has led the nation in job growth, accounting for perhaps half of the total US amount.  Supposedly 25% of the new employees entering Texas come from California.
 

 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 18, 2012, 07:16:01 AM
BillyB-

You said a lot of things upthread that I completely agree with except...


...Here you are blaming businesses again. I know many developers that can't get a loan from banks for their projects to build their business. They are frustrated the banks won't loan money even though they got bailed out. Obama's government bailed out the banks unconditionally. Obama should have told banks to use the money to invest in business because business creates jobs.

While TARP came to fruition in late 2008 (remember the temporary suspension of the presidential campaigns and the call to meeting by Bush to McCain and Obama in which Obama feigned upon?), there was a prolonged debate on exactly how/what to do with the appropriated $300 billion slated for the distressed home situation. That debate took months all through the lame duck session until shortly after the inauguration and Obama's appointment of Czars. It's only <4 years ago for people to forget.

But yes, that money silently 'sizzled' and likely went somewhere else other than the intended if you consider the situation (home market) is pretty much the way it was. You're wrong in the sense it wasn't in the Obama administration that banks got bailed out. It was in his administration that the home rescue plan was drawn up and implemented. Again, where the money went ~ who the heck knows...

 
Quote
...Another mistake Obama made was with his program to trade in your car for a more fuel efficient car and you get money from the government. American car companies specialize in mid to large cars and trucks so people were buying foreign cars 4-1 over American cars. Our tax money was being used to help other countries economies before our own with this program....

Again, I agree with one caveat. The US automaker cannot compete on the 'D' Series line market. That had always been the Japaneses market i.e Camry, Accord, Altima, etc..the Chevy Malibu is and always will be a soured Detroit lemonade. The Chrysler Le baron? LOL. However, lately Ford had made stride in the present market as folks are really taking after the Fusion. They already had a fairly good entry before with the Taurus and it kept them in the competition well enough in the early to mid 2000...

But yes, the cash-4-clunker was technically Obama's version of the 'out' portion in the "screw you going *in* and screw you going..." series. The Union was in a huge mess and he has 'promises' to keep.

Lastly, I think BC's relatives in the US are in the Union.  ;)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 18, 2012, 07:26:54 AM
Gator,

2% under the current global economic circumstances does not necessarily have to be bad. Just as markets adjust periodically to new influences so will the economy.

Dust needs time and stability to settle.  The more one tries to mess with it the longer it will take.  I highly doubt any political figure can change or speed up the process in a healthy manner.  More than anything patience and a steady course is needed to reach a new point of equilibrium.

If there was great confidence in the ethics and a good sense of responsibility within the business community, regulations would hardly be necessary.  Business has had plenty of chances to regulate themselves and many bubbles that burst have roots in deregulation and government allowing businesses to take the lead.  Only a mess has resulted.

Regulation is only imposed where Business fails.  It's always been that way.  Just look at the wave of regulation that followed  all financial crashes..

The very nature of Business precludes effective self-regulation.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 18, 2012, 11:19:03 AM
Quote
...According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html


It is VERY interesting how the media influences and/or decides which events are newsworthy during elections. One can only imagine how news like the above would've been plastered on every news channel had Bush/Republican is presently in office right now...50 days before the election.

Unbelievable!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 18, 2012, 11:47:23 AM
Thurston Howell Romney
By DAVID BROOKS

In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on September 18, 2012, 01:30:51 PM
Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www)
I don't have a bit of a problem with the government helping those who can't help themselves but lets say for example you marry a RW and go to the Social Security office to get her a number and what I see in there makes me want to vomit.  There are way too many people who can help themselves but don't have the ambition or desire and prefer to sit around drinking beer, getting high and living off those who do work.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 18, 2012, 02:23:53 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html


It is VERY interesting how the media influences and/or decides which events are newsworthy during elections. One can only imagine how news like the above would've been plastered on every news channel had Bush/Republican is presently in office right now...50 days before the election.

Unbelievable!

No but we do get the Susan Rice's and Jay Carney's of the BO Admin repeating over and over about the spontaneous attack because of the film ad nausea. Why are they permitted to spin and lie about such an event? The mainstream media has taken to this latest Romney video as if it's news worthy and even remotely recent to deflect from BO's apology to the very muslim's that attacked an embassy and killed Americans. Fuggin incredible
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 18, 2012, 03:14:35 PM


Regulation is only imposed where Business fails. 

I presume you mean new laws are enacted and regulations written.   How did business fail with healthcare such that we needed Obamacare?   Is Dodd-Frank the correct response to the financial crisis? 
 

 
The current labor initiatives are doing the following according to the US Chamber of Commerce:

Quote
-  Rewriting labor laws to effectively abandon secret ballot elections
in favor of card check and creating a mechanism for government appointed
arbitrators to write terms and conditions of labor contracts;

 
-  Amending safety and health laws to expand criminal penalties, reduce
the burden of proof for a conviction, and make officers and directors of
companies personally accountable for criminal penalties;

 
-  A regulation to make union organizing easier for railway and airport
employees, overturning 75 years of precedent; and

 
-  Expansion of vague recordkeeping requirements that will likely lead
to issuance of a new ergonomics standard.

Source:  http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/us-chamber-highlights-continued-barriers-job-creation-annual-labor-day-briefing (http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/us-chamber-highlights-continued-barriers-job-creation-annual-labor-day-briefing)
 
Next, consider immigration.  Enough already. 
 
As the Chamber wrote, " For those who may doubt the challenges to an employer under this reality, read a few pages of the existing Code of Federal Regulations, or randomly select one of the many court decisions interpreting existing law. Then picture yourself as a small business person or the head of human resources now faced with numerous other changes in a maze of already confusing and daunting compliance obligations."

Republicans want a smaller government.  Democrats want a larger government.   Why is that so?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 18, 2012, 04:43:42 PM
Thurston Howell Romney
By DAVID BROOKS
What a load of stupid liberal propaganda…

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1)


Dunno. The 2010 census reported…
Quote
… Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income, about 57 percent, followed by older people, those over 65. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites…
Doesn’t look like your everyday typical Republican to me. Looks just like the ‘poor’ of yesteryears just passed on from one generation to another...


Quote
… Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless.


Had Obama not gave away (and is still giving away) billions to the Unions, who at their whim holds the public hostage for more their greed (e.g. Chicago teachers - btw remember Reagan's firing of the Air Traffic Controllers? "No one in public service should have the power to hold the public it serves hostage for their own selfish gain" paraphrased), there should/would be enough to care for the "needy elderlies".


It is reported that almost 49% of Americans are in poverty. Most (89%) live in homes, drives a car and have big flat screen TVs…it is also reported that almost 75% of Americans today are medically classified to be ‘obese’ or overweighed by 2020 ( 7+ years from now)…it doesn’t take much to notice walking down a metropolitan street that the majority of these obese people are Hispanics and Black Americans. So, how the heck can one be ‘poor’ and have so much food to eat at the same time?

How? Become a Democrat, or at least vote for one...
 :P
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 18, 2012, 04:47:57 PM
...No but we do get the Susan Rice's and Jay Carney's of the BO Admin repeating over and over about the spontaneous attack because of the film ad nausea. Why are they permitted to spin and lie about such an event? The mainstream media has taken to this latest Romney video as if it's news worthy and even remotely recent to deflect from BO's apology to the very muslim's that attacked an embassy and killed Americans. Fuggin incredible

Yup...and now the State Dept is *playing* down Rice's statement implying that because of the *sudden* event that took place during the attack, so many information had to be gathered to determine any credible information or intelligence to *accurately* convey to the public...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: oldernotwiser on September 18, 2012, 04:48:16 PM
The mainstream media has taken to this latest Romney video as if it's news worthy


If not news worthy, perhaps it can be viewed for entertainment purposes.  Although would you say twitter is mainstream media??  #romneyencore has been trending today, all kinds of comments, I found a few of them kind of funny.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Darth_Budda on September 18, 2012, 05:06:54 PM
Capitalism does it still work??

Does it still work in a environment were the people on the bottom can't afford to buy the goods produced by the every shrinking middle class and the rich?


Another thought,,,
Mitt is done for, He will only get the right wing religious vote.. But not even all of them will vote for a Mormon...

Obama 2012!! yea! We will get the lesser evil...

We need a constitutional convention in 2013....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 18, 2012, 06:46:13 PM

If not news worthy, perhaps it can be viewed for entertainment purposes.  Although would you say twitter is mainstream media??  #romneyencore has been trending today, all kinds of comments, I found a few of them kind of funny.

And it should be as it certainly isn't news. Some obscure Rotary club meeting while he was stumping for votes to win the nomination a year ago isn't news. All designed to turn us away from the real news and events while attempting to convince us that Obama's policies are working. What is news is the Muslim world is on fire with more jihad on the west. Just "believe" and everything will be okay. More kool-aid?

edit to add: I don't Twat but, yes it has morphed into mainstream media. The age of disinformation. I find it alarming how many read twitter and accept it as the gospel truth. Even more alarming is they do it without question. More kool-aid?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: oldernotwiser on September 18, 2012, 07:14:13 PM

edit to add: I don't Twat but, yes it has morphed into mainstream media. The age of disinformation. I find it alarming how many read twitter and accept it as the gospel truth. Even more alarming is they do it without question. More kool-aid?


It is tweet, not twat, just thought I would let you know, just in case you are confused by the difference between the two.   :) 
Oh, I have no doubt their is disinformation on twitter, but also some truth.   


Also to label twitter with the republican rhetoric of mainstream media (we all know how the republicans think the mainstream media is out to get them), I find kind of hilarious. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 18, 2012, 09:18:27 PM

Dunno. The 2010 census reported…Doesn’t look like your everyday typical Republican to me.

Quote
… Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income, about 57 percent, followed by older people, those over 65. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites…



Persons Living in Households Receiving Selected Noncash Benefits: 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0544.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0544.pdf)

Black alone -              38,556,000
Asian alone -             14,005,000
Hispanic -                  48,811,000
White Non-Hispanic - 197,164,000

Social Security (OASDI)—Benefits by Type of Beneficiary: 1990 to 2010
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0544.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0544.pdf)


Quote
"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Schools/University+of+Michigan) public policy professor who specializes in poverty.
"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 18, 2012, 09:53:25 PM
So how many new affordable apartments  developers should build?

or it would be better to convert the empty condos?


Do you know what you have to do to an unaffordable condo to make it affordable for low income? It's senseless to pay to remove the nice fixtures and install cheap fixtures and rent for less.
 
Again, no mention of average joe or jane.  The guy that sits on his money pays less taxes by letting others earn money for him.  Romney is a prime example.  A businessman that pays 15% taxes from investments rather than roughly double that for a small businessman dealing in brick, mortar and people operations. 


Business owners pay taxes on their own paychecks and again on their business. They are taxed in more ways than the average Joe. If you don't like a guy that pays only 15% taxes on investements, maybe it's smart to invest yourself. Investing helps the economy so it's a good thing government doesn't heavily tax and discourage people from doing so.
 
Maybe fuel efficiency was a factor? Maybe even a goal?  Obviously US car makers were not able to meet the demands of customers.


It's hard to debate if you don't talk facts. No cars were in demand so Obama gave incentives for people to buy cars but only small cars. Our tax money went to help foreign companies before our own. Bush gave incentives for business to buy trucks 3/4 ton and heavier to stimulate economy. US automakers dominate in that area of trucks. Probably because of trade treaties a President can't force people to buy only American but he can do things to encourage that. Team Obama doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to business.
 
The US solar panel market crashed from huge glut of panels produced in China and subsequent dumping.  This had a huge worldwide effect on prices causing many companies to fold.  The US got in the manufacturing game way too late and too little to compete.  That's business.. can't blame Obama and others for not trying though.
 

 If you're smart enough to understand this, the President should understand this too. Yes we can blame Obama for throwing away hundreds of millions if not billions of stimulus dollars. Solar panels aren't new technology and China already makes them  and makes them cheaper. Team Obama doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to business.
 
As for Obama, folks have a good feel for his policies now whereas Romney is unable to present a concrete plan.  In fact he says he won't even have to do anything to boost things..  Yeah right.


People had a good feel for Obama's policies 4 years ago. I doubt this is the results they expected. So much for the feeling.
 
Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[121]In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[123]

I like how you put in bold Bush wanted to increase house ownership and in bold target ownership below median was increased during Bush's time. You purposely left out some things from Wikipedia.
 
Let me help you understand. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has direct access to government money. 1996 they were encouraged to get more low income people in houses as I mentioned earlier. In your wikipedia article you purposely left out Bush called for an investigation on Fannie and Freddie but he was met with resistance for targeting organizations that help low income. The way you quoted wikipedia, you made it sound as if Bush, Fannie and Freddie was in bed together.
 
I bought a house in the Clinton era. Nobody checks income or even if the borrower has a job. My mom knew a mortgage broker and she told me the government relaxed the rules which made it easy for people to abuse the system. It made it easier for banks who got loans from the government to seld more houses, people who get commisions from sales pushed people to lie about income to get a house or into a better house than they can normally afford and the people who borrowed lied on applications to move up in the world.  Unethical behavior isn't reserved for corporations. It happens at all levels.
 
BC, you seem real concerned about unethical behavior at the corporate level but trust government. Happy with the government in Italy? Who's fault the country isn't running smooth there? Corruption in government or corruption in business?
 
The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.


You really believe the crap coming from the article that government is spending on the working class? Who does the government get their money from in the form of taxes? Who is spending on who?
 
Is social security, medicare or even unemployment equal to welfare and food stamps? Not by a long shot. For welfare and food stamp recipients the government spends on them.
 
The working class paid into medicare, unemployment insurance, and social security. When's the last time you looked at your pay stub, studied it and understood it? The government doesn't spend on the working class but it does hold their money to return in some fashion in the future. If a guy dies young or never applies for unemployment the government pockets his money.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 18, 2012, 10:07:34 PM

Do you know what you have to do to an unaffordable condo to make it affordable for low income? It's senseless to pay to remove the nice fixtures and install cheap fixtures and rent for less.


Ah, of course. It is better to keep millions of condos empty and spend more money on new affordable apartments.... made of what kind of cheep materials?  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 18, 2012, 10:18:06 PM
...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1)


Hhhhmmm not quite sure what your post was implying but I do hope at least you realized the source you used was the exact same source I initially referenced.   :-\




Do you know what you have to do to an unaffordable condo to make it affordable for low income? It's senseless to pay to remove the nice fixtures and install cheap fixtures and rent for less.

Actually BillyB, not sure how it's done up in WA, and I'm thinking it's likely the same as in CA as this is piloted by the Feds...but Section 8 for example doesn't make a distinction between a leeching scumbag from a normal renter in terms of what amenities a like unit contain.

The difference is the 'poor SOB' don't have to 'pay' the rent (or even mortgage ~ see below) anywhere close to what a typical hard-working individual do. Another distinct difference you'll likely notice is, the leech would likely be driving a BMW 500 series equipped with a 8-speaker, thumper special with master blaster sub-woofer, whereas that stupid paying individual would likely be driving an old model Toyota Corolla.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8 (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8)


Quote from: Wikipedia
..
Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_of_1937) (42 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_42_of_the_United_States_Code) § 1437f (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1437f.html)), often simply known as Section 8, as repeatedly amended, authorizes the payment of rental housing assistance to private landlords on behalf of approximately 3.1 million low-income households.  It operates through several programs, the largest of which, the Housing Choice Voucher program, pays a large portion of the rents and utilities of about 2.1 million households.  The US Department of Housing and Urban Development manages the Section 8 programs.[1]

The Housing Choice Voucher Program provides "tenant-based" rental assistance, so an assisted tenant can move with assistance from one unit of at least minimum housing quality to another. It also allows individuals to apply their monthly voucher towards the purchase of a home, with over $17 billion going towards such purchases each year (from ncsha.org analysis). The maximum allowed voucher is $2200 a month....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_%28housing%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_%28housing%29)

Let's all be Democrats!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 18, 2012, 10:22:19 PM
Quote
If you're smart enough to understand this, the President should understand this too. Yes we can blame Obama for throwing away hundreds of millions if not billions of stimulus dollars. Solar panels aren't new technology and China already makes them  and makes them cheaper. Team Obama doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to business.

BillyB, maybe Obama should turn the US into one of Asian countries where desperate workers forsed to work for pennies in unhuman conditions while the corporations run wild without any regulations and taxes polluting everything around  :D or we need to chose Romney he probably will do it faster  :D I bet Apple would not mind to have such Foxconn City in the States  :D and Nike could use the US children labor as well and everybody would be happy   ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 18, 2012, 10:27:36 PM

Hhhhmmm not quite sure what your post was implying but I do hope at least you realized the source you used was the exact same source I initially referenced.   :-\


I just quoted about poverty, good article, though I could not find data for 2010 on the US census website, only for 2009 where number of non-hispanic white prevail http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/social_insurance_human_services.html 

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 18, 2012, 10:31:07 PM
Actually BillyB, not sure how it's done up in WA, and I'm thinking it's likely the same as in CA as this is piloted by the Feds...but Section 8 for example doesn't make a distinction between a leeching scumbag from a normal renter in terms of what amenities a like unit contain.

Just curious do you put disable people including children also in to the category of leeching scumbags?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 18, 2012, 10:41:58 PM
Just curious do you put disable people including children also in to the category of leeching scumbags?


... the leech would likely be driving a BMW 500 series equipped with a 8-speaker, thumper special with master blaster sub-woofer,,,,,

 :-\
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 18, 2012, 10:59:21 PM
My apology QQBluse for misunderstanding, it is just "leeches"became so popular label towards those who on some kind of social security and I did not notice you used the word second time... 

____________
the troubled facts from med statistics

In 2010,one-third of American adults reported a disability. About one-quarter of adults 18–64 years of age reported a disability, compared with three-fifths of adults 65 years of age and over. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf)

5.2% of children with disabilities http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-12.pdf (http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-12.pdf)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 18, 2012, 11:00:16 PM

Ah, of course. It is better to keep millions of condos empty and spend more money on new affordable apartments.... made of what kind of cheep materials?  :D

Have you ever rented? My mom rented multiple houses and she did rent to low income and poor through section 8. The government check for monthly rent was steady, but almost always except in one instance the house was trashed in the end. Low income people are usually irresponsible. Sometimes I'd go in and fix things and find the dog scratch the wood doors, or animal crap all over the place, or stains on the walls. If it isn't animal odor I'm smelling, it's decaying food or recent drug use.
 
Olga, you seemed very concerned the poor get their fair share in life. Don't have to wait for the government to do it. Try and help them and see how much they care about you.
 
Actually BillyB, not sure how it's done up in WA, and I'm thinking it's likely the same as in CA as this is piloted by the Feds...but Section 8 for example doesn't make a distinction between a leeching scumbag from a normal renter in terms of what amenities a like unit contain.


True here too. If a home owner wants to rent out their nice house or condo to section 8, they can do it but won't get any more money for the same size unit that is not as nice. Renting out a nice place through section 8 has more risks since it could get trashed.
 
Another distinct difference you'll likely notice is, the leech would likely be driving a BMW 500 series whereas that stupid paying individual would be driving a Toyota Corolla.

Just did a low income town home project last year. Some of the employees noticed the tenents moving in on taxpayers dollars owned big screen tv's and drove BMWs, Mercedes, and Lexus.
 
How is this possible? Many poor who get free housing, medical and food, may have jobs. If they make over a certain amount, they lose their entitlements so the jobs they have pay cash under the table. Even corporate officers aren't as smart as them to dodge taxes on income 100%.  The way our government structured things, here's not much incentive for the poor to work legally and sustain themselves on their own.
 
If the government made everyone on welfare give back something such as work around the city cleaning the streets and cutting grass beautifying parks, I think many would magically get off welfare. Does anybody disagree those who are completely or partially dependent on government assistance should give back in some form?
 
Just curious do you put disable people including children also in to the category of leeching scumbags?

 
Can't speak for GQ but everyone should be judged as an individual. Disabled and children aren't capable to function as a healthy adult. They have needs but they alone aren't capable of providing for their needs so others must do so.
 
They can be great people or can be a drag on society. Disabled people have special rights. A friend of mine is a dispacher for small buses that take disabled people anywhere in the county, even strip clubs, no questions asks or refusals. He told me of one disabled guy living in a city on one side of the county wants to have a daily Egg McMuffin at McDonalds in a city on the other side of the county. He also wants to have his Egg McMuffin early in the morning, so early the buses don't run yet so they have to hire him a taxi. $200 round trip. $1400 tax payer money a week for this guy to have 7 Egg McMuffins. Good value? This disabled guy does not care about the waste of tax payer money but it is his right since we can't discriminate against disabled people. Do you still have sympathy for this man Olga or would you label him a leech? Under certain conditions I can label a disabled person a leech and scumbag.
 
I dated a RW living in America who had strong opinions about the weak in society. She believes the weak should die and strong survive just as it happens in the animal kingdom, just as nature intended. She believes humans try too hard to help the weak and the genetically flawed and those group of people will breed more genetically flawed people who can't pull their own weight. Eventually the strong will have too much burden to take care of the weak, disabled and lazy and things will get ugly and a lot of people will die. Today humans feel their compassionate and morally superior to animals but that is only because they can afford to be. When it comes to survival and fighting over some food, the strong will survive and the weak will die as nature intented. There have been a few great societies in the past that self destructed.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 18, 2012, 11:06:52 PM
Quote
Olga, you seemed very concerned the poor get their fair share in life. Don't have to wait for the government to do it. Try and help them and see how much they care about you.

not at all about fair share, I'm more concerned about rising number of poor people, about "closed curve" for many of them.

Actually we do help as we can with food, money and clothes periodically as some other people in our area.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: OlgaH on September 18, 2012, 11:29:58 PM
A friend of mine is a dispacher for small buses that take disabled people anywhere in the county, even strip clubs, no questions asks or refusals. He told me of one disabled guy living in a city on one side of the county wants to have a daily Egg McMuffin at McDonalds in a city on the other side of the county.

Quick Answers to Common Questions about Social Security
http://www.nasi.org/research/2012/quick-answers-common-questions-about-social-security (http://www.nasi.org/research/2012/quick-answers-common-questions-about-social-security)

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html#a0=7
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 19, 2012, 01:32:35 AM
 
Business owners pay taxes on their own paychecks and again on their business. They are taxed in more ways than the average Joe. If you don't like a guy that pays only 15% taxes on investements, maybe it's smart to invest yourself. Investing helps the economy so it's a good thing government doesn't heavily tax and discourage people from doing so.

Yeah, wish I could take income and then declare it as an investment.  Just skip the paycheck part all together.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/01/bain-capital-under-investigation-for-tax-avoidance-romney-denies-any-benefit/
 
Quote
It's hard to debate if you don't talk facts. No cars were in demand so Obama gave incentives for people to buy cars but only small cars. Our tax money went to help foreign companies before our own. Bush gave incentives for business to buy trucks 3/4 ton and heavier to stimulate economy. US automakers dominate in that area of trucks. Probably because of trade treaties a President can't force people to buy only American but he can do things to encourage that. Team Obama doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to business.

Read it any way you want.  Bottom line is that many of those that participated could not find or were not interested in replacement cars made in USA that qualified.  Why is that?  btw US manufacturers did get a little under half of the business which was close to their normal market share anyway.  The 'boost' was across the board so Obama's intent was fulfilled.  Hopefully it was a shot across the bow for US companies to think more about cars people do want to buy and can afford.
 
Quote
If you're smart enough to understand this, the President should understand this too. Yes we can blame Obama for throwing away hundreds of millions if not billions of stimulus dollars. Solar panels aren't new technology and China already makes them  and makes them cheaper. Team Obama doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to business.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/business/la-fi-china-solar-dumping-20120518

Quote
More than 60 Chinese firms, includingSuntech Power Holdings Co., the world's largest solar panel maker, and Trina Solar Ltd., face a 31% duty on their exports to the U.S., retroactive to shipments made in February. All other Chinese exporters of solar cells will be hit with a tariff of 250%.

If you're smart enough to understand this, recognize that it is a world market and many firms across the planet got hurt when the dumping started, and something is being done about it.  Here also panels produced in EU are getting higher subsidies than those built in China.  Learn to see the big picture.

Quote

People had a good feel for Obama's policies 4 years ago. I doubt this is the results they expected. So much for the feeling.

Their sentiments will be shown at the polls.  That should settle your doubts.
 
Quote
I like how you put in bold Bush wanted to increase house ownership and in bold target ownership below median was increased during Bush's time. You purposely left out some things from Wikipedia.
 
Let me help you understand. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has direct access to government money. 1996 they were encouraged to get more low income people in houses as I mentioned earlier. In your wikipedia article you purposely left out Bush called for an investigation on Fannie and Freddie but he was met with resistance for targeting organizations that help low income. The way you quoted wikipedia, you made it sound as if Bush, Fannie and Freddie was in bed together.

The bold emphasis was to bring to your attention that raising the percentage was in Bush's term so you can wag your finger accordingly and not just one party.  Other than that referring you to a decent compilation of events and environment that produced the crisis.
 
Quote
I bought a house in the Clinton era. Nobody checks income or even if the borrower has a job. My mom knew a mortgage broker and she told me the government relaxed the rules which made it easy for people to abuse the system. It made it easier for banks who got loans from the government to seld more houses, people who get commisions from sales pushed people to lie about income to get a house or into a better house than they can normally afford and the people who borrowed lied on applications to move up in the world.  Unethical behavior isn't reserved for corporations. It happens at all levels.

Were the changes in laws not a part of deregulation?.. letting the industry monitor and control itself?  Certainly the law did not tell lenders to act irresponsibly.
 
Quote
BC, you seem real concerned about unethical behavior at the corporate level but trust government. Happy with the government in Italy? Who's fault the country isn't running smooth there? Corruption in government or corruption in business?

Happy?.. well it is at least entertaining from time to time.  I don't have a vote at the national level so ain't a darned thing I can do about it.  The corruption is in both government and business, but the most negative effect is that of business and the shadow economy.  There is a real crackdown going on though to push things along in a more official way.

As far as EU governments go, Germany is probably the clearest system to work with.  There is little doubt there as to what is right and wrong along with effective enforcement to keep the playing field as level as possible which promotes fair competition.
 

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 19, 2012, 02:23:11 AM

It is tweet, not twat, just thought I would let you know, just in case you are confused by the difference between the two.   :) 
Oh, I have no doubt their is disinformation on twitter, but also some truth.   

It is there, not their, just thought I would let you know, just in case you are confused by the difference between the two.   :) 

Quote
Also to label twitter with the republican rhetoric of mainstream media (we all know how the republicans think the mainstream media is out to get them), I find kind of hilarious.

label twitter? republican rhetoric? Out to get them? Is that an attempt to deflect? Geeze dude, a clock that's broken is still right twice a day, is that a clock you would use to keep time? It's comforting to know "a man like you" can find so much humor in the bombing of embassies and the killing of Americans while your President's handlers entertain you on twitter. More kool-aid?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on September 19, 2012, 03:32:10 AM
Just curious do you put disable people including children also in to the category of leeching scumbags?
Olga, are you asking about people on disability or the roughtly 1/3 or those who are disabled?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: oldernotwiser on September 19, 2012, 04:32:00 AM
It is there, not their, just thought I would let you know, just in case you are confused by the difference between the two.   :) 

label twitter? republican rhetoric? Out to get them? Is that an attempt to deflect? Geeze dude, a clock that's broken is still right twice a day, is that a clock you would use to keep time? It's comforting to know "a man like you" can find so much humor in the bombing of embassies and the killing of Americans while your President's handlers entertain you on twitter. More kool-aid?


Listen, I will make this as clear as I can.  What I found some humor in, was the online roasting of the presidential candidate Mitt Romney on twitter, some tweets are not that funny, some people are just upset, feel Romney is showing his true colors.  You feel it is a story that is being over covered, many people find the story of interest, that is why it is trending on twitter.  I do not find the bombing of embassies funny at all, not sure how you made that stretch, guess you are out to insult me personally for some reason.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Mod2 on September 19, 2012, 05:07:19 AM
Just a reminder:


As November nears, it is expected that the attention to this thread will increase.


Please refer to my previous post Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him? (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=14359.msg309739#msg309739)


This thread has been allowed to exist as an exception and with conditions.


Please keep discourse civil and without insult.


Thanks.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 19, 2012, 05:13:24 AM
There are way too many people who can help themselves but don't have the ambition or desire and prefer to sit around drinking beer, getting high and living off those who do work.


Didn't the governor in Florida institute an expensive drug testing program with his his wife's company being hired to do the testing of people in the state receiving social assistance aka welfare and only 2% did not pass... If anything, the results indicated that they had were less likely to be sitting around getting high than the general population  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 19, 2012, 07:17:35 AM
...Just did a low income town home project last year. Some of the employees noticed the tenents moving in on taxpayers dollars owned big screen tv's and drove BMWs, Mercedes, and Lexus.

Did a few condos way back but in meeting with our insurance carrier we decided to bow out of that market. Too high a risk and with relatively lower rewards. Apartments are a different story..and high density buildings had 'boomed' since the foreclosure era began. Residential market is dead on the water for us at this time. That market used to generate 70% of our/everyone's annual revenue so you can imagine wiping that completely off the table how it impacts our industry down here.

I'm still a bit quizzed on the whole Section 8 silliness. Not quite sure how they determine the districts, percentages of unit delegations, etc...prior to purchasing our home, wifey and I lived inside a nice apartment complex where many would likely deem as a bit 'pricey'. I thought all things considered, amenities, proximity to her school and my work, accessibility, the quality of life, etc...that it was well-suited for us to live in for now. Then, our next door neighbor moved in...There would always be a couple of heavily-tattoed cholos, with no shirt, goatees sitting/squatting smoking cigarettes and talking loud all hours of the freakin' day.  Then if that's not enough, they'll pull in their juiced up cars and play their music loud enough walls vibrate every time the bass hit their beat. I've repeatedly asked these dudes to chill in addition to filing complaints to the admin and complex security...but that hardly stopped them. Section 8 special, man. I will admit there was one guy who seemed decent enough who looked as though he had a job, but the others....well..

There must've been at least 8-9 folks in that 2-BR apartment. The women are all overweight including the two girls.

Sure enough, less than 3 months later, cops - helicopters, etc...were all over that unit one early morning. One neighbor told me it was drug related but I didn't care, we were just glad they were out of there...there are many others.

You gotta know folks like these will be crowding the polls come November. I didn't realize the Housing voucher maxed out at $2,200.00/month ~ dang!

Go Obama! Wholly central dependents like those guys will soon make each of us just like Europeans! Expect the government for everything and demand less working hours. Yipee!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 19, 2012, 07:33:05 AM
There must've been at least 8-9 folks in that 2-BR apartment. The women are all overweight including the two girls.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-09-13/news/fl-high-hud-rentals-20120907_1_judith-aigen-white-neighbors-neighborhoods (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-09-13/news/fl-high-hud-rentals-20120907_1_judith-aigen-white-neighbors-neighborhoods)
 
More than 20 poor folks living in one nice "gated community" home (with a private pool of course).
 
Their nice taxpaying neighbors are loving it.  :rolleyes:

The neighbors can't seem to wait for more of the cockroaches poor folks to move in.  :welcome: 
Only in the GoodOl' USA!
 
GOB

Also:  http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-hudphot02,0,5887413.photo

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-09-13/news/fl-high-hud-rentals-20120907_1_judith-aigen-white-neighbors-neighborhoods/2
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 19, 2012, 07:34:40 AM

Listen, I will make this as clear as I can.  What I found some humor in, was the online roasting of the presidential candidate Mitt Romney on twitter, some tweets are not that funny, some people are just upset, feel Romney is showing his true colors.  You feel it is a story that is being over covered, many people find the story of interest, that is why it is trending on twitter.  I do not find the bombing of embassies funny at all, not sure how you made that stretch, guess you are out to insult me personally for some reason.

No, I feel it is a story not meant for news, just solely to soil the republican candidate that has no place at all in the current news cycle. We have Americans dying and embassies being fire bombed and defaced. We have a president with a propaganda machine generating tweets to twits to cover for his ineptitude in hopes of winning another election all else be dammed and lapdogs getting as much of it just as fast as they can. If you are perpetuating it, you are the problem. If you were insulted from my statement, the shoe must fit. More kool-aid?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 19, 2012, 08:08:39 AM
Around 15 % of the population of most industrialized nations are considered 'poor'.. this counts for the USA as well.  The overall figures are pretty steady across decades.  In absolute numbers, sure the numbers have risen but so has the population.

It will never go down to zero, so accept the baseline for being what it is.  It is not an exception.

But yes, these citizens are a part of the democratic process and have equal power to vote.  If a political party wants to embrace them, fine.. If a party wants to ignore them also fine.  Romney could have done better, much better even with 'off the cuff' talk among his 'friends'.

Quibbling over nothing is neither productive nor does it help resolve anything.  Poverty is simply is what it is for a number of factors.

I do hope though that healthcare coverage will help reduce the number of medical bankruptcies that may force some rather normal folks into poverty and hardship.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 19, 2012, 09:55:23 AM
more of the cockroaches poor folks to move in. 


Sorry GOB, but equating the poor with cockroaches even in jest is a bit much IMHO. When I see a poor homeless person, I don't think less-than-human, but rather there but for the grace of God go I. The worst excesses and depravities of humanity have been justified when fellow humans were portrayed as "insects" or less than human.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 19, 2012, 10:11:36 AM
Sorry GOB, but equating the poor with cockroaches even in jest is a bit much IMHO.

I was actually referring to the "other" well known inhabitants of Section 8 houses:
 
The woman renting the house told police she had 12 children and also grandchildren in the home......."The house is dirty and the carpets are extremely nasty," a Broward Sheriff's Office report states. "There is hardly any food in the fridge … Out of the seven bedrooms only four of them have mattresses in them. Some children sleep on the couches in the living room and some sleep with their older siblings in the same bed.".......... Inspection records show the kitchen sink fell through the countertop, the home became infested with roaches, and the carpets needed cleaning. The tenant moved out.
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 19, 2012, 10:17:32 AM
...
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-09-13/news/fl-high-hud-rentals-20120907_1_judith-aigen-white-neighbors-neighborhoods/2 (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-09-13/news/fl-high-hud-rentals-20120907_1_judith-aigen-white-neighbors-neighborhoods/2)

Unbelievable! In the article...

Quote
..The woman renting the house told police she had 12 children and also grandchildren in the home....

What's the cost of food voucher per child? $2-300 bucks? Multiplied by 12? Then...

Quote
...In Miramar, the government is paying Christian Mateo $2,250 a month to accommodate a family of eight living in his five-bedroom home with pool. The family pays nothing....

...and these guys don't pay taxes and will likely get tax refunds under the EIC....

These are the poor folks of America! Yipee! Go Obama!...and they don't even have to speak English!

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 19, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
...and they don't even have to speak English!

Si Senor!  :rolleyes:
 
GOB

PS.... The final insult to the neighborhood homeowners GQ: Property values goes down, the crime rate goes up, blah, blah, blah.

Like I said, "Only in America!"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 19, 2012, 11:02:30 AM
...
PS.... The final insult to the neighborhood homeowners GQ: Property values goes down, the crime rate goes up, blah, blah, blah....

Nope. It doesn't stop there GOB. When that happens, the city gets strapped for cash/revenue, which affects the public sector union, then they go on strike and next thing you know - the city/county/state goes broke and bankrupt! etcetera - que sera!

Yipee! Go Obama..Hooray for the 47%
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 19, 2012, 12:05:22 PM
....... the city gets strapped for cash/revenue, which affects the public sector union, then they go on strike and next thing you know - the city/county/state goes broke and bankrupt!.....

Is this the point in the bedtime story when a daring and brave man :rolleyes: comes along offering "hope-n-change" and becomes President of the GoodOl' USA?
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 19, 2012, 12:20:01 PM
BTW.... GOB and his wife will be carrying on the way to cast their vote November 6th.
 
Just in case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
 

 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Misha on September 19, 2012, 12:27:30 PM

I was actually referring to the "other" well known inhabitants of Section 8 houses:


...



In that case you were missing an "and" as it should have been "cockroaches and poor folks" though one could argue as to whether all poor folks are associated with cockroach infestations  :-X
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 19, 2012, 12:36:21 PM
No, I feel it is a story not meant for news, just solely to soil the republican candidate that has no place at all in the current news cycle. We have Americans dying and embassies being fire bombed and defaced. We have a president with a propaganda machine generating tweets to twits to cover for his ineptitude in hopes of winning another election all else be dammed and lapdogs getting as much of it just as fast as they can. If you are perpetuating it, you are the problem. If you were insulted from my statement, the shoe must fit. More kool-aid?

 Not only are we being kept in the dark about what really happened to the warning received by the state department about the planned attack against the consulate office, we now apparently are being told that Eric Holder, and everyone else in this administration, is absolved of ANY knowledge to the stalled case of ‘Fast & Furious’ that ultimately ended in the death of a border patrol guard.
 
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/19/13966068-investigation-finds-no-evidence-ag-eric-holder-knew-of-fast-and-furious-gun-running-sting?lite&ocid=msnhp (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/19/13966068-investigation-finds-no-evidence-ag-eric-holder-knew-of-fast-and-furious-gun-running-sting?lite&ocid=msnhp)
 
Who the heck ordered this covert operation then? George Bush?
 
Moreover, the result of Ted Stevens case, the late Alaskan Senator who was unjustly ‘framed’ by the judicial prosecutors back in 2008 removing him from the senatorial balloting during the election thereby eliminating any chance of a filibuster in the Senate (Stevens would have represented that ‘lone’ Republican to offset the majority Senate seating); found the prosecuting team who withheld evidence to prove Stevens’ innocence are absolved of obstruction of justice and perjury or any other 'criminal misconduct. The plan was executed without any legal consequences for the frame-up and the Democrats got their majority seats on both houses.
 
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/systematic-concealment-of-key-evidence-in-ted-stevens-investigation-report/2012/03/15/gIQAZy83DS_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/systematic-concealment-of-key-evidence-in-ted-stevens-investigation-report/2012/03/15/gIQAZy83DS_blog.html)
 
…if these aren’t enough….there’s still no word on why there’s a Congressional block and stalling to the investigation of a white house leak of sensitive security information to the media..
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/national-security-leaks-lead-to-fbi-hunt-and-news-chill.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/national-security-leaks-lead-to-fbi-hunt-and-news-chill.html?pagewanted=all)


Yipee! Go Obama!

 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: oldernotwiser on September 19, 2012, 03:45:58 PM
No, I feel it is a story not meant for news, just solely to soil the republican candidate that has no place at all in the current news cycle. We have Americans dying and embassies being fire bombed and defaced. We have a president with a propaganda machine generating tweets to twits to cover for his ineptitude in hopes of winning another election all else be dammed and lapdogs getting as much of it just as fast as they can. If you are perpetuating it, you are the problem. If you were insulted from my statement, the shoe must fit. More kool-aid?


It is to bad then you don't control the media.  Perhaps then you could determine what stories are news.  You could also then practice this technique of attempting to smear both the messenger and the vehicle used to present the message when any message was out there that you did not agree with. 


Right now I don't believe Romney can defeat Obama, can he make a comeback, maybe.  To me, he is just the wrong candidate for the republican party.  An issue that could favor the Republican party is Tax reform, however Romney will have difficulty selling that, he won't show his taxes. 


Foreign Policy, he hardly mentioned anything at the convention.  The few times he has done anything dealing with foreign policy he has stuck his foot in his mouth.


Balancing the budget, fiscal restraint, could be another Republican area of strength.  What is the plan, he sure isn't going to cut defense, he isn't going to raise revenue in taxes, he wants to decrease that.  The math doesn't work, there is only so much he can cut from the remaining programs.


He has little if any chance of winning, I could be wrong, but that is my feeling at this time.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 19, 2012, 04:14:42 PM
Right now I don't believe Romney can defeat Obama, can he make a comeback, maybe.
 
I happen to agree with you ONW.
There are to many people on the dole who don't want to give up all of their "freebies".
 
To me, he is just the wrong candidate for the republican party. 

Again, I agree with you.
The Republicans should have never nominated a Mormon.
On the other hand, African Americans have no problems with a Muslim (Obama) in the White House.
After all, they loved Muhammad Ali, correct?
 
My wife is very disappointed in the choices for president.
To bad since this is the first presidential election she can legally vote in.  :rolleyes:
 
She came from a collapsed country where all the stuff was free and she knows how that worked out for the U.S.S.R.  :rolleyes:
So Obama is definitely off her Christmas list.
 
Romney..... she doesn't trust him either.
 
I asked Marina who she would like to vote for.
Strangely, she said Ronald Reagan?!?!
 
Of course she knows he is dead, but she says that he was a strong leader (real man) and she still respects him.
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 19, 2012, 04:50:08 PM
...
Right now I don't believe Romney can defeat Obama, can he make a comeback, maybe.  To me, he is just the wrong candidate for the republican party.  An issue that could favor the Republican party is Tax reform, however Romney will have difficulty selling that, he won't show his taxes.

Like GOB, I agree on all counts. Especially GOB's assertion, which i mentioned in this thread over a month ago that there's just too many Peggy Josephs, Henrietta Hughes, and Senor/Senora El Libre Dinero. Me vote for Ubama.


Quote
Foreign Policy, he hardly mentioned anything at the convention.  The few times he has done anything dealing with foreign policy he has stuck his foot in his mouth.

In light of his recent knee jerk reaction, despite the state department echoing his sentiment, in this latest event, he doesn't seem too comfortable dealing with this type of crisis.

Quote
Balancing the budget, fiscal restraint, could be another Republican area of strength.  What is the plan, he sure isn't going to cut defense, he isn't going to raise revenue in taxes, he wants to decrease that.  The math doesn't work,..

Agree.

Quote
...there is only so much he can cut from the remaining programs.

Disagree. He can certainly cut a huge slot from the welfare system by reforming it in the manner Clinton did. Take away ALL entitlements for illegal immigrants, severely punish all employers who employ and/or hire illegal aliens (except owners of Spearmint Rhinos and the like - who employ a huge number of young and pretty devushkayas Russian students), and abolish the public sector Union and quit financing private sector union's benefit and pension plans...but we all know there's a better chance of Jesus descending down from the heavens before any of those ever happens.


Quote
...He has little if any chance of winning, I could be wrong, but that is my feeling at this time.
Yes. 2 chances. Slim and none. Leaning more on the latter.


...My wife is very disappointed in the choices for president. To bad since this is the first presidential election she can legally vote in...

Same here GOB. My wife have seen and strongly object to the way and manner so many of our freeloaders residents and citizens alike take advantage of the systemas much as they can then have the audacity to demand even more -AND- to add insult to injury, wave their country's silly flag (other than the one that's actually *caring* for them) every chance they get.

Yipee! Go Obama! 4 more years! heck...make that forever please!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 19, 2012, 04:54:44 PM

It is to bad then you don't control the media.  Perhaps then you could determine what stories are news.  You could also then practice this technique of attempting to smear both the messenger and the vehicle used to present the message when any message was out there that you did not agree with. 


Right now I don't believe Romney can defeat Obama, can he make a comeback, maybe.  To me, he is just the wrong candidate for the republican party.  An issue that could favor the Republican party is Tax reform, however Romney will have difficulty selling that, he won't show his taxes. 


Foreign Policy, he hardly mentioned anything at the convention.  The few times he has done anything dealing with foreign policy he has stuck his foot in his mouth.


Balancing the budget, fiscal restraint, could be another Republican area of strength.  What is the plan, he sure isn't going to cut defense, he isn't going to raise revenue in taxes, he wants to decrease that.  The math doesn't work, there is only so much he can cut from the remaining programs.


He has little if any chance of winning, I could be wrong, but that is my feeling at this time.

More deflection and red herring. My post and your response to that post has nothing to do with who's qualified to be president and whom can defeat whom or why. I personally don't give one rats fat ass who you vote for president. I am not a Romney supporter although I will vote for Romney in an attempt to keep the current idiot from further occupying the office of president. I don't care what you think of Romney or Obama. Are we clear on that?

If you wish to continue this discourse please, bring something of substance and intelligent to the discussion rather than building a strawman for you to attack? Look back, my point is to do with the attacks on our embassy and the murder of our citizens. It is about our president's complete dismissal of these attacks and his apologies to the murderers. You do realize attacking our embassy and murdering our Ambassador, soldiers and citizens is attacking our country? Furthermore, where we are to date in this situation. Our president and his election machine rather than taking swift action on the murderers, saving our embassies and saving more American lives is choosing to point fingers at his opponent in the up coming election to hide and disguise his own ineptness and complete and total failure as president with disinformation and bright shiny things for his sheeple to follow.

Then there is you, who chooses to repeat that disinformation while apparently, totally oblivious as to why it is there. Your lack of concern for the real issue and your vigor to denigrate the republican because Obama's disinformation machine has made it fashionable to do so on twitter should be all the reason you need to stop and check yourself as an American. Mark my words, this latest Arab/muslim/jihadist uprising is just beginning and many more Americans will die as a result. Largely, due to the fact that Obama has no interest in being president as he does being a candidate.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 19, 2012, 05:08:43 PM
More deflection and red herring. My post and your response to that post has nothing to do with who's qualified to be president and whom can defeat whom or why. I personally don't give one rats fat ass who you vote for president. I am not a Romney supporter although I will vote for Romney in an attempt to keep the current idiot from further occupying the office of president. I don't care what you think of Romney or Obama. Are we clear on that?

If you wish to continue this discourse please, bring something of substance and intelligent to the discussion rather than building a strawman for you to attack? Look back, my point is to do with the attacks on our embassy and the murder of our citizens. It is about our president's complete dismissal of these attacks and his apologies to the murderers. You do realize attacking our embassy and murdering our Ambassador, soldiers and citizens is attacking our country? Furthermore, where we are to date in this situation. Our president and his election machine rather than taking swift action on the murderers, saving our embassies and saving more American lives is choosing to point fingers at his opponent in the up coming election to hide and disguise his own ineptness and complete and total failure as president with disinformation and bright shiny things for his sheeple to follow.

Then there is you, who chooses to repeat that disinformation while apparently, totally oblivious as to why it is there. Your lack of concern for the real issue and your vigor to denigrate the republican because Obama's disinformation machine has made it fashionable to do so on twitter should be all the reason you need to stop and check yourself as an American. Mark my words, this latest Arab/muslim/jihadist uprising is just beginning and many more Americans will die as a result. Largely, due to the fact that Obama has no interest in being president as he does being a candidate.

Great post, FP! I strongly share your conviction. I, too will still make it to the poll along with wifey - still hopeful. BUT, as I've said before - too much Kool-aid flowing. The media machine had been churning and the Jonestown sheeples are all falling right in line..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 19, 2012, 05:35:30 PM
I sent my wife's voter application to supervisor of elections on Monday. She will be voting this time. A thought of what this country is going to look like in a couple of years if BHO wins really is depressing.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 19, 2012, 06:12:11 PM

Read it any way you want.  Bottom line is that many of those that participated could not find or were not interested in replacement cars made in USA that qualified.  Why is that? 
 The 'boost' was across the board so Obama's intent was fulfilled.  Hopefully it was a shot across the bow for US companies to think more about cars people do want to buy and can afford.

You seem happy with Obama's program and think Americans don't want American cars. If Obama did things the Japanese way to boost economy within, I would be saying American's don't want Japanese cars.
http://economyincrisis.org/content/japans-cash-clunkers-program-excludes-us-cars (http://economyincrisis.org/content/japans-cash-clunkers-program-excludes-us-cars)
 
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/business/la-fi-china-solar-dumping-20120518 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/business/la-fi-china-solar-dumping-20120518)


You are satisfied with the action Obama has taken? It's too little, too late. End result is Obama couldn't save American businesses and wasted tax payers money on companies that produced product that people didn't buy.
 
The bold emphasis was to bring to your attention that raising the percentage was in Bush's term so you can wag your finger accordingly and not just one party.  Other than that referring you to a decent compilation of events and environment that produced the crisis.
 

BC, the program was started in Clinton's term. The program continued to raise it's target of getting poor into homes in Bush's term. The way it was done alarmed Bush and he called for an investigation yet you keep implying he was in on this self destructing program. He's for the poor moving up in the world and getting into homes. Isn't everybody? Only the means and methods to do so should be in question and Bush did not agree with Clinton's program so he called for an investigation and was met with a lot of resistance.
 
Were the changes in laws not a part of deregulation?.. letting the industry monitor and control itself?  Certainly the law did not tell lenders to act irresponsibly.
 

Laws tell no one to act irresponsibly but laws can be created to where it's easily abused to achieve the desired affect.  Think about it. How do you get the poor to buy houses when they make little money or have no job? The only way to achieve the target of getting a large percentage of poor into homes is to allow them to lie on applications or have the lenders educate and encourage them to lie. HUD has a target and tells the lenders to meet that target. They can figure it out how to do it.
 
Their sentiments will be shown at the polls.  That should settle your doubts.
 

Obama has a good chance at winning. If Obama could run for a 3rd term, he would have a good chance at winning again even with an economy that's struggling. Many who voted for Obama 4 years ago pointed to the economy as the reason Obama should be elected. I doubt they believe or even care about Obama's economic policies because it's evident that he can be elected in a bad economy with high unemployment. Even you seem satisfied and happy with what Obama has done for the economy. Japan has a superior cash for clunkers program to improve their economy and we have a President that can't do better. Think about it. We can do better.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 19, 2012, 06:34:08 PM
...
BC, the program was started in Clinton's term. The program continued to raise it's target of getting poor into homes in Bush's term. The way it was done alarmed Bush and he called for an investigation yet you keep implying he was in on this self destructing program. He's for the poor moving up in the world and getting into homes. Isn't everybody? Only the means and methods to do so should be in question and Bush did not agree with Clinton's program so he called for an investigation and was met with a lot of resistance. ..

LOL BillyB, you're wasting your time. despite the realistic, factual information like this:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html)

Over the   past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the   systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful   plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter   such difficulties.  In fact, it was Congress that flatly   rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of   these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who   emphatically denied there were problems with the   GSEs.
2001
  2002
  2003
  2004
  2005
  2007
  2008
 ...the Kool-Aid effect is just too darn potent, man. It's frustrating to no end, which is why methinks BC's US-based relatives are Union members, man. LOL...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 19, 2012, 06:45:57 PM
Again, one 'lone' article from the NYT back in September 11, 2002 about the subject...

http://www.google.com/search?q=NYT+spet+11%2C+2002+bush+regulation+fannie+freddie+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=NYT+spet+11%2C+2002+bush+regulation+fannie+freddie+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Quote
....The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates......
.....

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

 :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 19, 2012, 07:04:16 PM
...but we all know there's a better chance of Jesus descending down from the heavens before any of those ever happens.



True... but maybe a little Quantitative Loaving would increase his odds!  It'll take some kind of miracle.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 19, 2012, 07:09:06 PM
 
It's easier to blame Bush then, now and even in the future. Future Presidents will not be held accountable for their own policies.
 
Poor Bush. He inherited a bad economy from Clinton, he was not responsible for 9/11 and he was not responsible for the housing market collapse and the economy that came with those events yet many people blame him. Kind of makes you wonder what's going on in the head of the average voter. Every empire will decline. Is it America's time?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 19, 2012, 07:45:15 PM
LOL BillyB, you're wasting your time. despite the realistic, factual information like this:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html)

Over the   past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the   systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful   plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter   such difficulties.  In fact, it was Congress that flatly   rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of   these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who   emphatically denied there were problems with the   GSEs.
2001
 
  • April: The   Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem,"   because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in   financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."    (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
 
  • May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles   contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply   to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt   Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
 
  • February: The Office of Federal Housing   Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that   unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. 
  • September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies   before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact   "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the   financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises"   and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy   requirements.
  • September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking   Member Barney Frank   (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment,   saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more   pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of   affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New   Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New   York Times, 9/11/03)   
  • October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to   acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix   it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of   Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,   10/16/03)
  • November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that   any "legislation to reform GSE   regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and   credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based   and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down   the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank   Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
 
  • February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by   the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and   calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has   determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack   sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
  • February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress   to "not take [the   financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."    (N. Gregory   Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
  • April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing   the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the   Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their   mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on   receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."    ("Frank: GSE   Failure A Phony Issue," American   Banker, 4/21/04)
  • June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a   world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored   enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system   that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term   vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new,   first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae,   Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel   Bodman, House Financial Services   Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony,   6/16/04)
2005
 
  • April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this   Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs   and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing   finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding   homeownership opportunities in America …   Half-measures will only   exacerbate the risks to our financial system."    (Secretary   John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services   Committee," 4/13/05)
  • July:   Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass   legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm   our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New   Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press   International, 7/28/05)
2007
 
  • August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first   things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get   them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider   other options."  (President George W. Bush,   Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
  • August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs   Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls   on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.    (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York   Times, 8/11/07)
  • December: President Bush again warns Congress of the   need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide   liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is   vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to   pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and   ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill   passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."    (President George W. Bush,   Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008
 
  • February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the   housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their   public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And   Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
  • March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with   reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the   FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to   homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President   George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New   York, NY, 3/14/08)
  • April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the   much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are]   constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to   correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush,   Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
  • May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the   situation deteriorates further. 
    • "Americans are concerned about making their   mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass   legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie   Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow   state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime   loans."  (President George W. Bush,   Radio Address, 5/3/08)
    • "[T]he government ought to be helping   creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and   Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie   Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."    (President George W. Bush,   Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House,   5/19/08)
    • "Congress needs to pass legislation to   modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac   to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush,   Radio Address, 5/31/08)
  • June: As foreclosure   rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to   take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass   legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush,   Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
  • July: Congress heeds   the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and   Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are   failing.
  • September: Democrats in   Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we   doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant   steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about   where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
...the Kool-Aid effect is just too darn potent, man. It's frustrating to no end, which is why methinks BC's US-based relatives are Union members, man. LOL...
this proves it, it's all Bush's fault! (too bad they don't have a crying smiley). An average American wll not go through all these facts and will be guided by short tweets and sloagans like "Forward!". We are probably fuc#ed  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: I/O on September 19, 2012, 11:51:42 PM
A blackfella or a Mormon? No brainer really - he's the most feeble thing USA's produced since Jimmy Carter but the blackfella's a shew in, the Mormon's hopeless.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 12:31:07 AM
this proves it, it's all Bush's fault! (too bad they don't have a crying smiley). An average American wll not go through all these facts and will be guided by short tweets and sloagans like "Forward!". We are probably fuc#ed  :rolleyes:

Eduard,

what you and others fail to recognize is that the coin of critique has two sides.

Obama is critiqued that the economy has not yet fully recovered in his first term.

'Heads' say that the 'buck stops here' therefore Obama has failed in his first term. 
Tails says that Congress is at fault for not passing legislation he desired to help boost the economy.

Bush and others obviously knew and warned of the potential problem felt to have been a part of the resulting crisis.   

'Heads' say Congress is at fault not listening to warnings and doing something to prevent the crash.
'Tails'  say that the 'buck stops here'  therefore Bush failed to prevent the financial crash in his two terms.

See the similarities in discourse? - and how deceiving and destructive it is to simply pick a side after the coin has been tossed instead of accepting the value of the whole coin regardless how it lands after being tossed?

Way up thread, I pointed out that the only true power a President has is to suggest legislation and use his veto.. a thumbs up or thumbs down.  IIRC Gator suggested upthread that Obama's failure is that he cannot work with Congress..  But is it not Bush's fault he could not do the same to help prevent or at least limit the damage in the first place?

The political system in the US has reached equilibrium, only a few percent of the population actually decide an election and a simple vote in Congress dictates most laws.  This process leaves intense dissatisfaction of a great number of people regardless what the President or Congress does.

I'd much rather see discourse here turn towards finding a solution to the fundamental problem that plagues Government.  Any takers?







Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Mod2 on September 20, 2012, 12:51:59 AM
A blackfella or a Mormon? No brainer really - he's the most feeble thing USA's produced since Jimmy Carter but the blackfella's a shew in, the Mormon's hopeless.


This thread is about a political process.  Adding Race and Religion to the already volatile mix is not acceptable.  This post will be left as an example, the 'line in the sand'.  Future posts even remotely nearing this line will be deleted without warning.  Before reaching or crossing the line results in warnings or other actions that would affect posting privileges in other areas of the board consistent with the purpose of RWD, this thread will be closed.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 02:41:19 AM
LOL BillyB, you're wasting your time. despite the realistic, factual information like this:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html)


Is interesting:

Quote
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by   the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and   calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has   determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack   sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

Isn't new regulation against the mantra of the GOP?  Is this not 'bigger government'? or 'more regulation' ?  Did the Bush's party not have the majority in both House and Senate at that time?  Where did the ball get dropped?

I dunno.... I think my wife would make a great Republican.  When all avenues of discourse fail, her standard answer is 'That does not account [sic]'  we both chuckle about those words.

I used to hate history, but as I age I learn to appreciate it much more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14A1zxaHpD8
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 20, 2012, 07:14:26 AM
Is interesting:...

Isn't new regulation against the mantra of the GOP?  Is this not 'bigger government'? or 'more regulation' ?....

BC-

The proposed regulation of FM/FM was for the most part give oversight responsibilities other than the Democrat-controlled body - Frank Barney's bandits...then as the years went on, ensuing proposal/request from the WH was to conduct investigations, etc...because leading indicators were suggesting real bad trouble brewing. The yearly (monthly) info was posted for consumption and you should really take the time and read it so all this silly Kool-Aid silliness about the financial collapse being *Bush's fault* can be put to rest already, OK?

Admit it. Objective guy that you are, you were dupe to believing it was Bush's fault because until now you didn't know better. This is one of those critical moment one finds themselves faced with the truth and had to decide what's the right thing to do.


Quote
..  Did the Bush's party not have the majority in both House and Senate at that time?  Where did the ball get dropped?...

You should really stop deflecting the issue, even if he did, doesn't negate the fact BUSH more than once, every year, sounded the alarm about trouble looming ahead DESPITE all the other events taking place DURING his 8 years tenure (You know what they are as they weren't too long ago) so blaming BUSH for the financial collapse is simply ridiculous.

But, FWIW, IINM/IMMSMC/IIRC....

110th Congress was largely Democratic. So need to go there...

The 109th Congress had the minority number momentarily when the first inauguration was held because Cheney took over Gore was a deciding vote in the Senate. But by May 2001, a Senator from back east changed party, from Rep. to Independent but sleeps with the Democrats and thereby giving the Dems the majority. The Tom, the Barrel Skimmer, Daschle became the minority leader until that year's election (2002), which gave the majority back to the Republicans but Independent's caucused with the Dems literally making filibuster moves a constant reality.

I didn't do too much recall nor did any intense Googling so I may stand to be corrected. The floor is open for contention.

Quote
...I dunno.... I think my wife would make a great Republican.  When all avenues of discourse fail, her standard answer is 'That does not account [sic]'  we both chuckle about those words....

Your wifey sound as if she's a very smart woman if you believe she'd make a great Republican. You're a very lucky man.

Quote
...I used to hate history, but as I age I learn to appreciate it much more....

Don't have time to watch the vid...but if what Roosevelt said 70 years ago still applies to your present day political opinion, then please read the following as well..

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions)


....George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good. Union contracts make it next to impossible to reward excellent teachers or fire failing ones.

Union contracts give government employees gold-plated benefits – at the cost of higher taxes and less spending on other priorities. The alternative to Walker's budget was kicking 200,000 children off Medicaid....



In light of the recent events in our political landscape and social events, it sounds as though you were fairly selective in your choices for appreciation. Why did I say that? Well, because ironically enough it was John F Kennedy who actually accepted and introduced public sector union into our lives despite the warnings laid out by FDR - both characters you've showcased in your post above.

Ironic, isn't it?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 07:23:16 AM

You seem happy with Obama's program and think Americans don't want American cars. If Obama did things the Japanese way to boost economy within, I would be saying American's don't want Japanese cars.
http://economyincrisis.org/content/japans-cash-clunkers-program-excludes-us-cars (http://economyincrisis.org/content/japans-cash-clunkers-program-excludes-us-cars)

Not quite what I said (again)..   I said "many of those that participated could not find or were not interested in replacement cars made in USA that qualified.  Why is that? "   Maybe it would be helpful answering that question first.

Quote
 
You are satisfied with the action Obama has taken? It's too little, too late. End result is Obama couldn't save American businesses and wasted tax payers money on companies that produced product that people didn't buy.

There was one fallacy with government subsidizing solar panel installations.  The demand exceeded domestic capacity in almost all markets, both in the US and overseas.  China was quickly able to fill that gap with huge production facilities.  It was thought that domestic production would also rise, and it did.  When subsidies dropped, also due to the financial crisis, so did the prices of panels made in China. Both Governments AND Business were caught with their pants down.
 
Quote
BC, the program was started in Clinton's term. The program continued to raise it's target of getting poor into homes in Bush's term. The way it was done alarmed Bush and he called for an investigation yet you keep implying he was in on this self destructing program. He's for the poor moving up in the world and getting into homes. Isn't everybody? Only the means and methods to do so should be in question and Bush did not agree with Clinton's program so he called for an investigation and was met with a lot of resistance.

"Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Freddie Mac "was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with other GSEs, Freddie Mac buys mortgages on the secondary market, pools them, and sells them as a mortgage-backed security to investors on the open market." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac

Clinton served as President from January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001

He did later express some thoughts:

Quote
Clinton said he has two regrets: First, not pursuing more aggressively an aborted attempt to provide stricter oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to Clinton, the move was stymied by Democratic and Republican members of Congress and by mayors, who saw the lending giants as "the New Jerusalem" and "pure" because of their role in increasing home-ownership to historic levels. But "it just didn't feel good," Clinton said of Fannie and Freddie's outsized political influence.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/bill-clinton-re.html

See my prior post on this topic.  One cannot point a finger in any one direction.
 
Quote
Laws tell no one to act irresponsibly but laws can be created to where it's easily abused to achieve the desired affect.  Think about it. How do you get the poor to buy houses when they make little money or have no job? The only way to achieve the target of getting a large percentage of poor into homes is to allow them to lie on applications or have the lenders educate and encourage them to lie. HUD has a target and tells the lenders to meet that target. They can figure it out how to do it.

Both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were serving the secondary market.. They did not have customers in front of them.  Yes it seems that they did slack up on their processes enough to catch the eye of both Clinton and Bush and Congress.  Who though approved loans that were later sold to these GSE's?  Therein lies the problem.. Can industry be relied upon to deal fairly without regulation?

Quote
 
Obama has a good chance at winning. If Obama could run for a 3rd term, he would have a good chance at winning again even with an economy that's struggling. Many who voted for Obama 4 years ago pointed to the economy as the reason Obama should be elected. I doubt they believe or even care about Obama's economic policies because it's evident that he can be elected in a bad economy with high unemployment. Even you seem satisfied and happy with what Obama has done for the economy. Japan has a superior cash for clunkers program to improve their economy and we have a President that can't do better. Think about it. We can do better.

Yes, we can.  Start by building newer and better products than the rest of the world does with a proud 'Made entirely in USA' sticker, and not just 'Designed in USA'

Yes, Obama will win and I do hope he can 'Brass up' and really push his agenda.  The second term is unrestricted, even better if Congress follows along. 

Third term?..  Well... no worries, I'm tipping that Michelle will show up on a future ticket.  She may just have what it takes and certainly is smart enough to learn and get even more first hand experience with her husband at the helm for  a full 8 years and surviving well through two campaigns.  Can Obama then be VP?  One thing is sure, the GOP sorely needs to come up with decent competition and modernize, hell totally reconstruct their platform.  I thought they had learned something last time around and would have been better prepared.

I fear in the upcoming debates Obama will cook his goose.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 08:10:17 AM
BC-

The proposed regulation of FM/FM was for the most part give oversight responsibilities other than the Democrat-controlled body - Frank Barney's bandits...then as the years went on, ensuing proposal/request from the WH was to conduct investigations, etc...because leading indicators were suggesting real bad trouble brewing. The yearly (monthly) info was posted for consumption and you should really take the time and read it so all this silly Kool-Aid silliness about the financial collapse being *Bush's fault* can be put to rest already, OK?

GQ,

I sense a lot of negative emotion in your posts.  If you really read and understand I think you will find that many of my last comments address not who is wrong or right, but instead that in such discourse you sometimes can't  have your cake and eat it too..  You critique me for using the same methods of discourse that you and others do?  Economic crashes are much like airplane crashes... multiple systems failing, leading to loss of positive lift..  The only single system that can fail and bring an aircraft down is the pilot and guess what there are two of them so both have to fail.  In Government there are also three pilots.. Executive, Legislative and Judicial to balance things out.  Pointing at pilot error is simply wrong.  Do take some time to digest my posts.. they all lead to systemic failures.  You may not like me to point out some of the components involved, but hey not my problem.

Quote
Admit it. Objective guy that you are, you were dupe to believing it was Bush's fault because until now you didn't know better. This is one of those critical moment one finds themselves faced with the truth and had to decide what's the right thing to do.

Clarified above.  I like many others will vote in good conscience.  Others here have expressed they will vote for one party not out of conviction that their candidate is the best to lead the Nation, but instead because they feel anything has to be better than Obama getting re-elected.  Doing so is well within their rights, just as it is the right of ALL citizens to have an equal vote, but to tell you the truth, in their shoes I could not sleep well after casting my ballot for ideological reasons.  If Obama was a Republican and Romney a Democrat it would not affect my choice at all.  Not one iota.  I'll vote for the best man and not party.

Quote
You should really stop deflecting the issue, even if he did, doesn't negate the fact BUSH more than once, every year, sounded the alarm about trouble looming ahead DESPITE all the other events taking place DURING his 8 years tenure (You know what they are as they weren't too long ago) so blaming BUSH for the financial collapse is simply ridiculous.

See my comments above and upthread.

Quote
But, FWIW, IINM/IMMSMC/IIRC....

I did read the rest of your post and thank you for your input, but think I have said enough for now.. except for one thing..  The unions have a long history and their existence is historically justified.  As long as a worker or employee is not forced to join a union and employment is not based on whether or not a prospective employee has joined a union or not they can do whatever they want to.  Pointing a finger at unions being the root of all evil in the US is wrong.  Surely the USA is better than that.


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 20, 2012, 08:13:04 AM
Quote
Yes, Obama will win and I do hope he can 'Brass up' and really push his agenda.  The second term is unrestricted, even better if Congress follows along.

Third term?..  Well... no worries, I'm tipping that Michelle will show up on a future ticket.  She may just have what it takes and certainly is smart enough to learn and get even more first hand experience with her husband at the helm for  a full 8 years and surviving well through two campaigns.  Can Obama then be VP?  One thing is sure, the GOP sorely needs to come up with decent competition and modernize, hell totally reconstruct their platform.  I thought they had learned something last time around and would have been better prepared

Wow BC. I'm shocked that after the last 3.5 years, anyone can actually think in those terms. Michelle on a future ticket and Barack as VP? Seriously?

Keep in mind, other than Obamacare, none of Obama's 08 campaign promises have come to fruition. Do you remember these?

1 Balance the budget
2 Cut the deficit in half by the end of his term
3 Close Gitmo
4 End the war in Afghanistan and Irag
5 Jump start the economy
6 Improve America's relations overseas

The battle cry was "if we could just get rid of those pesky republicans America will be the land of milk and honey and the world will love us again". How has that worked out so far? Obama had the house and the senate for the first two years of his term. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have gotten OC passed. He could have done any number of those other promises if he chose to. He didn't. If he does win a second term unlikely he will have either the house or the senate. You think he'll be a better president in the second term? Michelle has learned to be president how exactly?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 20, 2012, 08:34:08 AM
Yeah FP..... That one (Michelle) just flew right over my head.  :rolleyes:
 
Maybe BC was referring to Michele Bachmann ?!?!  >:D
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 08:42:35 AM
Wow BC. I'm shocked that after the last 3.5 years, anyone can actually think in those terms. Michelle on a future ticket and Barack as VP? Seriously?

I thought that would raise some eyebrows... LOL.

If the next ticket is Paul / Palin.. I'd be quite serious.  GOP needs to do a lot of work to get some serious candidates going for them.


Quote
Keep in mind, other than Obamacare, none of Obama's 08 campaign promises have come to fruition. Do you remember these?

1 Balance the budget
2 Cut the deficit in half by the end of his term
3 Close Gitmo
4 End the war in Afghanistan and Irag
5 Jump start the economy
6 Improve America's relations overseas

The battle cry was "if we could just get rid of those pesky republicans America will be the land of milk and honey and the world will love us again". How has that worked out so far? Obama had the house and the senate for the first two years of his term. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have gotten OC passed. He could have done any number of those other promises if he chose to. He didn't. If he does win a second term unlikely he will have either the house or the senate. You think he'll be a better president in the second term? Michelle has learned to be president how exactly?

FP,

I am a realist.  He got some things done, has tried hard to get others done.  Overall progress on most points has been made.  No one can really expect wonders and I don't think Obama promised he will get all done in one term.  His compass is pointing in the right direction though and I support that.   If he were a King or Emperor I would agree with you and say he failed miserably, but considering we're talking about the harder road of democracy..... yeah it's all stuff still worth going after.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 08:46:56 AM
Yeah FP..... That one (Michelle) just flew right over my head.  :rolleyes:
 
Maybe BC was referring to Michele Bachmann ?!?!  >:D
 
GOB

Paul Bachmann / Bachmann Paul... yea right that would be another 'sure winner'..  How about Palin / Bachmann  OMG..  I'm ROFL just thinking about it.

GOB,

Who would you propose for 2016 if Romney is considered a 'goner'?....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 20, 2012, 08:55:36 AM
BC

All BO has been is abject failure. He did have an opportunity to actually be a good president and a leader again, he chose not to. Do you have any idea what his "agenda" is? Personally, I haven't a clue. I know what his pro and detractors claim his agenda is but, Obama has yet to reveal what that is. Every one of his policies have been self serving debt repayments to the democratic power base. Most of those have failed miserably. I am very dogmatic on politicians to begin with but I have seen absolutely nothing from Obama but an empty head and a flashy smile. 4 more years of this likely will cripple the nation beyond repair.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 20, 2012, 09:10:13 AM
GOB,

Who would you propose for 2016 if Romney is considered a 'goner'?....

BC 2016 is a long way off, but I kinda' like Marco Rubio.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio)
 
I have actually had the honor of meeting the man twice.
He was giving a speech one of the two times.
Pretty smart dude.
 
GOB

PS... No "silver spoon" in his mouth.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 20, 2012, 09:18:50 AM
Paul Bachmann / Bachmann Paul... yea right that would be another 'sure winner'..  How about Palin / Bachmann  OMG..  I'm ROFL just thinking about it.

GOB,

Who would you propose for 2016 if Romney is considered a 'goner'?....

Now my years with you on these boards have taught me that you are a well read bright individual. A strong believer and purveyor of logic.

With that preface I have only one question. What in your mind, is wrong with either Bachman or Palin on a national ticket? Feel free to compare them to Obama if you wish
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 09:54:22 AM
Now my years with you on these boards have taught me that you are a well read bright individual. A strong believer and purveyor of logic.

With that preface I have only one question. What in your mind, is wrong with either Bachman or Palin on a national ticket? Feel free to compare them to Obama if you wish

Wrong? absolutely nothing.. just thinking about these two very strong minded women stepping all over each other.  It would likely be very entertaining.  I was fairly impressed with Bachmann diring the debates and stated so a while back, maybe on another board.  Their views though seem to be a good bit on the extreme side and doubt full support of even their own party.

GOP needs fresh candidates and not re-runs.

JIMHO
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 20, 2012, 10:33:13 AM
GQ,

I sense a lot of negative emotion in your posts.  If you really read and understand I think you will find that many of my last comments address not who is wrong or right, but instead that in such discourse you sometimes can't  have your cake and eat it too..  You critique me for using the same methods of discourse that you and others do?  Economic crashes are much like airplane crashes... multiple systems failing, leading to loss of positive lift..  The only single system that can fail and bring an aircraft down is the pilot and guess what there are two of them so both have to fail.  In Government there are also three pilots.. Executive, Legislative and Judicial to balance things out.  Pointing at pilot error is simply wrong.  Do take some time to digest my posts.. they all lead to systemic failures.  You may not like me to point out some of the components involved, but hey not my problem.

Negative? Heck, no. More like frustration. Why? Because the fact this country gave the world what we call *superinformation highway*, it is more than obvious its population are too stupid to use it for its purpose to begin with. Fact checking is freely available to anyone/everyone. It's often said that the first step to an alcoholic's progress is admitting he's an alcoholic. Obviously doesn't universally apply to anything else. Indeed, it isn't Obama's re-election that worries me really as I've never been a surrogate to the Republican party. What worries me is the looming reality that the majority of mis-informed and misguided Americans had enveloped this country's once proud legacy.
 
Oh, and the pilot metaphor is a riot, man! LOL. Thanks for the humor. I suppose one can't wrestle with facts - toos 'em speculations and metaphors...I got yah!
 
 ;) [font=][/font]
Quote
[font=]...Clarified above.  I like many others will vote in good conscience.  Others here have expressed they will vote for one party not out of conviction that their candidate is the best to lead the Nation, but instead because they feel anything has to be better than Obama getting re-elected.  Doing so is well within their rights, just as it is the right of ALL citizens to have an equal vote, but to tell you the truth, in their shoes I could not sleep well after casting my ballot for ideological reasons.  If Obama was a Republican and Romney a Democrat it would not affect my choice at all.  Not one iota.  I'll vote for the best man and not party.[/font]

Yeah...considering Obama's 2008 qualifications and his 2012 accomplishments, or lack thereof, it's plain to see you don't always walk your pretty talk.
 
Quote
...I did read the rest of your post and thank you for your input, but think I have said enough for now.. except for one thing..  The unions have a long history and their existence is historically justified.  As long as a worker or employee is not forced to join a union and employment is not based on whether or not a prospective employee has joined a union or not they can do whatever they want to.  Pointing a finger at unions being the root of all evil in the US is wrong.  Surely the USA is better than that.

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm)
 
Like I've said before BC, you've been gone too long...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
I presume you mean new laws are enacted and regulations written.   How did business fail with healthcare such that we needed Obamacare?   Is Dodd-Frank the correct response to the financial crisis?

Gator,

sorry for taking so long to reply in this fast moving thread.

Regarding healthcare, as expressed many times I do believe that universal healthcare should be a given.  I also understand the constraints of the US government interfering in commerce.  Romney/Obamacare after a lot of thought, to me, is good middle ground to start with.  Quite honestly I think that under the circumstances this legislation is well thought out.

How did business fail?.. It failed to recognize that healthcare legislation also levels the playing field.  Indeed there is a cost involved, but what is better, the cost of leveraging good employees with healthcare benefits or instead putting the healthcare burden (and it is significant) on the employee alone?

In my time in countries that offer universal healthcare, as employee AND employer, I have seen first hand that although levies are high, they are also shared between employee and employer.  As employer the number paid was high but I was also pretty much assured that a sick employee would have to report to a doctor in a determined amount of time for a medical certificate stating the length of the illness and sick days involved.  As employee, for a genuine illness I was pretty much assured that a genuine illness would not affect my employment, and even if recovery was lengthy, financial damages to myself or employer was limited.

Obamacare is still a long way from the same, but is a start.. JFK mentioned 30 years behind UK... what does that mean now... almost a century behind EU?

Dodd-Frank....

Here I truly believe that industry took advantage of government guarantees.  It failed to act responsibly as a whole.  The 'aftershock' of reducing regulation if you will...

So yes, looking in the rear view mirror such regulation is necessary.  I wish it was not that way but industry did have a very good chance to show that self regulation works.. but that conflicts with the intent of business itself so am not at all surprised at the results.
 

 
Quote
The current labor initiatives are doing the following according to the US Chamber of Commerce:
 
Source:  http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/us-chamber-highlights-continued-barriers-job-creation-annual-labor-day-briefing (http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/us-chamber-highlights-continued-barriers-job-creation-annual-labor-day-briefing)
 
Next, consider immigration.  Enough already. 
 
As the Chamber wrote, " For those who may doubt the challenges to an employer under this reality, read a few pages of the existing Code of Federal Regulations, or randomly select one of the many court decisions interpreting existing law. Then picture yourself as a small business person or the head of human resources now faced with numerous other changes in a maze of already confusing and daunting compliance obligations."

Republicans want a smaller government.  Democrats want a larger government.   Why is that so?

Smaller, larger.... to me they are both irrelevant.  I want balanced government and that totally depends on whether or not business can act in ethical and responsible manner.

Immigration..... heck... simply open the borders and compete..  So what if south of the borders pays less.. one border less means the workforce will follow success.  Right now immigration from Mexido is negative?  Why argue with that?

Yes, due to geographic circumstances it is hard to compete directly with China... but Mexico and South America?  Allowing those from the south to profit from mowing lawns allows those in the US to achieve higher goals in life.  Is that not proper?... or are you resigning yourself to a position that workers in the south that want 'in' are better than you?

Just points to think about...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 11:33:35 AM

Negative? Heck, no. More like frustration. Why? Because the fact this country gave the world what we call *superinformation highway*, it is more than obvious its population are too stupid to use it for its purpose to begin with. Fact checking is freely available to anyone/everyone. It's often said that the first step to an alcoholic's progress is admitting he's an alcoholic. Obviously doesn't universally apply to anything else. Indeed, it isn't Obama's re-election that worries me really as I've never been a surrogate to the Republican party. What worries me is the looming reality that the majority of mis-informed and misguided Americans had enveloped this country's once proud legacy.

GQ,

I really believe that one of the fundamental problems the US faces is not ignorance... it is geographic isolation.  If the very few US based relatives of mine that were bold enough to book a flight in this direction have done nothing but increased their knowledge of the 'unknown' that is quite fine by me.  Here, it is very much normal.  Italians going to Germany, Germans going to Italy etc etc....  Bottom line, I do not fault those who have not had such opportunities, but only wish there were many, many more from the US that could boldly take a very important step... that of going beyond their own geographic borders.  I do hope the next decade is one of geographic enlightenment.
 
Quote
Oh, and the pilot metaphor is a riot, man! LOL. Thanks for the humor. I suppose one can't wrestle with facts - toos 'em speculations and metaphors...I got yah!
 
 ;) [font=][/font]

Happy you enjoyed that!  Certainly made the effort worthwhile.
 
Quote
Yeah...considering Obama's 2008 qualifications and his 2012 accomplishments, or lack thereof, it's plain to see you don't always walk your pretty talk.
 
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm)
 
Like I've said before BC, you've been gone too long...

I am all for 'right to work'.. or 'right to unionize'...and certainly against forced unionization,  but overall, I do think that there are greater challenges to be addressed first.  Thanks for pointing me to this reference.  I will investigate more.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 20, 2012, 12:10:22 PM
FP,

I am a realist.  He got some things done, has tried hard to get others done.  Overall progress on most points has been made.  No one can really expect wonders and I don't think Obama promised he will get all done in one term.  His compass is pointing in the right direction though and I support that.   If he were a King or Emperor I would agree with you and say he failed miserably, but considering we're talking about the harder road of democracy..... yeah it's all stuff still worth going after.

You apparently know some things I don't. What has he gotten done and what has he tried hard to get done? What is this progress you speak of? This compass? Forget the polish job afforded him by the mainstream media. Can you really name anything he has accomplished and moved forward? Anything at all?

I don't think anyone expected BO to have accomplished all of his promises in his first term. Yet no one thought he would have exacerbated them as thoroughly as he has. He's made them much worse, provided zero leadership, stays on vacation or the golf course, extravagant shopping trips for the Missus and steadily makes the rounds on the talk show circuit. What have I missed?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 20, 2012, 12:18:12 PM
You apparently know some things I don't. What has he gotten done and what has he tried hard to get done? What is this progress you speak of? This compass? Forget the polish job afforded him by the mainstream media. Can you really name anything he has accomplished and moved forward? Anything at all?

I don't think anyone expected BO to have accomplished all of his promises in his first term. Yet no one thought he would have exacerbated them as thoroughly as he has. He's made them much worse, provided zero leadership, stays on vacation or the golf course, extravagant shopping trips for the Missus and steadily makes the rounds on the talk show circuit. What have I missed?

FP,

it's getting pretty lat here and am shutting down for the night but what do you think about

http://business.time.com/2012/09/20/home-sales-prices-rise-is-housing-finally-ready-to-lead-a-recovery/

Economic indicators are up, but indeed fragile. not to 'boom' standards, but i think  at the very least minimum healthy growth levels that are being experienced throughout the global market.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 20, 2012, 12:28:14 PM
Wrong? absolutely nothing.. just thinking about these two very strong minded women stepping all over each other.  It would likely be very entertaining.  I was fairly impressed with Bachmann diring the debates and stated so a while back, maybe on another board.  Their views though seem to be a good bit on the extreme side and doubt full support of even their own party.

GOP needs fresh candidates and not re-runs.

JIMHO

BC

This doesn't exactly dovetail with your earlier post:
Paul Bachmann / Bachmann Paul... yea right that would be another 'sure winner'..  How about Palin / Bachmann  OMG..  I'm ROFL just thinking about it.

GOB,

Who would you propose for 2016 if Romney is considered a 'goner'?....

I've never understood the attack on either of these women by the left or the media. You are correct, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with these women aside from they are ackkk "republicans". Strong willed intelligent women who have made a life of public service, highly respected in the Republican party yet, are continually denigrated by the media and the left as queens of the KKK. I only picked at that scab to say this:

BC, you don't recognize the hypocrisy here in the talking points and the battle cries of the democratic left? Once you start peeling back the layers and looking underneath of what you are reading about the right, written by the left rather than looking for the truth, you'll find it's very, very thin  :(

Since Obama's coronation election in 2008, America has installed Chicago style politics in Washington. Trust me, this isn't a good thing.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 20, 2012, 12:32:28 PM
FP,

it's getting pretty lat here and am shutting down for the night but what do you think about

http://business.time.com/2012/09/20/home-sales-prices-rise-is-housing-finally-ready-to-lead-a-recovery/

Economic indicators are up, but indeed fragile. not to 'boom' standards, but i think  at the very least minimum healthy growth levels that are being experienced throughout the global market.

KEWL! I'll read it and comment on it. Actually it's something pretty close to home for me as I have had a house on the market for just about a year now. I'll read it, give you my observation of the story and my personal experience in the market that is real time and not just another fluff story generated to make Obama appear as if he has a real working policy.  :D

Rest well there guy
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 20, 2012, 06:05:10 PM
Wow! This thread is in the fast lane and I am in the slow lane needing to take the next exit..
 
BC, it does seem to me that you are a democrat at heart.  I can understand liberal views.   However, I find it misguided to believe that big government is necessary.  And I find it absurd that you support the thesis that democrats are better protectors of the public.   
 

Compare the history of two candidates with regard to helping the little guy.  The RNC was one testimony after another of something good that Romney did for the little guy.   I did not hear one testimony for Obama.  Hell, just consider how little he has done for his half brother!
 

So you support your liberal views by voting for the Democrat platform.  Fine, but blindly advocating the Presidential candidate!!!!  Never have I seen so much disgust expressed by mainstream America against a President.  Many of the religious consider him the antiChrist.  Veterans abhor the man, thinking he is sellling out our country and making us weak.  Small businesses, the growth engine for America, are overwhelmed by direct and indirect regulatory initiatives.  Fiscal conservatives.... %32*^!*%
 

If Obama is elected, he will not represent America. 
 
How will this affect us?  Conservatives will dig in, and he will not be able to broker a fiscal deal. Yep, more gridlock while the national debt accelerates.

Debt!  So what!  The Fed will  monetize it with QEinfinity.   One day inflation will raise its ugly head.  And we will repay our debt with inflated dollars.  Pity the man who is depending upon bonds and savings for his retirement.  In contrast, assets in the ground will inflate.  Maybe that is why one of my friends, a commercial real estate developer/owner, is an avid Obama supporter.  He welcomes inflation, if he can somehow stay above water in the short term.
 
Obama is a bad man.  He is twisting much of what I subscribe to as the American spirit.   

 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 20, 2012, 06:13:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 20, 2012, 06:48:02 PM
Maybe that is why one of my friends, a commercial real estate developer/owner, is an avid Obama supporter.  He welcomes inflation, if he can somehow stay above water in the short term.
  I have a friend like that too. He is a precious metals investor and he voted for Obama in 2008 because he believed that Obama's policies will drive gold/silver, etc. prices up. He was right. But I don't think he will be voting for Obama in this election because although he believes that PM prices will keep going up if Obama is reelected he also believes that we are on the wrong path as a country and with 4 more years of Obama will bring the US to the point of no return.

 
Obama is a bad man.  He is twisting much of what I subscribe to as the American spirit.
The more I learn about him, about his mentors and friends, people who influenced and surrounded him the more bizarre it seems how was somebody with his communist/anti-colonialist , radical leftist background was elected to be a United States president in the first place?!?!
I'd love to find out why he spent $750,000.00 yo get his college records sealed. Nobody spends this kind of money to hide something unless this something was really worth hiding... I've heard speculations that 1. he was granted financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia (was he lying then or is he lying now?) 2. He doesn't want people to see his thesis works because they contained communist/anti-American themes.
Anyway, for the most "open" president in the US history he is hiding a bit too much for my taste.
I just have a very bad feeling about him.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 20, 2012, 07:59:23 PM
Isn't new regulation against the mantra of the GOP?  Is this not 'bigger government'? or 'more regulation' ? 

The way HUD, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac was doing business, I agree on calls to investigate and have someone oversee their activities. Do you agree nothing should happen? Nothing did happen and then came disaster.
 
  Did the Bush's party not have the majority in both House and Senate at that time? 

Don't know but Obama owned the House and Senate when he was re-elected. So much for getting the economy on it's feet.
 
Where did the ball get dropped?

GQBlues laid it out for you. Numerous times Bush called for action but Democrats resisted denying it's broke.
 
I liked how you post a video of FDR warning of the Republicans. Ironic. Little did FDR know his creation Fannie Mae would contribute to a world wide economic disaster. Freddie Mac and HUD is another liberal invention.
 
BC, you believe the economic mess was created by Republicans and evil businessmen. Imagine waking up from your dream and realizing the economic mess was created actually created by Democrats and poor people. After people abused a system endorsed by the government getting into homes they couldn't afford to pay on, people got behind on payments, got deeper into debt, they stopped buying products and businesses began to fail due to lack of business, and people lost jobs because business failed, and after disaster in America, it spread to the rest of the world. You think Capitalism is to blame. Government caused this mess.
 
There are uninformed people. They most likely will vote for Obama because it's easy to blame things on Bush since economy went bad on his watch and will agree with Obama it's going to take more than 4 years to fix the problem.
 
There are misinformed people. They read bias news or read mainstream news and believe everything they read or don't have the ability to take the opinions of the author and separate it from fact. Pertaining to economy and reading about who's to blame, Bush, they will vote Obama too.
 
BC, you are informed yet you resist and try to debate by selecting certain quotes from certain sites in an effort to blame the economic mess on Bush and corportate
America and promote Obama. You have tried real hard to make an innocent man look guilty.
 
I mentioned 4 years ago on the forum that Presidents and government have little to do with improving economy. Economy will have it's ups and downs and government can assist aiding it back to health. What is now certain after the housing market crash is government has a much greater ability to destroy the economy than fixing it.
 
Personally I think most social programs are necessary. Welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing. The reason they are necessary is because almost everyone will lose their job and go through rough times. These programs can help inividuals and families get back on their feet but it should be temporary. Many people have abused the programs and the programs allow themselves to be abused. In the effort to help the poor by getting them into houses was too much of a burden for everyone to carry we self destructed.
 
Most of us really aren't much different and we have the same opinions but what separates us is the amout of money to get things done. If one tenth of one percent of our taxes wer needed to make poor people's life comfortable, I think we all will be fine with that. If 5% is needed, GQBlues may get upset but not me or Olga. If 10% is needed, I will start agreeing with GQBlues. Olga may be fine with giving 20% of her family's earnings the poor but even she has a limit. Her limit may be a generous 50% before she starts siding with me and GQBlues and she may even start using bad language when refering to the poor calling them lazy and leeches! People can only give so much to the needy before they start having to make sacrifices for their own families.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 21, 2012, 04:46:37 AM

 The more I learn about him, about his mentors and friends, people who influenced and surrounded him the more bizarre it seems how was somebody with his communist/anti-colonialist , radical leftist background was elected to be a United States president in the first place?!?!

It says much about the decline in America.  Observers state that Americans do not know what it means to be American.  This started long before Obama.  Obama is not the disease, he is only a symptom.
 
Quote
I'd love to find out why he spent $750,000.00 yo get his college records sealed.


Obama is hiding more than his college records.  His closet is full of skeletons.  And his supporters have the gall to complain that Romney is not releasing his taxes?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 21, 2012, 06:30:01 AM
Obama is hiding more than his college records.  His closet is full of skeletons.  And his supporters have the gall to complain that Romney is not releasing his taxes?

There seems to be two sides to that story.

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

Anyone seen a check for 750K?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 21, 2012, 06:51:33 AM
There seems to be two sides to that story.

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

Anyone seen a check for 750K?

Most of those claims is hyperbole IMHO however, it should be noted that both snopes and factcheck are Soros funded entities.

There were several glaring falsehoods in the factcheck. One being both Michelle and Obama can no longer practice law. Both surrendered their law license which is something lawyers do to avoid prosecution. Both would have to be re-instated by the Illinois state bar which is something that likely will never happen
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 21, 2012, 07:06:58 AM

BC, you believe the economic mess was created by Republicans and evil businessmen. Imagine waking up from your dream and realizing the economic mess was created actually created by Democrats and poor people. After people abused a system endorsed by the government getting into homes they couldn't afford to pay on, people got behind on payments, got deeper into debt, they stopped buying products and businesses began to fail due to lack of business, and people lost jobs because business failed, and after disaster in America, it spread to the rest of the world. You think Capitalism is to blame. Government caused this mess.

Billy,

you insist on shooting the messenger.  Tell you what..  read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis carefully then lets get back together on this topic.

Quote

BC, you are informed yet you resist and try to debate by selecting certain quotes from certain sites in an effort to blame the economic mess on Bush and corportate
America and promote Obama. You have tried real hard to make an innocent man look guilty.

When I quote something, I provide links to the full texts.  Unfortunately most replies simply state in some manner that 'you are wrong', without any quotes or links to research.  I hope at least some have taken the time to read the full texts and get a better idea for what was / is going on.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 21, 2012, 07:32:54 AM
Most of those claims is hyperbole IMHO however, it should be noted that both snopes and factcheck are Soros funded entities.

There were several glaring falsehoods in the factcheck. One being both Michelle and Obama can no longer practice law. Both surrendered their law license which is something lawyers do to avoid prosecution. Both would have to be re-instated by the Illinois state bar which is something that likely will never happen

FP,

Of course one should not rely on one source alone, but there are many.  Here's another that seems fairly reasonable.  But I guess everything on the net is owned by someone.. surely that should not be the reason to discredit the intent of a website.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Michelle_Obama_disbarred

Maybe it would be a good exercise for both of us to see what we can dig up to clarify this small, single item.   Considering the link I provided, do you still think her inactive status somehow reflects negatively?  Or does it help us both reach consensus?

I do try to stay away from most blog spaces such as http://leahlaxforpresident2012.blogspot.it/2012/01/michelle-obama-disbarred-for-extortion.html

There is a ton of this stuff out there but I doubt even you give them authoritative value.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 21, 2012, 07:40:51 AM
There is something very unsettling with me about this latest installment...and no it isn't because of the persons involved or their political affiliation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXHkpVVbHw


The reasons are:

1. The WH first insisted persistently that the Libyan tragedy was a spontaneous reaction from the video and that while investigators were sent to the location for verification, they insisted the event to be a non-terrorist act. Within one day, the State Dept released statements that are 180 degrees in content. It isn't so much that they were complete opposites (spontaneous/planned terror attack), but the manner the admittance was announced after days of professing it was a spontaneous attack brought about by a video, "..It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials – that's self-evident...".

2. Why have Reuters didn't, if they in fact did not, submitted their video clearly showing insurgents armed with RPGs descending upon the consulate office during that fateful night. If they did, why did the WH insisted for days this was 'spontaneous'.

3. While our American ambassador was being brutally executed, our President was busy apologizing. Apologizing for someone exercising their 1st Amendment right? Now, I don't remember the government of Denmark apologizing for their cartoon, especially not while their citizen was getting raped and towed behind a car and dragged down the street.

4. Why hasn't the white house apologize instead to the Libyan officials who repeatedly warned them prior to this tragic night of the pending danger but they have been reluctant to admit?

5. Why on the same day of admitting it was an act of terror, they aired ads in Pakistan of all places, apologizing and assuring Pakistanis that the American government had nothing to do with the video and declaring any acts of barbarism is unforgivable when they at the same time bears no compunction of drone-bombing the very same people of that country?

6. I really want to know that even if the video is in fact offensive to all Muslims, then why do the same people who find that blasphemous *seem* to embrace the killing of thousands of innocent folks in the name of the very same entity they vehemently hold so holy?

7. Do you believe this administration have handled all of these properly?

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 21, 2012, 08:00:57 AM
FP,

Of course one should not rely on one source alone, but there are many.  Here's another that seems fairly reasonable.  But I guess everything on the net is owned by someone.. surely that should not be the reason to discredit the intent of a website.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Michelle_Obama_disbarred

Maybe it would be a good exercise for both of us to see what we can dig up to clarify this small, single item.   Considering the link I provided, do you still think her inactive status somehow reflects negatively?  Or does it help us both reach consensus?

I do try to stay away from most blog spaces such as http://leahlaxforpresident2012.blogspot.it/2012/01/michelle-obama-disbarred-for-extortion.html

There is a ton of this stuff out there but I doubt even you give them authoritative value.

BC
I really don't have a lot of interest in looking up MO and sifting through the crap. I've done that already before hubby was elected. I did then read excerpts of her college thesis and other things which, are no longer available online btw. She is a very angry racist woman. There was plenty out there then and I can vouch that someone went to great pain and I expect expense to clean it up. 750K seems like a stretch. I seriously doubt we'd find much that was proven or credible. I do remember a little ballyho after BO got the nomination about the sanitizing of his records. It was believed that they were sanitizing hers.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 21, 2012, 08:27:10 AM
There is something very unsettling with me about this latest installment...and no it isn't because of the persons involved or their political affiliation.


The reasons are:

1. The WH first insisted persistently that the Libyan tragedy was a spontaneous reaction from the video and that while investigators were sent to the location for verification, they insisted the event to be a non-terrorist act. Within one day, the State Dept released statements that are 180 degrees in content. It isn't so much that they were complete opposites (spontaneous/planned terror attack), but the manner the admittance was announced after days of professing it was a spontaneous attack brought about by a video, "..It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials – that's self-evident...".

2. Why have Reuters didn't, if they in fact did not, submitted their video clearly showing insurgents armed with RPGs descending upon the consulate office during that fateful night. If they did, why did the WH insisted for days this was 'spontaneous'.

3. While our American ambassador was being brutally executed, our President was busy apologizing. Apologizing for someone exercising their 1st Amendment right? Now, I don't remember the government of Denmark apologizing for their cartoon, especially not while their citizen was getting raped and towed behind a car and dragged down the street.

4. Why hasn't the white house apologize instead to the Libyan officials who repeatedly warned them prior to this tragic night of the pending danger but they have been reluctant to admit?

5. Why on the same day of admitting it was an act of terror, they aired ads in Pakistan of all places, apologizing and assuring Pakistanis that the American government had nothing to do with the video and declaring any acts of barbarism is unforgivable when they at the same time bears no compunction of drone-bombing the very same people of that country?

6. I really want to know that even if the video is in fact offensive to all Muslims, then why do the same people who find that blasphemous *seem* to embrace the killing of thousands of innocent folks in the name of the very same entity they vehemently hold so holy?

7. Do you believe this administration have handled all of these properly?

Thoughts?

You have to admit, the Obama administration and his power base has done a fantastic job of keeping the Americans and the world in the dark, peeing on them and convincing them it's raining. They had no reason to think they could not do it now over this attack. Unfortunately for them it hasn't worked out that way. The interim president of Libya let that cat out of the bag the very next day. Openly stated on Al-Jeezera that it was an Al Quada coordinated attack that the Americans had knowledge, may occur. Despite that, Susan Rice and Jay Carney were dispatched to pull more wool and blow more smoke.

Heaven forbid the word gets leaked that Obama's Muslim policy is another failure among many
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 21, 2012, 08:45:33 AM
BC
I really don't have a lot of interest in looking up MO and sifting through the crap. I've done that already before hubby was elected. I did then read excerpts of her college thesis and other things which, are no longer available online btw. She is a very angry racist woman. There was plenty out there then and I can vouch that someone went to great pain and I expect expense to clean it up. 750K seems like a stretch. I seriously doubt we'd find much that was proven or credible. I do remember a little ballyho after BO got the nomination about the sanitizing of his records. It was believed that they were sanitizing hers.

http://obamaprincetonthesis.wordpress.com/  pretty easy to find, I'll have to digest it a bit later.

I dunno FP, 5 years is a lot of time to dig.  Such things do have a habit of leaking, but really there have been more debunked theories i.e. birthers etc that have come up blank that anything declared 'real' would be suspect as well.  Who knows..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Mod2 on September 21, 2012, 08:52:49 AM
One post deleted.  Let it be the last.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 21, 2012, 09:06:51 AM
One post deleted.  Let it be the last.

FWIW... If you don't believe the event happened.
I can put my RW on here to verify it's accuracy.
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 21, 2012, 09:52:36 AM
You have to admit, the Obama administration and his power base has done a fantastic job of keeping the Americans and the world in the dark, peeing on them and convincing them it's raining. They had no reason to think they could not do it now over this attack. Unfortunately for them it hasn't worked out that way. The interim president of Libya let that cat out of the bag the very next day. Openly stated on Al-Jeezera that it was an Al Quada coordinated attack that the Americans had knowledge, may occur. Despite that, Susan Rice and Jay Carney were dispatched to pull more wool and blow more smoke.

Heaven forbid the word gets leaked that Obama's Muslim policy is another failure among many

FP-

I'm prone to withold my judgment for now until this incident lends itself with full clarity. It is reported (not through the mainstream media, of course) that the Libyan government not only received information and conveyed to state officials about the attack, but also the fact the terrorists (there I said it) knew about the 'safe house' (where US officials and citizens are taken to in case of emergency) and had also drawn a plan to attack it as well.

An orchestrated attack to *celebrate* the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that the state department knew about but didn't do anything to prevent it.

Additionally, rumors/denial, etc...are flying about that the state department *is in talks*, or *had talked*, or *is considering*, *had considered*, *been denied*, or *been ambivalent*, etc...about the possible release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who masterminded the '93 WTC bombing that killed 6 Americans and injured hundreds...

WHY?

In light of the initial denials about the Libyan siege, I'll closely watch if Omar will in fact see the light of the North Carolina sun outside his jail cell....maybe sometime soon after the election.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on September 21, 2012, 11:15:04 AM
Only one comment:  How many times have you taken a machine gun and a RPG to a "spur of the moment" spontaneous protest?  Neither have I.

Something is fishy in the Obama White House explanation of the Libya betrayal/debacle.  I think the truth is not what the LSM is putting out for the general American consumption.  But then,,, I've heard lies by politicians and more than a few weather forecasters before.  Too me they are about the same on the trustworthy scale.

How is it possible for any right thinking American to vote for a proven liar? 

Just MHO.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 21, 2012, 11:23:22 AM
http://obamaprincetonthesis.wordpress.com/  pretty easy to find, I'll have to digest it a bit later.

I dunno FP, 5 years is a lot of time to dig.  Such things do have a habit of leaking, but really there have been more debunked theories i.e. birthers etc that have come up blank that anything declared 'real' would be suspect as well.  Who knows..

Several variables come into play. The interest in such information was much different 5 years ago than now. i.e. nobody was looking thus, there was no reason for sanitation. It didn't matter what filtered online and there were text copies of numerous Barry and Michelle's papers, speeches ect.

This is the age of disinformation. An example, one can post one true fact of a subject. 100 others can post one untruth to that fact. It becomes near impossible to disseminate that one truth among the 100 untruths. Multiply that by the millions added online in some form or fashion every hour, every day and truth is just another addition with not much separation from untruth. The truth becomes almost irrelevant.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 21, 2012, 11:58:54 AM
FP-

I'm prone to withold my judgment for now until this incident lends itself with full clarity. It is reported (not through the mainstream media, of course) that the Libyan government not only received information and conveyed to state officials about the attack, but also the fact the terrorists (there I said it) knew about the 'safe house' (where US officials and citizens are taken to in case of emergency) and had also drawn a plan to attack it as well.

An orchestrated attack to *celebrate* the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that the state department knew about but didn't do anything to prevent it.

Additionally, rumors/denial, etc...are flying about that the state department *is in talks*, or *had talked*, or *is considering*, *had considered*, *been denied*, or *been ambivalent*, etc...about the possible release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who masterminded the '93 WTC bombing that killed 6 Americans and injured hundreds...

WHY?

In light of the initial denials about the Libyan siege, I'll closely watch if Omar will in fact see the light of the North Carolina sun outside his jail cell....maybe sometime soon after the election.

Even if the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It is overwhelming that the Obama administration has lied and covered up. I think we are now seeing the early stages of damage control
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on September 21, 2012, 12:21:23 PM


How is it possible for any right thinking American to vote for a proven liar? 


No other options ? >:D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 21, 2012, 12:22:47 PM
I have to admit, I haven't read all of of your guys incerps here but.....
 
is it safe to say you all here agree that Obama is all bad news and...
 
that you (Americans) are full ready to vote for the lesser of two evils, when you should know that a vote for Romney means:
 
-a return of the neo-cons of Bush the junior which means more agressive wars which means more American casualities.
 
_ A continuation of support of Wall Street over main street.
 
_ A bailout of the ruling class and stiffing regular folks.
 
_ An anti-American policy because the Mormons hate Americans
 
_ I guess the majority of the RWD intelligencia are members the the Mormon church.... or should join the other member here who profess to be an individual who enjoy pain and humiliation.....
 
Americans are indeed strange. They don't think twice about voting for a person who's a mormon. Just as well vote for a fool for the Jehovas Witness or perhaps if Tom Cruise decided to run for the Scientology Church or any other New Age idea. The way I see it, it's the final cramps of a dying enpire!
 
Pinch me. How is it possible?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 21, 2012, 01:05:22 PM
I have to admit, I haven't read all of of your guys incerps here but.....
 
is it safe to say you all here agree that Obama is all bad news and...
 

Nope, some still see Obama as Obama does, The Prophet Muhammad

Quote
that you (Americans) are full ready to vote for the lesser of two evils, when you should know that a vote for Romney means:
 
-a return of the neo-cons of Bush the junior which means more agressive wars which means more American casualities.
 
_ A continuation of support of Wall Street over main street.
 

_ A bailout of the ruling class and stiffing regular folks.
 
_ An anti-American policy because the Mormons hate Americans
 
_ I guess the majority of the RWD intelligencia are members the the Mormon church.... or should join the other member here who profess to be an individual who enjoy pain and humiliation.....
 

Now THIS is strange. Before I give you an honest answer to this, please tell me Roy, how electing Romney equates to your vision here?


Quote
Americans are indeed strange. They don't think twice about voting for a person who's a mormon. Just as well vote for a fool for the Jehovas Witness or perhaps if Tom Cruise decided to run for the Scientology Church or any other New Age idea. The way I see it, it's the final cramps of a dying enpire!
 
Pinch me. How is it possible?

Yes we are a strange herd. We voted a man with zero experience, socialists agenda and very close ties to to the Islamic faith if he isn't a muslim himself as President. You think we should  now discriminate against a Mormon or Scientologist? That's funny right there   :ROFL:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on September 21, 2012, 01:06:53 PM

How is it possible for any right thinking American to vote for a proven liar? 

[/quote
I think Shadow had the real answer.  I think Obama is not well liked and many would like a change but I think many look at Romney as someone who can't relate to the average person, someone who is stiff, eletist  and a bit snobby.  Someone secretive who won't be open about his own affairs, someone who will put the welfare of his rich friends ahead of the average working Joe, someone who speaks without thinking and could create international problems for the USA, someone who is out of touch with the world many of us live in.
I think it comes down to should they vote for the devil they know or the one they don't. 
I am as anti-Obama as they get and will be voting for Romney but I think the Republicans blew a golden opportunity with the selection they made.  I think too Romney is not running his campaign well and is letting Obummer take control.  I have a feeling when the debates happen Romney's support will erode even more.  Obama will cream him.   Personally I think Obamas second term is a done deal and I am really afraid for America.  The only hope I see for the country is if the Republicans retain control of the house.  If they don't this country is toast.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: The Natural on September 21, 2012, 01:57:34 PM
Now THIS is strange. Before I give you an honest answer to this, please tell me Roy, how electing Romney equates to your vision here?



Well, to start with I was no big expert on the Mormon faith or any other for that matter.
 
I remember when the Internet started way back and I said something somewhere, like the US has the brightest but also the stupidest people and this particular American agreeing with me. I still feel the same way. You have a handful of really knowledgable people of high intelligence which you dismiss because they don't serve some kind of left-right agenda. You have a political genious in Webster Tarpley who is both an historian and economist, speak several languages, have lived in Europe and Arabia but nooooooo. ..... you need to be a religious nut and an asset stripper or a Muslim sweet talker to really get respect in the US these days it appears.
 
And it really cracks me up and I'm not referring to you dear good friend FP here, but those idiots on here who wants to break up the unions. Oh, they must not only be the 1% but the 0.1%. Fools! How did my country become a nation of an affluate middle class if it werent for the unions? Yeah, get away with the unions totally and get ready for the new feudal society which is the real goal of those fools here subscribing to such suicidal thoughts.
 
A vote for Romney is a vote AGAINST USA and FOR austerity and the decimation of the middle class.. a vote for Obama is the same... only not as quickly. A vote for the lesser evil! Are you mad? Then don't vote at all!
 
Another point; I have noticed the apparent hate of humanity displayed here by some when they verbalize their hate of anyone getting social help from the state, but at the same time they say nothing of the corporate welfare that runs in the trillions. That means nothing for these fools because being a Republican or whatever is their religion when they have lost faith in the real God. They would much rather support an oligarcy of rich mad men than to give support to their poor people.  These fools reckon they are on the winning side when the dust settles. Let's hope the regulars have seen their verbal actions and settle the score, because their illusion 1% heros won't be around to defend these fools.
 
I'm on the outside looking in and the US is a dying empire in my reckoning.....
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 21, 2012, 03:00:27 PM

Well, to start with I was no big expert on the Mormon faith or any other for that matter.
 
I remember when the Internet started way back and I said something somewhere, like the US has the brightest but also the stupidest people and this particular American agreeing with me. I still feel the same way. You have a handful of really knowledgable people of high intelligence which you dismiss because they don't serve some kind of left-right agenda. You have a political genious in Webster Tarpley who is both an historian and economist, speak several languages, have lived in Europe and Arabia but nooooooo. ..... you need to be a religious nut and an asset stripper or a Muslim sweet talker to really get respect in the US these days it appears.
 
And it really cracks me up and I'm not referring to you dear good friend FP here, but those idiots on here who wants to break up the unions. Oh, they must not only be the 1% but the 0.1%. Fools! How did my country become a nation of an affluate middle class if it werent for the unions? Yeah, get away with the unions totally and get ready for the new feudal society which is the real goal of those fools here subscribing to such suicidal thoughts.
 
A vote for Romney is a vote AGAINST USA and FOR austerity and the decimation of the middle class.. a vote for Obama is the same... only not as quickly. A vote for the lesser evil! Are you mad? Then don't vote at all!
 
Another point; I have noticed the apparent hate of humanity displayed here by some when they verbalize their hate of anyone getting social help from the state, but at the same time they say nothing of the corporate welfare that runs in the trillions. That means nothing for these fools because being a Republican or whatever is their religion when they have lost faith in the real God. They would much rather support an oligarcy of rich mad men than to give support to their poor people.  These fools reckon they are on the winning side when the dust settles. Let's hope the regulars have seen their verbal actions and settle the score, because their illusion 1% heros won't be around to defend these fools.
 
I'm on the outside looking in and the US is a dying empire in my reckoning.....

Okay Roy, a deal is a deal. I would be remiss if I didn't state I don't think you answered my question head-on but got off on a tangent. That tangent you seem to be viewing right wing conservatism in the very extreme without any recognition of the extreme liberal left wing.

Keep in mind the far right and the far left of American politics are both small in numbers still yet, in the last 8-10 those numbers have increased exponentially largely due to the agenda of both parties of "divide and conquer", class warfare and any other political strategy that will get a candidate elected.

Tarpley doesn't contribute anything more than a Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly or a Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher. Maybe Tarpley is more of a cafeteria mouth piece, picking and choosing from either side what he likes best (which is what I do)

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. There are still a good many of us around in this country but, with the extremism of the parties, we have no one to speak for us. I squarely fall under the heading of a Libertarian but that party is small and insignificant in elections. The citizenry prefers to speak and vote through the two big national parties

Most Americans no matter their political party are compassionate to those in need, countrymen or not. Most Americans know of the history and need for Labor Unions. Such unions can also be a huge detriment to a society when used for political power instead of bargaining rights such is the case with many big unions in America now.

Am I simply voting for the lesser evil? I state emphatically yes. I didn't vote for Romney in the primaries. Why would I vote for him now? Simply because I strongly believe our life blood which is our economy is on life support. 4 more years of Obama will surely collapse IMHO this failing economy. 4 more years of this will put us currently in the neighborhood of 24 trillion in debt and still no closer to at least stopping the spending, much less reversing it. With our economy dead America is no good to ourselves, and certainly not the rest of the world.

There is a lot of truth whether you wish to believe it or not to the saying "when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold". 4 more years of Obama's failed policies and reckless spending will cripple your economy and way of life, as it will ours. We are in a very bad situation here guy. I'm not preaching doom and gloom, I am stating it as fact. Regardless of your dislike of Republicans and Romney in particular, he is the only hope of reversing this mess that is at our disposal right now. Be careful what you wish for  ;D

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 21, 2012, 03:49:11 PM
  ...
And it really cracks me up and I'm not referring to you dear good friend FP here, but those idiots on here who wants to break up the unions. Oh, they must not only be the 1% but the 0.1%. Fools! How did my country become a nation of an affluate middle class if it werent for the unions? Yeah, get away with the unions totally and get ready for the new feudal society which is the real goal of those fools here subscribing to such suicidal thoughts.
 
A vote for Romney is a vote AGAINST USA and FOR austerity and the decimation of the middle class.. a vote for Obama is the same... only not as quickly. A vote for the lesser evil! Are you mad? Then don't vote at all!
 
Another point; I have noticed the apparent hate of humanity displayed here by some when they verbalize their hate of anyone getting social help from the state, but at the same time they say nothing of the corporate welfare that runs in the trillions. That means nothing for these fools because being a Republican or whatever is their religion when they have lost faith in the real God. They would much rather support an oligarcy of rich mad men than to give support to their poor people.  These fools reckon they are on the winning side when the dust settles. Let's hope the regulars have seen their verbal actions and settle the score, because their illusion 1% heros won't be around to defend these fools.


Dunno...MHO, the bigger idiot is one who looked from the outside without having an iota of an idea what it's like on the inside and convinces himself they must be wrong. The 'fool' to me is someone who fully subscribed to the ideology of one based strictly on read journal and talk show rendering...were you not at one point fully convinced Ron Paul was the second-coming until someone bright and sexy from the inside educated you once and for all about the error of your silly ways before? How's that for being foolish?

Has it ever occurred to you that the type of Union organization in different countries may in fact follow different priorities and ideologies? I know as much about Norway's union regulations and tendencies as you do about America's - yet I'm not foolish enough to remark or even admonish you for thinking in the manner that you do about your unions.

Besides that, unlike someone in Norway, I have the balls (and HAIR...lot's of it) to personally call him out for being so arrogant to believe he is as intimately aware of actual situation in the social and political landscape of a country he isn't remotely close to much less live in.

 ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 21, 2012, 06:36:41 PM
Billy,

you insist on shooting the messenger.  Tell you what..  read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis) carefully then lets get back together on this topic.

When I quote something, I provide links to the full texts.  Unfortunately most replies simply state in some manner that 'you are wrong', without any quotes or links to research.  I hope at least some have taken the time to read the full texts and get a better idea for what was / is going on.

Your link above tends to differ with your last wiki link that implied Bush raised the percentage of trying to get low income people into houses. The link above said it was HUD.
 
Wiki is normally written by intelligent people but they have their biases. Economists even disagree in that link on what happened. If you provide the link, you should quote what's best to suit your arguement and what you quoted previously didn't help.
 
Your link said various presidents created policies that led to abuse. One of Carter's  acts was mentioned but the truth is the housing mess was Clinton's baby. That's when large scale abuse began. I agree with you that Bush wanted to get low income people into homes but so does every president and president want to be. Bush did not like the way the system was getting abused so he called for multiple investigations. You wonder why he's top dog and didn't stop the mess but this is a democracy, not dictatorship where Bush can order executions of his political enemies when they don't see eye to eye.
 
Many people want to blame banks but banks saw this as an opportunity created by the government for more business. The government gave money to the banks to make loans necessary to meet the quota of getting low income into homes. Obama openly blamed banks for their greed and mismanagement. Of course the banks kept their mouth shut because they want his bailout money. If government wasn't going to bail them out, they would probably be more open telling how the government created an environment for abuse.
 
It's not difficult to see how this unfolds. A poor guy who normally can't afford a home now gets to buy a home due to lax rules for qualifications. He gets a loan for $200,000 for his home. Taxpayers supplied the money but it's not a bad thing because it's a loan and supposed to be paid back. Not stereotyping but poor people do exhibit less responsiblity than the average guy and normally do not have the means to pay back some or all of what they borrow. While this new demand for homes is happening, the value of homes go way up. A middle class guy buys a home worth $300,000 but ends up paying $400,000. He's not worried because he's sure the value will be there when he sells. Wrong. Poor people don't pay their bill and housing market collapse and value decreases. Middle class man's home is now worth $200,000 so he stops paying on his mortgage since his home's value is halved and eventually loses his home and credit rating or he loses his job because the economy was affected by the housing crisis and can't pay his mortgage. That sucks for the middle class guy. His tax money went to help the poor which results in him having to overpay for his home temporarily since he'll end up in an apartment or living with the parents.
 
Every action has a reaction. This mess had a ripple effect that spread to the rest of the world. Aside form 9/11, all these economic problems exist because of an effort to help the poor.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 21, 2012, 08:26:13 PM

 
The US State Dept is running ads on Pakistani TV denouncing the Youtube video that supposedly aroused demonstrations against America..
 
http://abcnews.go.com/International/deadly-anti-us-riots-pakistan-obamas-ad-denouncing/story?id=17291751 (http://abcnews.go.com/International/deadly-anti-us-riots-pakistan-obamas-ad-denouncing/story?id=17291751)
 
Follow the logic please.  Does this not make it appear as if the administration is validating that the mob had a legitimate excuse for the attacks?   If so, does that not indirectly exonerate the terrorists who perpetrated the deadly attacks. 
 
I know, I know.  We want to be loved, not hated and not feared.   In that regard, what part of "Death to America" does the administration not understand.   
 
I recognize that the mob does not represent the sentiment of the moderate Muslims.  Nevertheless, let us see the stance and actions taken by the various Muslim governments (Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.) over the next few days.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 21, 2012, 08:37:36 PM

The US State Dept is running ads on Pakistani TV denouncing the Youtube video that supposedly aroused demonstrations against America..
 
http://abcnews.go.com/International/deadly-anti-us-riots-pakistan-obamas-ad-denouncing/story?id=17291751 (http://abcnews.go.com/International/deadly-anti-us-riots-pakistan-obamas-ad-denouncing/story?id=17291751)
 
Follow the logic please.  Does this not make it appear as if the administration is validating that the mob had a legitimate excuse for the attacks?   If so, does that not indirectly exonerate the terrorists who perpetrated the deadly attacks. 

Yes and I would say in the mind of Islam, coupled with the immediate apology from Obama they have all they need to feel "justified" for murder. I also see these actions as an assault on free speech
 
Quote
I know, I know.  We want to be loved, not hated and not feared.   In that regard, what part of "Death to America" does the administration not understand.   
 
I recognize that the mob does not represent the sentiment of the moderate Muslims.  Nevertheless, let us see the stance and actions taken by the various Muslim governments (Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.) over the next few days.

Don't hold your breath. It is against the religion of Islam for moderate Muslims to speak out against other Muslims over non-believing infidels.

There was a small protest in Libya today however, actually in support of America.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on September 21, 2012, 09:48:27 PM
The US State Dept is running ads on Pakistani TV denouncing the Youtube video that supposedly aroused demonstrations against America..


Impossible. Obama is all for freedom of speach including American flag burning. I wonder if people kill and destroy property over disagreement of his policies, will he denounce his policies too?
 
I wonder how much it's going to cost America in ads to apologize?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 22, 2012, 05:21:34 AM
...There was a small protest in Libya today however, actually in support of America.

Small...hmmm...according to the New York Times, the crowd was estimated at 30,000.  Every other source I've seen refers to "many thousands" or "tens of thousands."  It might not match the size of the Moscow demonstration against Putin, but you would never have believed a couple of years ago that anything like this would ever be possible.
 
The NYT also says that Ambassador Stevens was asphyxiated in the fire - not a word about the supposed rape and dragging behind a car which a couple of posters here seem to relish bringing up.  And, from the Daily Mail in London:
 
"The doctor who treated him said he died of severe asphyxiation, which caused stomach bleeding and that Mr Stevens had no other injuries."
 
I'm assuming that by now a full autopsy must have been performed in the USA.  Have the results been released?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 22, 2012, 07:27:30 AM

Small...hmmm...according to the New York Times, the crowd was estimated at 30,000.  Every other source I've seen refers to "many thousands" or "tens of thousands."  It might not match the size of the Moscow demonstration against Putin, but you would never have believed a couple of years ago that anything like this would ever be possible.
 
The NYT also says that Ambassador Stevens was asphyxiated in the fire - not a word about the supposed rape and dragging behind a car which a couple of posters here seem to relish bringing up.  And, from the Daily Mail in London:
 


Thanks for proving my earlier point.

Quote
"The doctor who treated him said he died of severe asphyxiation, which caused stomach bleeding and that Mr Stevens had no other injuries."
 
I'm assuming that by now a full autopsy must have been performed in the USA.  Have the results been released?

Geeze, you mean "all the news that's fit to print"  and your beacon of light and truth didn't inform you? What a pity  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 22, 2012, 07:57:57 AM

The US State Dept is running ads on Pakistani TV denouncing the Youtube video that supposedly aroused demonstrations against America..
 
http://abcnews.go.com/International/deadly-anti-us-riots-pakistan-obamas-ad-denouncing/story?id=17291751 (http://abcnews.go.com/International/deadly-anti-us-riots-pakistan-obamas-ad-denouncing/story?id=17291751)
 
Follow the logic please.  Does this not make it appear as if the administration is validating that the mob had a legitimate excuse for the attacks?   If so, does that not indirectly exonerate the terrorists who perpetrated the deadly attacks. 
 
I know, I know.  We want to be loved, not hated and not feared.   In that regard, what part of "Death to America" does the administration not understand.   
 
I recognize that the mob does not represent the sentiment of the moderate Muslims.  Nevertheless, let us see the stance and actions taken by the various Muslim governments (Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.) over the next few days.


Ahhhhhh.... Allah hu akbar!!!  more stupid sh*t in the name of "god" and some dead guy from centuries ago...   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 22, 2012, 07:59:13 AM
...
Geeze, you mean "all the news that's fit to print"  and your beacon of light and truth didn't inform you? What a pity  :rolleyes: ...

For the inquisive minds...the genesis (& trail) of the initial reporting, according to Snopes was Libyan newsreport quoting (allegedly) AFP (Agence France Presse) which are now strongly denying/refuting the story saying they were *misquoted*...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp)

In light of some of the more non-convention news or source information about what really happened (that mainly means people who are actually there during that night and saw what happened - NOTE: this is important), it appears that Stevens died of asphyxiation and some Libyan nationals tried to help him as shown on the video below. Watching the vid, it appears as though they dragged his body and celebrated his death. From my POV, it seems as though they tried to rescue him and likely saw signs that he's alive and we're *happy* to know there's a chance to revive him...Sandro speaks Arabic, maybe he can verify the actual event from the vid.

Watch it and you be the judge..

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1991481/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1991481/pg1)

The underlying lesson here is...no knee jerk reactions, you can't solely rely on information given by mainstream media without doing your due diligence, and most importantly - you can't possibly know better about any event taking place in a country other than your own by virtue of reading websites and online news reporting, than the people who actually live there everyday....take note, please.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on September 22, 2012, 12:28:37 PM
I seem to remember when Quadaffi died both GQ and Gator thought it was great. It seems to me that Quadaffi (spelling I know) should have been left be, no Nato airstrikes supporting the rebels. Maybe the same should have been done with Saddam and now with Syria? Maybe our foreign policy is all screwed up? Not just Obama's but also with the neo-con "opposition". Is it really opposition if they support most of what Obama has done over there? Just an argument between a few degrees of difference. IMO we should get the hell out of there. Ron Paul is right.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 22, 2012, 04:54:46 PM

...according to the New York Times,...
 
The NYT...

Thanks for proving my earlier point.

Geeze, you mean "all the news that's fit to print"  and your beacon of light and truth didn't inform you? What a pity  :rolleyes:

FP, what are you talking about?  Is the New York Times yet another on your list of newspapers that aren't worth the (cyber)paper they're printed on?  Is there any news organisation that you have any time for, or do you only ever believe something if you see it with your own eyes?  I'm as sceptical as most but, from this distance, I have to trust that at least some reported news is accurate.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 22, 2012, 05:16:46 PM

Quote from: GQBlues on Sept 15 at 9:05 AM
Sodomized? He not only was raped and sodomized, they dragged his body down the street. His limo was ambushed coming back to the embassy/consulate. Mainstream media is playing it down because....

For the inquisive minds...the genesis (& trail) of the initial reporting, according to Snopes was Libyan newsreport quoting (allegedly) AFP (Agence France Presse) which are now strongly denying/refuting the story saying they were *misquoted*...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp)

In light of some of the more non-convention news or source information about what really happened (that mainly means people who are actually there during that night and saw what happened - NOTE: this is important), it appears that Stevens died of asphyxiation and some Libyan nationals tried to help him as shown on the video below. Watching the vid, it appears as though they dragged his body and celebrated his death. From my POV, it seems as though they tried to rescue him and likely saw signs that he's alive and we're *happy* to know there's a chance to revive him...Sandro speaks Arabic, maybe he can verify the actual event from the vid.

Watch it and you be the judge..

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1991481/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1991481/pg1)

The underlying lesson here is...no knee jerk reactions, you can't solely rely on information given by mainstream media without doing your due diligence, and most importantly - you can't possibly know better about any event taking place in a country other than your own by virtue of reading websites and online news reporting, than the people who actually live there everyday....take note, please.

Thank you for having the decency to admit that your original knee-jerk reaction was wrong.
 
As for the last part - yes, I'll keep out of American politics...and be glad that, according to Faux Pas and others, I won't be there when the country implodes.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 22, 2012, 05:32:04 PM
I seem to remember when Quadaffi died both GQ and Gator thought it was great...

really?!? How'd you know I had the DVD set complete with alternate endings?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 22, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
 
Thank you for having the decency to admit that your original knee-jerk reaction was wrong.

Lol. Glad to hear you can sleep better at nights now. Happy to indulge.
 
Quote
As for the last part - yes, I'll keep out of American politics...and be glad that, according to Faux Pas and others, I won't be there when the country implodes.

Ahh the most important lesson of all. It's good to know you show signs of learning however slight. As for the silly implosion, there's likely a much better chance the US will continue to lead and indulge the world with innovation to enhance the global society's lives as even the neediest of our poor are still far better equip than the most. But I'm certain you already know that.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 22, 2012, 06:45:37 PM
 
FP, what are you talking about?  Is the New York Times yet another on your list of newspapers that aren't worth the (cyber)paper they're printed on?  Is there any news organisation that you have any time for, or do you only ever believe something if you see it with your own eyes?  I'm as sceptical as most but, from this distance, I have to trust that at least some reported news is accurate.

The NYT is exactly the mainstream media I have been referring to. They have repeatedly carried Barry's water and white-washed everything about him. You really should keep your mouth shut when you haven't a clue of what you speak. First the Huffington Post and now the New York Times? I don't really care Kiwi where you get your news from but, when you attempt to approach me in your condescending manner as if you actually know something, maybe you should actually know something?  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 23, 2012, 05:19:52 AM
The NYT is exactly the mainstream media I have been referring to. They have repeatedly carried Barry's water and white-washed everything about him. You really should keep your mouth shut when you haven't a clue of what you speak. First the Huffington Post and now the New York Times? I don't really care Kiwi where you get your news from but, when you attempt to approach me in your condescending manner as if you actually know something, maybe you should actually know something?  :popcorn:

This cuts both ways, Faux Pas - if you can't be bothered reading what I actually wrote (yet again) then I really do wonder how you can justify your condescension towards me.  My reference was solely about the death of Ambassador Stevens, nothing else.  How the New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, the Disney Channel or ANY other media reported what President Obama was doing at the time has absolutely no relevance to what I wrote.  Why can't you understand that?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 23, 2012, 05:23:48 AM
...As for the silly implosion, there's likely a much better chance the US will continue to lead and indulge the world with innovation to enhance the global society's lives as even the neediest of our poor are still far better equip than the most. But I'm certain you already know that.

I do, so long as you're talking about items rather more meaningful than the iPhone5, but it appears that others on here don't share your confidence.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 23, 2012, 07:54:27 AM

I do, so long as you're talking about items rather more meaningful than the iPhone5, but it appears that others on here don't share your confidence.

Congratulations! Did you get the black or the white one?  ;) But ok, maybe the holographic imaging won't be around until iP8, but we can't spoil a whole lot of you in such a short time now, can we?

So for something more *meaningful*, Curiosity just landed and likely it'll be a short time now before it can start sending info back to feed the global scientific community appetite again - as HUBBLE is/has been doing at this time.

So for now, how about the very method you use to deliver your message in this venue for starters?

BTW...I forgot to thank you for introducing the world to your KIWI fruit. Thanks, man...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on September 23, 2012, 08:13:31 AM


Guys and Gals,


Point 1: this is an international forum and all members are invited to post opinions on any topic - including this one.


Point 2: some of the reasons political threads are generally unwelcome at RWD are that:
    A) politics is not the focus of the forum
    B) they inevitably degenerate into name calling and personal attacks,  and
    C) the animosities usually spill into other areas


Point 3: keep it clean and to the issues.  Any post, regardless of how relevant or cleverly worded which contains an insult will not be edited -- it will be deleted -- so don't bother wasting your time or ours..  8)


Point 4: relax




Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 23, 2012, 09:34:16 AM
Interesting the State Dept. admonishes CNN for circulating, consequently questioning, Stevens' journal where it is implied that he had noted (unpublished yet at this time) warnings about a pending terror threat that the State Department didn't provide proper security personnel for leading up the that fateful night.

"We think the public had a right to know what CNN had learned from multiple sources about the fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn't do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel," CNN said in a written statement emailed to Reuters.


"Perhaps the real question here is why the State Department is now attacking the messenger," CNN said in the statement.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49136130/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49136130/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa)

WOW I say...testy exchange between CNN and the State Department? Odder still, the article appearing on MSNBC News? What will NYT write about regarding this revelation with 40 days left before the election?
 :o
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 23, 2012, 06:14:50 PM
Congratulations! Did you get the black or the white one?  ;)

I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy - I actually use my phone to make phone calls, and nothing else!  From home to work is 15 or 20 minutes, and I'm sitting in front of a computer all day, so I don't need to worry about mobile data or taking photos (my phone does have a camera, but I carry an actual camera with me all the time anyway).
 
 
So for something more *meaningful*, Curiosity just landed and likely it'll be a short time now before it can start sending info back to feed the global scientific community appetite again - as HUBBLE is/has been doing at this time.

Great - I'm looking forward to seeing the images.  I'm in awe of by how much Spirit and Opportunity have outlived their design life - maybe Curiosity will do the same.

So for now, how about the very method you use to deliver your message in this venue for starters?

You mean the computer (the Greek Antikythera from 2,000 years ago is probably the first, but we'll give the credit for the electronic version to the team at Sperry Rand which built ENIAC) or the "world-wide web" (invented by Englishman Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who was honoured at the opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games)?  :clapping:

BTW...I forgot to thank you for introducing the world to your KIWI fruit. Thanks, man...

Well, if the Chinese couldn't be bothered... >:D   Glad you like them.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 23, 2012, 07:01:51 PM
...I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy - I actually use my phone to make phone calls, and nothing else!  From home to work is 15 or 20 minutes, and I'm sitting in front of a computer all day, so I don't need to worry about mobile data or taking photos (my phone does have a camera, but I carry an actual camera with me all the time anyway).

No problem with that at all....my Mumski's VCR console still shows that silly flashing 12:00. Does your mobile still sport those 3 lbs battery and comes with a double-shoulder strap?  :P
 
 
Quote
...Great - I'm looking forward to seeing the images.  I'm in awe of by how much Spirit and Opportunity have outlived their design life - maybe Curiosity will do the same...

I do too...fascinating stuff really..
 
Quote
..You mean the computer (the Greek Antikythera from 2,000 years ago is probably the first,

Man, you are an old-fashioned kind of man...2,000 years ago...well considering the DNA trail we now understand, then my money rest on the Mesopothamias (<3000 BC) to be the first to invent a non-programmable calculating device, the Abacus...

Quote
...but we'll give the credit for the electronic version to the team at Sperry Rand which built ENIAC)

Not so fast, and not that I was referring to functional modern programmable computers to begin with anyway...but FWIW, had I been, then I'd put my money to any of the 3: Turing, Zuse and/or Babbage.

But nope, had you read my post correctly and not exercised knee-jerk reaction  :rolleyes: , I actually said *method to deliver your message*. I was more referring to the super information highway, ARPANET - point-to-point communication or better known as Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, or simply the Internet; without which...

Quote
...but  or the "world-wide web" (invented by Englishman Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who was honoured at the opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games)?

...there never would've been such a celebration. (btw - congrats to the UK/London for a wonderful Olympics!)
 
Quote
..Well, if the Chinese couldn't be bothered... >:D   Glad you like them...

Yes I do...but I still like them peeled.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 24, 2012, 03:35:26 AM
No problem with that at all....my Mumski's VCR console still shows that silly flashing 12:00. Does your mobile still sport those 3 lbs battery and comes with a double-shoulder strap?  :P

No, but I did have one of them when they first came out (or, to be precise, my office bought one which I used when away on business).  Eight hours to charge...twenty minutes talk time (if you were lucky)...those were the days!  8)
 

Man, you are an old-fashioned kind of man...2,000 years ago...well considering the DNA trail we now understand, then my money rest on the Mesopothamias (<3000 BC) to be the first to invent a non-programmable calculating device, the Abacus...

Not so fast, and not that I was referring to functional modern programmable computers to begin with anyway...but FWIW, had I been, then I'd put my money to any of the 3: Turing, Zuse and/or Babbage.

Didn't the Chinese invent a version of the abacus as well?  I was actually going to put Babbage, but thought I'd better check first.  :D

But nope, had you read my post correctly and not exercised knee-jerk reaction  :rolleyes: , I actually said *method to deliver your message*. I was more referring to the super information highway, ARPANET - point-to-point communication or better known as Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, or simply the Internet; without which...

...there never would've been such a celebration. (btw - congrats to the UK/London for a wonderful Olympics!)

I had read it correctly, but I thought I'd chuck in the computer references just in case.  8) 8)
 
Yes I do...but I still like them peeled.

Why?  The skin is the best part!  Unless, of course, you're allergic to furballs and such-like.  :'(
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on September 24, 2012, 12:57:25 PM
really?!? How'd you know I had the DVD set complete with alternate endings?
It's about knowing the saying "The better the devil you do know than the one you don't"
Also at that time Nato was backing radical elements of Al Qaeda in Libya (they are in Syria now). Quadiffi's big sin to the West was not him being a despot but it was rather his working with the African union to establish their own banking system/currency and bypass IMF loans.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 24, 2012, 01:55:32 PM
It's about knowing the saying "The better the devil you do know than the one you don't" Also at that time Nato was backing radical elements of Al Qaeda in Libya (they are in Syria now). Quadiffi's big sin to the West was not him being a despot but it was rather his working with the African union to establish their own banking system/currency and bypass IMF loans.

Maxx ftr, I couldn't care less about Qaddafi - dead or alive really. If the Libyan population deemed him an unwanted element in their lives and society, that's their call..

As for anymore western (un)warranted -covert- political relations, I resigned any other interest beyond the Balkan's KLA/Milosevic affair of the 1990s since they haven't even completed full investigation of the extent of participation by our own government and our overly self-righteous neighbors across the pond (especially Germany) over who really armed the terrorist organization formerly known as the Kosovo Liberation Army that provoked the butchering of the Albanians. Just like what happened in Rwanda.

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/germany-and-the-kosovo

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army)

http://intelnews.org/about/latest-analysis/content/analysis001/ (http://intelnews.org/about/latest-analysis/content/analysis001/)

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/opinion/7888-natos-monster-in-kosovo.html (http://www.pacificfreepress.com/opinion/7888-natos-monster-in-kosovo.html)

"..That's rather rich coming from a politician who held office during the systematic looting of Albania's impoverished people during the "economic liberalization" of the 1990s.

At the time, Berisha's Democratic Party government urged Albanians to invest in dodgy pyramid funds, massive Ponzi schemes that were little more than fronts for drug money laundering and arms trafficking.


More than a decade ago,
Global Research (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22619) analyst Michel Chossudovsky documented how the largest fund, "VEFA Holdings had been set up by the Guegue 'families' of Northern Albania with the support of Western banking interests," even though the fund "was under investigation in Italy in 1997 for its ties to the Mafia which allegedly used VEFA to launder large amounts of dirty money."

By 1997, two-thirds of the Albanian population who believed fairy tales of capitalist prosperity spun by their kleptocratic leaders and the IMF, lost some $1.2 billion to the well-connected fraudsters. When the full extent of the crisis reached critical mass, it sparked an armed revolt that was only suppressed after the UN Security Council deployed some 7,000 NATO troops that occupied the country; more than 2,000 people were killed...."


I often wondered how Ms Albright gets to sleep at nights these days...
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 24, 2012, 05:10:16 PM
Back to the gist of the thread...
 
Beyond the presidential election, this coming November affords each of you to also vote for your State's respective "Proposition Ballot' voting. There's a few interesting proposition for California this time around. One, for example, is our Governor's proposal to raise out SITs and one to raise our State's sales tax to offset the huge budget deficit our State is sitting on...
 
 
But what I'm very interested in is Proposition 32: The Paycheck Protection Initiative (2012). In short, the proposition affords the state citizenry to 'vote' yeah/nay to ban political campaign donors both from the Corporate and Union organization in support of their respective politicians, LOL. It is so interesting how much support money actually goes into these propositions. Monies used for advertising to creatively con the unsuspecting voting public by offering strategically disguised arguments from both sides of the aisle.
 
In light of the current state of affairs, both statewide and nationally this year, I'll just simply look at who supports these respective proposition and vote accordingly. Here's an in depth look at our Prop. 32:
 
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_%22Paycheck_Protection%22_Initiative_(2012 (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_%22Paycheck_Protection%22_Initiative_(2012))
 
Donors in support of the proposition:
 
As of September 17, 2012, the "yes" campaign has raised about $8.8 million.[13] (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_%22Paycheck_Protection%22_Initiative_(2012)#cite_note-donors-12)[14] (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_%22Paycheck_Protection%22_Initiative_(2012)#cite_note-junedonations-13)
These are the $50,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of September 17, 2012:
Donor Amount
American Future Fund
$4,080,000
Charles Munger, Jr. (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Charles_Munger,_Jr.)
$992,204
Thomas M. Siebel
$500,000
William Bloomfield, Jr.
$300,000
Larry Smith
$260,701
Jerry Perenchio (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Jerry_Perenchio)
$250,000
Citizen Power Campaign
$230,317
B. Wayne Hughes
$200,000
William Oberndorf
$150,000
Protect Prop 13 (HJTA (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Howard_Jarvis_Taxpayers_Association))
$125,000
Lincoln Club of Orange County
$110,000
Robert J. Oster
$101,000
Frank E. Baxter
$100,000
Timothy C. Draper (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Timothy_C._Draper)
$100,000
William L. Edwards
$100,000
Howard F. Ahmanson
$50,000
Charles B. Johnson
$50,000
Franklin P. Johnson, Jr.
$50,000
Nicoletta Holdings Company
$50,000
Richard J. Riordan
$50,000
Steven A. Laub
$50,000

 
Those who opposes:
 
This is a list of the $100,000 and over donors to the "no" campaign as of September 17, 2012:[23] (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_%22Paycheck_Protection%22_Initiative_(2012)#cite_note-22)
Donor Amount
California Teachers Association (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Teachers_Association)
$16,452,509
SEIU (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/SEIU)/California State Council of Service Employees (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_State_Council_of_Service_Employees)
$6,788,969
California Professional Firefighters (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Professional_Firefighters)
$2,601,580
AFSCME (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/AFSCME)
$1,634,725
California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/AFL-CIO)/Change to Win)
$1,372,431
Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC
$1,276,846
California School Employees Association (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_School_Employees_Association)
$1,050,000
California Faculty Association (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Faculty_Association)
$1,027,471
California/American Federation of Teachers (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Federation_of_Teachers)
$800,000
International Association of Firefighters
$500,000
Professional Engineers in California Government
$500,000
Thomas Steyer (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Thomas_Steyer)
$500,000
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
$426,552
California State Pipe Trades Council
$250,000
Los Angeles Police Protective League's Public Safety First PAC
$250,000
Peace Officers Research Association
$250,000
Million More Voters (AFL-CIO)
$245,516
Northern California District Council of Laborers' Issues
$150,000
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
$129,718
United Transportation Union
$105,000
San Bernardino County Safety Employees' Benefit Association
$100,000
John Perez (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/John_Perez) Ballot Measure Committee
$100,000
United Domestic Workers of America
$100,000
Union of American Physicians & Dentists
$100,000
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
$100,000

 
...LOL! nothing but the Unions. They are out-spending supporters almost 5:1. Hhhmmmm. $8.8 million vs $ 37.6 million. Unbelievable!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 24, 2012, 07:35:21 PM
I earlier expressed my displeasure with how the administartion is indirectly exonerating terrorism by claiming the demonstrations in Libya, Egypt, etc. were in response to the anti-Muslim video.   The administration wants to be loved in the Middle East, and not be viewed as a strong force.

While some may be critical of the State Department not heeding warning signs about the Benghazi attack, keep in mind that the Department relies upon its local personnel to assess the situation.  The Ambassador is the decision maker.  He has access to all the intelligence and he thought the situation was secure enough to travel to the weakly defended consulate.  He was wrong, and he paid with his life.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 24, 2012, 07:37:12 PM
With regard to wanting to be loved in the Middle East, there is a recent rumor that Obama may consider releasing the blind sheik who plotted the  1993 bombings of the WTC.  This rumor is mentioned by a conservative group:    http://www.secureamericanow.org/pdfs/SAN-09-21-12-RELEASE-TAKE-A-STAND.pdf (http://www.secureamericanow.org/pdfs/SAN-09-21-12-RELEASE-TAKE-A-STAND.pdf)
 
Egypt's new leader had promised to seek the release of the sheik.
   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/world/middleeast/morsi-promises-to-work-for-release-of-omar-abdel-rahman.html?ref=omarabdelrahman (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/world/middleeast/morsi-promises-to-work-for-release-of-omar-abdel-rahman.html?ref=omarabdelrahman)
 
Surely this will not happen. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 24, 2012, 10:20:36 PM
With regard to wanting to be loved in the Middle East, there is a recent rumor that Obama may consider releasing the blind sheik who plotted the  1993 bombings of the WTC.  This rumor is mentioned by a conservative group:    http://www.secureamericanow.org/pdfs/SAN-09-21-12-RELEASE-TAKE-A-STAND.pdf (http://www.secureamericanow.org/pdfs/SAN-09-21-12-RELEASE-TAKE-A-STAND.pdf)
 
Egypt's new leader had promised to seek the release of the sheik.
   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/world/middleeast/morsi-promises-to-work-for-release-of-omar-abdel-rahman.html?ref=omarabdelrahman (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/world/middleeast/morsi-promises-to-work-for-release-of-omar-abdel-rahman.html?ref=omarabdelrahman)
 
Surely this will not happen.

Could be more than a rumour - it even made our main television news a couple of days ago.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 25, 2012, 02:35:02 AM
All funny stuff...

The internet is a 'wild west' of information and disinformation.

Seems this story first appeared 9/18 at:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/18/obama-negotiating-release-of-omar-abdel-rahman/

based largely on a 9/12 blog at:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/service-blind-sheikh_652250.html?nopager=1

based largely on a 6/21 blog at:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/21/member-of-egyptian-terror-group-goes-to-washington.html

It all goes semi mainstream with an opinion on WSJ about 9 hours ago.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578014531735055120.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Bottom line there is absolutely nothing official at all about any of this.  It is pure conjecture and extrapolation aimed at those that will not do the research necessary to discern fact from fiction.

Otherwise this 'story' has been largely ignored, but of course pundits will latch on any straws they can.

Title: Political Chicken or Egg first theories
Post by: BC on September 25, 2012, 02:55:14 AM
About 70% of GDP is driven by consumer spending.

During the last decade, prior to the economic crisis, much of consumer spending was driven by consumer credit.

After most recessions, due to large amounts of money pumped into the economy, GDP growth rebounded fairly quickly (within 1 or 2 years).  Consumer spending rose and therefore employment followed.

This time around it seems that consumers are rather wary to use their credit cards and other financial debt instruments, instead concentrating on paying back what they owe and trying more to live within their means.

Quote
Credit card balances dropped to $672 billion, the lowest level since 2002. This represents a decrease of 22.4 percent from their peak of $866 billion which took place in the fourth quarter of 2008. Credit card delinquencies of 10.9 percent are at their lowest level since 2008.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/09/14/big-decline-in-credit-card-debt/

Considering the effect of consumer spending and growth, I've seen some estimates that an overwhelming portion of growth (typically 5%) was due to the desire of consumers to use credit.. and that excluding credit, growth would be just about what it is today (around 2%) despite the Fed dumping billions into the financial system.

Remember that growth was heated by the housing boom.  Folks were buying cars and all kinds of things with loans based on their equity at high home values..

So which came first...  the chicken or the egg?  Is high unemployment and slower growth caused by folks finally starting to live within their means or is growth and consumers not using credit for new purchases hampered by unemployment?


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on September 25, 2012, 06:54:57 AM
Romney sure has a way to provide more jobs...

Quote
"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no - and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous."

http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doesnt-know-why-airplane-windows-wont-open-calls-the-closed-window-policy-a-real-problem (http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doesnt-know-why-airplane-windows-wont-open-calls-the-closed-window-policy-a-real-problem)

 :wallbash:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 25, 2012, 07:31:13 AM
Romney sure has a way to provide more jobs...


And you believe Romney is that dumb?  He graduated in the top five percent of his Harvard MBA class and the top third of his  Harvard law school class (incidentally both his JD and MBA were earned concurrently in a 4-year program limited to 15 star students). 
 
Romney is highly intelligent, so Romney's quote makes me wonder about the context.
 
It also makes me wonder about people who might believe Romney was serious.  Reminds me of a staff meeting at my military unit in Viet Nam in 1966.  I was a green lieutenant filling in for one of the staff.  The S-2, another lieutenant, read his weekly intelligence report from "Saigon command" advising that the Viet Cong could be planning an offensive and were armed with a new Soviet weapon - nuclear hand grenades.  The S-2 was serious.  The Colonel snapped back, "What is the date of that report?"  "April first, sir."  "And you believe that shit.  Good grief!"  ;)
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 25, 2012, 09:46:08 AM
All funny stuff...

The internet is a 'wild west' of information and disinformation.

Seems this story first appeared 9/18 at:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/18/obama-negotiating-release-of-omar-abdel-rahman/

based largely on a 9/12 blog at:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/service-blind-sheikh_652250.html?nopager=1

based largely on a 6/21 blog at:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/21/member-of-egyptian-terror-group-goes-to-washington.html

It all goes semi mainstream with an opinion on WSJ about 9 hours ago.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578014531735055120.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Bottom line there is absolutely nothing official at all about any of this.  It is pure conjecture and extrapolation aimed at those that will not do the research necessary to discern fact from fiction.

Otherwise this 'story' has been largely ignored, but of course pundits will latch on any straws they can.

Here is something I ran across today. All of it I believe to be substantiated. Interesting read

http://issuu.com/opubco/docs/obama-behind-the-image (http://issuu.com/opubco/docs/obama-behind-the-image)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 25, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
Here is something I ran across today. All of it I believe to be substantiated. Interesting read

http://issuu.com/opubco/docs/obama-behind-the-image (http://issuu.com/opubco/docs/obama-behind-the-image)

Interesting article, but nothing startling taken at face value. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 25, 2012, 11:07:15 AM
Not quite sure why there's early voting this election? They've even started it before any of the debates...Does anyone know the reason behind this?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 25, 2012, 11:52:06 AM
Interesting article, but nothing startling taken at face value.

A good look at Chicago politics and the deep corruption that gave birth to *cough* Hope and Change  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 25, 2012, 12:15:25 PM
Not quite sure why there's early voting this election? They've even started it before any of the debates...Does anyone know the reason behind this?

For folks like myself and my son who are overseas and visiting close to election time.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 25, 2012, 01:14:45 PM
For folks like myself and my son who are overseas and visiting close to election time.

It may well be BC. But didn't absentee voting took care of all that before? Just odd to me how in a lot of places one can actually vote an entire month ahead of time without exemption. Methinks this election is all but over anyway....just the formalities to follow. Hope not.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 25, 2012, 01:17:44 PM

It may well be BC. But didn't absentee voting took care of all that before? Just odd to me how in a lot of places one can actually vote an entire month ahead of time without exemption. Methinks this election is all but over anyway....just the formalities to follow. Hope not.
yep, this will prolly be a Chicago-Acorn style voting all the way...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 25, 2012, 01:52:03 PM
yep, this will prolly be a Chicago-Acorn style voting all the way...

And if it is?

Guess that is not democratic enough for you?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 25, 2012, 02:04:42 PM
And if it is?

Guess that is not democratic enough for you?

Would you disagree that it is certainly a breeding ground for fraud?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 25, 2012, 02:24:48 PM
And if it is?

Guess that is not democratic enough for you?
I suppose fraud can be a part of any system, but personally I prefer a clean and honest election process.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on September 26, 2012, 12:29:06 AM

And you believe Romney is that dumb?  He graduated in the top five percent of his Harvard MBA class and the top third of his  Harvard law school class (incidentally both his JD and MBA were earned concurrently in a 4-year program limited to 15 star students). 
 
Romney is highly intelligent, so Romney's quote makes me wonder about the context.
 
It also makes me wonder about people who might believe Romney was serious.  Reminds me of a staff meeting at my military unit in Viet Nam in 1966.  I was a green lieutenant filling in for one of the staff.  The S-2, another lieutenant, read his weekly intelligence report from "Saigon command" advising that the Viet Cong could be planning an offensive and were armed with a new Soviet weapon - nuclear hand grenades.  The S-2 was serious.  The Colonel snapped back, "What is the date of that report?"  "April first, sir."  "And you believe that shit.  Good grief!"  ;)
You know my opinion on education  ;D
Just to show how Romney is portrayed in Europe....I have no doubt that someone managing to run for President is not ever as stupid as some media try to show him.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on September 26, 2012, 10:38:06 AM

Just to show how Romney is portrayed in Europe....I have no doubt that someone managing to run for President is not ever as stupid as some media try to show him.

One does wonder...
Quote
The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.[74][75] The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States)

Quote
Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax return (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/24/mitt_romney_tax_returns_released.html) on Monday. His total income for the year was listed as **$21.6 million, more than one-half of which came from capital gains.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/01/romney_income_calculator_how_much_does_mitt_make_how_long_would_it_take_him_to_earn_your_salary_.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/01/romney_income_calculator_how_much_does_mitt_make_how_long_would_it_take_him_to_earn_your_salary_.html)

** So when he says 'we can't afford 4 more years' I think he really means... me.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 26, 2012, 12:08:21 PM
tfcrew

Is capital gains income tainted?  Uncle Sam didn't think so when he paid IIRC, 4 mil in tax and another 2 mil in charity donations

I'd much rather have Romney's 14% than Obama's 20%, wouldn't you?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on September 26, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
 
Quote
Herbert Hoover and John Kennedy both donated their salaries to charity.
 George Washington,when he learned the US Congress had voted to pay him a sum of $25,000/year, did not want to take a salary.  However, it was pointed out to him that some future presidents might find it a real hardship to do without pay and that he should not set the precedent of refusing a salary.


Would Romney take the pres pay? He did waive his gov pay.
 
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/would-president-romney-take-performance-based-bonus/53458/ (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/would-president-romney-take-performance-based-bonus/53458/)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 26, 2012, 07:11:45 PM
tfcrew

Is capital gains income tainted?  Uncle Sam didn't think so when he paid IIRC, 4 mil in tax and another 2 mil in charity donations

I'd much rather have Romney's 14% than Obama's 20%, wouldn't you?

Actually Mitt contributed $4 million to charity, but wrote off only $2 million so that his tax rate would not drop below 14%.  He gave not just his money but his time.  An interesting article about the compassion of conservatives vs. liberals.  Liberals want big government to decide how the needy are taken care of with tax money.  Conservatives tend to give directly, thinking the direct approach is more efficient than government control.
 
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/26/ambrose-romneys-charitable-giving-ignored/?opinion=1 (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/26/ambrose-romneys-charitable-giving-ignored/?opinion=1)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on September 27, 2012, 04:49:26 AM
Based on contemporary wealth, George Washington was the country's richest president.

I would not say that Obama has a silver tongue...more like chrome plated.
He will beat Romney in the debates probably.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: oldernotwiser on September 27, 2012, 08:43:35 AM

Actually Mitt contributed $4 million to charity, but wrote off only $2 million so that his tax rate would not drop below 14%. 


Why would he do that??
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 27, 2012, 11:31:47 AM

Why would he do that??

It does seem odd.  I read  Romney had explained a long time ago that he has never paid less than 14%.  If he deducted the full $4 million, his rate would have dropped below 14%.   BTW, his $4 million given to charity is equal to 29% of his gross income, twice his tax payments.  And do not forget the amount of his personal time that he gave.
 
I guess Romney is intent on speaking the truth, which many would assert makes him ineligible to be a politician.   Now compare Romney's attitude with Obama's.   
 
Residing in a swing  state, I see the political advertisements.  Obama's ads are deceitful, yet a significant number of voters will believe his crap.
 
I watched the 60 Minutes  interview of Obama last Sunday.  CBS decided not to air these words from Obama:   "Do we see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, mistakes that are made, areas where there's no doubt that somebody could dispute how we are presenting things, that happens in politics."
 
To quote an Obama critic:     "Note the passive voice, as if the President's re-election campaign is disembodied from the President. If Mr. Obama's campaign seems dishonest enough that even Mr. Obama is forced to admit it, this is because it's coming from the top."
 
Obama is indeed wallowing in his element, mud.  Disgusting, but it probably works better at winning than trying to stay above it. 
 
Hopefully the independent voters will come to their senses.  If not, I see more struggles between Democrats and Republicans.  After another four years of increasing the debt and growing the government, Obama will easily go down as the worst President in history.   And it will not bother him, even when Republicans sweep in 2016.  Now that scares me almost as much as an Obama victory in 2012, because unfettered Republicans will swing the pendulum too far.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 27, 2012, 11:37:22 AM

Why would he do that??

Oh, because he wanted to pay his fair share.  ::)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on September 27, 2012, 11:45:24 AM
If not, I see more struggles between Democrats and Republicans.

Worse than that..... with 4 more years of Obama I see serious struggles between the perceived "rich" folks in the GoodOl' USA and the "poor" folks.
 
I see the chasm between the 2 classes only getting deeper and wider with resentment, fueled by Obama's public rants about the rick folks not paying their fair share.
 
Barack Hussein Obama is one of the most divisive presidents we have ever had sitting in the White House.
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 27, 2012, 12:15:17 PM
Oh, because he wanted to pay his fair share.  ::)

Muzh,
 
Just wondering.  How many of your liberal friends contribute as much time to charity?  And what do you guess is their average financial contributions as a percentage of AGI?
 
You can defend the Democratic platform and I respect you for key reasons, one being that I subscribe to some of their policies.   But to defend the person sitting in the White House is beyond me. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 27, 2012, 12:50:26 PM

Muzh,
 
Just wondering.  How many of your liberal friends contribute as much time to charity?  And what do you guess is their average financial contributions as a percentage of AGI?
 
You can defend the Democratic platform and I respect you for key reasons, one being that I subscribe to some of their policies.   But to defend the person sitting in the White House is beyond me.

Gator, you could say that 100% of my work is for charity benefiting the needy.

Actually, the majority of my friends don't just write a check to those "poor bastards" but they roll their sleeves and do the real work.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 27, 2012, 01:28:40 PM
Gator, you could say that 100% of my work is for charity benefiting the needy.

That would mean you are not getting paid for your work...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 27, 2012, 01:41:57 PM


Actually, the majority of my friends don't just write a check to those "poor bastards" but they roll their sleeves and do the real work.

I am glad to know that you are not friends with Biden, Kerry and Gore.  Your friends are good people, yet the stark contrast between liberal and conswervatives regarding charity is still true.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on September 27, 2012, 05:41:31 PM
...with 4 more years of Obama, I see serious struggles between the perceived "rich" folks in the GoodOl' USA and the "poor" folks.
Troubling echoes of a remote past ;)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rauZMrXqRu0

(1790)
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira!
Les aristocrates à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira!   
Les aristocrates on les pendra!   
Si on n’ les pend pas,
On les rompra.   
Si on n’ les rompt pas,   
On les brûlera.


Ah! It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine!
The aristocrats to the lamp-post.
Ah! It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine!
The aristocrats, we'll hang them!
If we don't hang them,
We'll break them.
If we don't break them,
We'll burn them.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 27, 2012, 05:50:00 PM
Oh yes! Edith Piaf, very popular in the USSR of my youth :)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 27, 2012, 10:32:14 PM
Well gentlemen, now they are going to print $40 billion a month... We are cooked.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on September 28, 2012, 03:02:21 AM
Well gentlemen, now they are going to print $40 billion a month... We are cooked.
Now if only they would allow competition in this we would all be in a lot better position.  ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 28, 2012, 03:23:30 AM
The fed is actually buying mortgages, pumping more liquidity into the markets.

The tools they have are few..  with interest rates near zero, one tool is used up.  Adding / reducing liquidity is pretty much all they have left.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on September 28, 2012, 03:34:51 AM
Thats not true.  They have lots of tools left.  They just need to wait until after the election to use them since they might not get reelected if they used them now.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 28, 2012, 03:39:36 AM
Thats not true.  They have lots of tools left.  They just need to wait until after the election to use them since they might not get reelected if they used them now.

I do like to learn..  aside from controlling liquidity and interest rates what other tools does the fed have?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 28, 2012, 07:12:38 AM
Now if only they would allow competition in this we would all be in a lot better position.  ;D

Europe has similar programs and discussing more.  Japan too.  And China is talking stimulus.   
 
Europe is also addressing its fiscal matters.  The US is not. 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 28, 2012, 07:19:46 AM

Europe has similar programs and discussing more.  Japan too.  And China is talking stimulus.   
 
Europe is also addressing its fiscal matters.  The US is not.
and that I see as a little problem  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on September 28, 2012, 07:27:01 AM
Thats not true.  They have lots of tools left.  They just need to wait until after the election to use them since they might not get reelected if they used them now.

BC was talking about the tools the FED (as in Federal Reserve Board) has.

Who do you think reelects these folks?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 28, 2012, 07:35:04 AM
BC was talking about the tools the FED (as in Federal Reserve Board) has.

Who do you think reelects these folks?
are you saying that we are just like Russia?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 28, 2012, 07:41:06 AM
I do like to learn..  aside from controlling liquidity and interest rates what other tools does the fed have?

Within the categories of liquidity and interest rates, there are many options.  I do not believe they will be needed because QE3 can continue indefinitely. 
 
QE3 was designed to not only boost the home building industry but would have the secondary effect of boosting home prices.  This would encourage homeowners to spend more, which would compel business to invest and hire.

Recently a large hedge fund has announced plans to spend $3billion buying homes in the Tampa area for the rental market.   Banks foreclosed on many homes, evicting the owners.  The evicted owner could not buy a home and must rent, so demand for rental properties is up.
 
Clearly the economy is frail to compel the Fed to undertake QE   (infinity).   This week the second quarter GDP growth was revised downward from 1.7% to 1.3%.   And idiotic people will vote for Obama because Romney is wealthy and paid only a 14% tax rate.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on September 28, 2012, 08:03:26 AM

Europe has similar programs and discussing more.  Japan too.  And China is talking stimulus.   
 
Europe is also addressing its fiscal matters.  The US is not.
I was not meaning on a country level but more on a personal level... >:D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 28, 2012, 10:57:20 AM
Within the categories of liquidity and interest rates, there are many options.  I do not believe they will be needed because QE3 can continue indefinitely. 
 
QE3 was designed to not only boost the home building industry but would have the secondary effect of boosting home prices.  This would encourage homeowners to spend more, which would compel business to invest and hire.

Recently a large hedge fund has announced plans to spend $3billion buying homes in the Tampa area for the rental market.   Banks foreclosed on many homes, evicting the owners.  The evicted owner could not buy a home and must rent, so demand for rental properties is up.
 
Clearly the economy is frail to compel the Fed to undertake QE   (infinity).   This week the second quarter GDP growth was revised downward from 1.7% to 1.3%.   And idiotic people will vote for Obama because Romney is wealthy and paid only a 14% tax rate.

Everyone, including the Fed seems quite puzzled about a large liquidity surplus and little movement on main street.  It's really a no brainer.  As corporations downsized during the crisis, they found they could keep going quite well without a fat personnel belt-line.  Folks on main street are paying off their loans and not using credit, also realizing that 'back to basics' and living within their means is quite ok.

It's simply a new environment that will take some getting used to.  The days of 5%+ growth will not be back.  The drop from 1.7 to 1.3 seems to be largely due to a 13% drop in durable goods orders - mostly attributed to lower / cancelled orders for big ticket items like commercial aircraft.

Goal should be 2-3% and that will be difficult for anyone in the Oval Office to meet over the next decade.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 28, 2012, 11:23:04 AM

Goal should be 2-3% and that will be difficult for anyone in the Oval Office to meet over the next decade.
There you go again, giving up.  I understand your sentiment if you believe Obama will win.   :D   
If we can not reach 4-5% growth, we are in serious fiscal trouble as entitlement expenditures are already almost equal to all tax revenue, and increasing at a rate faster than 2-3%.
 
2012 Budget 
 
Outlays
      Appropriated (discretionary)  $1,319 Billion
      Mandatory (entitlements)        2,252
      Net Interest                              225               
      Total                                      3,796
 
Receipts   (FIT, etc,)                      2,469     
 
Deficit                                           1,327
 
Without more tax revenue, we can balance the budget only by eliminating the Federal government including military.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 28, 2012, 11:26:34 AM
How things have changed. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on September 28, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
That would mean you are not getting paid for your work...

Ed, let me put it this way.

I can work for a lobbyist friend of mine part time and do 3 cases. That would pay me at least $25K more than I make in a year. The three cases would take me 3 weeks max to do.

So, yes. I'm virtually working for free.

BTW, I explained to my friend I am retiring, period. If he needs a little help, I will provide pro bono advice because he is my friend.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on September 28, 2012, 07:52:14 PM
...Who do you think reelects these folks?

Sometimes certain questions are better left unanswered...Aw...what the heck...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio


...now paying close attention, for being poor, low income, etc...they sure seem well fed, no? The lady likely eats a plenty she even need to take advantage of Obamacare and get herself a new set of gnashers...

YES! Give us your poor, your sick and your disadvantaged. We will embrace all of them to the Land of the FREE!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on September 28, 2012, 09:45:39 PM
Sometimes certain questions are better left unanswered...Aw...what the heck...





...now paying close attention, for being poor, low income, etc...they sure seem well fed, no? The lady likely eats a plenty she even need to take advantage of Obamacare and get herself a new set of gnashers...

YES! Give us your poor, your sick and your disadvantaged. We will embrace all of them to the Land of the FREE!
Быдло
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 28, 2012, 11:20:04 PM
Sometimes certain questions are better left unanswered...Aw...what the heck...


...now paying close attention, for being poor, low income, etc...they sure seem well fed, no? The lady likely eats a plenty she even need to take advantage of Obamacare and get herself a new set of gnashers...

YES! Give us your poor, your sick and your disadvantaged. We will embrace all of them to the Land of the FREE!

You know the most ironic piece of this is that it was Dubya's admin that gave these Democrats a phone. It would be damn funny of it wasn't true
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Belvis on September 29, 2012, 12:26:45 AM

Romney is highly intelligent, so Romney's quote makes me wonder about the context.
 ...
It also makes me wonder about people who might believe Romney was serious.  Reminds me of a staff meeting at my military unit in Viet Nam in 1966.  I was a green lieutenant filling in for one of the staff.  The S-2, another lieutenant, read his weekly intelligence report from "Saigon command" advising that the Viet Cong could be planning an offensive and were armed with a new Soviet weapon - nuclear hand grenades.  The S-2 was serious.  The Colonel snapped back, "What is the date of that report?"  "April first, sir."  "And you believe that shit.  Good grief!"  ;)
:) It seems american military brass has the advantage over russian one in sense of humour. I wander how S-2 was going to withstand nuclear hand grenades  :)

I find Romney's political agenda is more adequate than Obama's kicking the can down the road.  Тo be honest Russia benefits Obama's or should I say Bernanke's economical line which keeps up the commodity prices . However the bliss can't long forever.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 29, 2012, 04:18:35 AM
There you go again, giving up.  I understand your sentiment if you believe Obama will win.   :D   
If we can not reach 4-5% growth, we are in serious fiscal trouble as entitlement expenditures are already almost equal to all tax revenue, and increasing at a rate faster than 2-3%.
 
2012 Budget 
 
Outlays
      Appropriated (discretionary)  $1,319 Billion
      Mandatory (entitlements)        2,252
      Net Interest                              225               
      Total                                      3,796
 
Receipts   (FIT, etc,)                      2,469     
 
Deficit                                           1,327
 
Without more tax revenue, we can balance the budget only by eliminating the Federal government including military.

Giving up? Hardly... just pointing out that a lower, but more steady growth is better than high growth based on fragile factors such as debt and other balloons that end up popping right and left.  3% is 30% over 10 years...  Yes, more has been achieved in the past, but at what final cost?

I'm sure you remember well the 60's and early 70's..  compare the home back then and now..  Most folks back then were quite happy with a 20 inch or so TV... Color was a luxury.  That was entertainment.  Today we have games, 50 inch TV's that almost anyone can afford and the ubiquitous  mobile devices that provide the new degree of instant satisfaction deemed necessary to keep up with the Jones'.....

What I am saying Gator is that maybe Main Street folks are also maturing in this fast paced era... maybe coming to the realization that they really do not need all that is offered, much less use credit to buy it...  The consumer saturation level has been reached and shoving more down their throats, especially if such requires credit will be very challenging.

I do hope the economy picks up again and stays steady.  There is one measure I will use to judge it by and that is whether or not I will see advertisements and signboards offering payday loans....  when they disappear I will know things are getting better.  Yeah, that maybe sounds quite strange, but it is something that is very unique to the US economy.. I have never, ever seen such outside the US and strangely enough UK.

Folks living within their means...  that's what it's all about and the economy will just have to adjust to that environment.  Is that not a huge part of 'responsibility' many Republicans tout?



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 29, 2012, 07:56:59 AM
BC
A couple of points germane to your post you seem to look past. Bubbles come and go. That is why they are bubbles but, bubbles while they may appear artificial are generally an important ingredient to any economy. Bubbles still drive economies. Don't discount bubbles.

Even in the best of times economies are very, very fragile. Time is very much of the essence. While you are willing and satisfied for a 3% yearly growth rate in a 30 year plan, the current economy could very easily collapse from the weight of that slow growth. If the general public had any idea how fragile the US and world economy really is, we would all have bomb shelters loaded with a couple of years food.

If or when it does collapse, the experts contend that the depression of the 20s-30s could be compared as a mild recession to what will happen.

One measure to avoid such a collapse is some austerity measure while we are able. There may in fact be nothing to stop such a catastrophe but, what the experts also contend that is driving us there is debt and spending. Once the economy collapses there is no "uh oh we made a boo boo" moment and let's get a redo. There will be no redo in our lifetime.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SANDRO43 on September 29, 2012, 04:17:36 PM
Bubbles come and go. That is why they are bubbles but, bubbles while they may appear artificial are generally an important ingredient to any economy. Bubbles still drive economies. Don't discount bubbles.
From what we've seen in our recent past, the problem is that they appear to drive a very few people into affluency, and quite too many down to much lower levels if not into poverty.

Like whipping maniacally a horse: you get a short-lived sprint, then a collapse :-\.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on September 29, 2012, 09:15:47 PM
From what we've seen in our recent past, the problem is that they appear to drive a very few people into affluency, and quite too many down to much lower levels if not into poverty.

Like whipping maniacally a horse: you get a short-lived sprint, then a collapse :-\.

Have you any examples? I can offer you a couple. The internet dot com was a prime example of a bubble, housing was a bubble, in 1946 autos were a bubble.

The Kardashians are a bubble
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on September 30, 2012, 01:59:11 AM
...The Kardashians are a bubble

You need new glasses - they have several bubbles!  >:D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 30, 2012, 02:26:24 AM
There you go again, giving up.  I understand your sentiment if you believe Obama will win.   :D   
If we can not reach 4-5% growth, we are in serious fiscal trouble as entitlement expenditures are already almost equal to all tax revenue, and increasing at a rate faster than 2-3%.
 
2012 Budget 
 
Outlays
      Appropriated (discretionary)  $1,319 Billion
      Mandatory (entitlements)        2,252
      Net Interest                              225               
      Total                                      3,796
 
Receipts   (FIT, etc,)                      2,469     
 
Deficit                                           1,327
 
Without more tax revenue, we can balance the budget only by eliminating the Federal government including military.

BC
A couple of points germane to your post you seem to look past. Bubbles come and go. That is why they are bubbles but, bubbles while they may appear artificial are generally an important ingredient to any economy. Bubbles still drive economies. Don't discount bubbles.

Even in the best of times economies are very, very fragile. Time is very much of the essence. While you are willing and satisfied for a 3% yearly growth rate in a 30 year plan, the current economy could very easily collapse from the weight of that slow growth. If the general public had any idea how fragile the US and world economy really is, we would all have bomb shelters loaded with a couple of years food.

If or when it does collapse, the experts contend that the depression of the 20s-30s could be compared as a mild recession to what will happen.

One measure to avoid such a collapse is some austerity measure while we are able. There may in fact be nothing to stop such a catastrophe but, what the experts also contend that is driving us there is debt and spending. Once the economy collapses there is no "uh oh we made a boo boo" moment and let's get a redo. There will be no redo in our lifetime.

Gator,
FP,

Try http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth  and plug in the dates you would like to see included.

Here the recent ups and downs.. 

(http://i.imgur.com/Ycvon.png)

Historically the average is around 3.3%.. but yes Gator, tax revenue is an important factor, but remember the Bush tax cuts?.. did that not affect revenue?..

Now looking at the graph, one could construe that increased growth was higher because of the tax cuts, but lets broaden the picture a bit...

(http://i.imgur.com/T47n6.png)

Can one now really say that the Bush tax cuts made a real improvement?  The Bush years may seem like a small boom, but consider government spending during that period..... on wars and homeland security measures...

I dunno, maybe I am just an idiot, but at least one that does not see things adding up.  My theory is that higher taxes, or at the very least blocking tax loopholes will again force loose cash producing low taxed investment income into a more 'make your money work for you' environment.  Whether or not this will happen is really quite irrelevant once one realizes that the current situation of a high stock market vs low unemployment is not sustainable and WILL crash anyway at some point in the near future.

FP,

yes economies worldwide are indeed fragile.  When indicators diverge from history is where problems begin.  A crash is forthcoming IMHO.  The imbalances within the system are very, very unique... the Stock Market reaching new highs and unemployment low?  How can that be?  I don't know about you but I would be very uncomfortable investing in the markets these days.

Yes, austerity is a tool.. but remember that it is often the case that investments are necessary to end up with a net gain.  I do believe this is the case with healthcare reform....  healthcare related services account for around 25% of GDP now and rising rapidly - without any justifiable gains in quality of life during our longer years on earth... why is that?  Why do folks in the US pay a third or even half more than the rest of the world?  Now don't blame it on the baby boomers... this has been going on for decades.  Do you really feel comfortable paying 75 bucks for an antibiotic that costs 10 in a 'socialized' health system that can use it's clout against big Pharma?

The economic system will not collapse at a steady 3% growth.. it will instead thrive.  3.33 is the magic number.... 3.33% loans in any form, 3.33% growth and a progressive tax rate with a maximum of 33.3% taxation on corporations and individuals based on their worldwide income, regardless of source..

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on September 30, 2012, 03:01:31 AM
A crash coming or not depends mainly on ehtics and realities of corporate reporting. Having worked in the field myself, I know that when making an annual report every company is weighing their options between how much tax they wish to pay and how successful they need to be to please their investors.
At a time when business is booming, companies look for methods to reduce their reported profits. When business goes down, they use the same methods in reverse to build up their reports. This goes well until you hit the spot where you can no longer calculate away your real results.
If a company is near the spot where they have to admit having hidden bad results, a small crisis is a welcome thing, as by reporting a single higher loss 'due to global crisis' they can revert to the realistic situation of the company without getting punished for it, making the company healthy in terms of financial reporting versus reality. The problem is of course that if many companies do this it creates a larger crisis.
One of the main indicators of the future situation is the business of industry suppliers. As industry is usually working with long-term projects that can not easily be halted just because there is a crisis, their suppliers will usually be the last hit by projects being postponed. At the same time industries will be investing to keep up their production before consumers start buying, which means that suppliers are the first to benefit of an uprise in economy.
As soon as the business of industrial suppliers goes up, an uplift in the general economy is to be expected in one or two years time.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on September 30, 2012, 07:49:12 PM
BC,
Good charts.  Will you please go back to 1980 and 84. 
 
Lower taxes of course free more income for personal spending, which fuels the economy.  The reduction of certain taxes is comparable to not taking the seed corn to feed the hungry and instead providing more seed corn to plant, thereby yielding a larger harvest, and the hungry will get a bigger share.  Perhaps too corny for educated liberals.   ;)
 

Whether or not this will happen is really quite irrelevant once one realizes that the current situation of a high stock market vs low unemployment is not sustainable and WILL crash anyway at some point in the near future.


Something must give.  Either the economy improves or the stocks level off if not decline.  Why not the economy?  For now and the near future, keep in mind that stocks are very competitive in comparison with other investment opportunities.

Quote
Do you really feel comfortable paying 75 bucks for an antibiotic that costs 10 in a 'socialized' health system that can use it's clout against big Pharma?

Economists will assert that $10 drugs will not fund R&D for the drugs of the future.  You know, those drugs which have helped to increase our lifespan to something not contemplated when Social Security was created.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on September 30, 2012, 10:42:47 PM
BC,
Good charts.  Will you please go back to 1980 and 84. 
 
Lower taxes of course free more income for personal spending, which fuels the economy.  The reduction of certain taxes is comparable to not taking the seed corn to feed the hungry and instead providing more seed corn to plant, thereby yielding a larger harvest, and the hungry will get a bigger share.  Perhaps too corny for educated liberals.   ;)
 
Something must give.  Either the economy improves or the stocks level off if not decline.  Why not the economy?  For now and the near future, keep in mind that stocks are very competitive in comparison with other investment opportunities.
 
Economists will assert that $10 drugs will not fund R&D for the drugs of the future.  You know, those drugs which have helped to increase our lifespan to something not contemplated when Social Security was created.

Gator,

Not corny at all.

of course no one can argue that Reagan's policies preceded many years of economic stability, but one cannot say that doing the same today would have the same results, or even be possible for that matter.  Don't have much time, but take a look at the tools available back then and those now, and consider context.

During the Reagan years, the price of oil in today's monetary value dropped from $70 to around $20, a huge bonus.  Interest rates back then were 20% after fighting the inflation battle.  The following years allowed the interest rate to drop by two thirds, another huge bonus.  What was the tax rate when Reagan took office and how much was it reduced?  Was the manufacturing segment of GDP not somewhere around 20% back then?  What was the national debt in today's monetary value?

Without spending too much time explaining, consider the tools and some given benefits Reagan had to work with at the time.  Yes taxation did provide an additional perk but it was not everything.  I am fairly certain that if tomorrow the price of oil dropped to $30.00 the economy would get a good boost as this would directly affect disposable income across the board.  Interest rates?..  Obama and the Fed only had very little in the way of flexibility, orders of magnitude less than Reagan had back then.  Taxes?.. just remember that even Reagan overstepped and had to raise taxes in the end and they went up again thereafter..  but the period of economic stability endured much longer.  Obama has much much less to work with in the way of allowing lower taxes since the Bush tax cuts already used up most of the potential despite the towering national debt.

Other factors play in as well, like demographics.  What was the consistency of the workforce?  What was the workforce education level compared to today?  Consider the rate of technological innovations back then.. are the same leaps happening today as compared to the rest of the world?

Despite the differences, the economy although fragile has made progress and we all can only hope it keeps getting a bit better and more stable using the few tools left.

Reagan had sacks of corn to play around with, Obama, even Bush only a handful.

Does this make any sense?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 01, 2012, 06:31:03 AM

Reagan had sacks of corn to play around with, Obama, even Bush only a handful.


Yes, and the sacks of seed corn continue to dwindle, which is even more reason to address the dwindling amount of seed corn remaining.  Obama policies are making it worse.  What is his current plan for improvement other than to take more seed corn from the planters?
 
To be candid, I am not certain about Romney's plan either as these are indeed tough times.   However, I feel that he will do a better job of helping to get more American's working and at a better wage. 

Let me discuss one example.  The retired  CEO of Intel was interviewed today on CNBC.  He explained how Intel had most of its manufacturing and R&D housed in America even though most of its sales occur outside America.  This is ideal.  However, he  explained that this is changing.  When deciding where to build its next world class facility, it would cost $1 billion more in Net Present Value to locate it in America.  The primary reason - corporate taxes. 
 
These are the types of issues that need to be deliberated by our government, a deliberation led by our President.  A cut in corporate taxes must be balanced somehow.  Hopefully it is balanced by more tax revenue from a growing economy.

 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 01, 2012, 06:33:08 AM
BC, you wrote:
 

Quote
During the Reagan years, the price of oil in today's monetary value dropped from $70 to around $20, a huge bonus.  Interest rates back then were 20% after fighting the inflation battle.  The following years allowed the interest rate to drop by two thirds, another huge bonus.  What was the tax rate when Reagan took office and how much was it reduced?  Was the manufacturing segment of GDP not somewhere around 20% back then?  What was the national debt in today's monetary value?



From Wiki:

Quote

Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well
above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose
from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose
from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold
increase.[4] The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in
1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10% in
1980 to 4% in 1988.[2]

 

Many economists have stated that Reagan's policies were an
important part of bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion
in U.S. history, and followed by an even longer 1990s expansion that began under
George H.W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H.W._Bush) in 1991.[24][25] This economic expansion
continued through the Clinton administration with unemployment rates steadily
decreasing throughout his presidency (7.3% at the start of his presidency and
4.2% at the culmination, with the lowest rate reaching 3.9% in
2000).[26] During the Reagan administration, the American economy
went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005
dollars),[27] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1%
in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 10.8% in
1983.[26][28] A net job increase of about 21 million also
occurred through mid-1990. Reagan's administration is the only one not to have
raised the minimum wage.[29] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell
to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal
Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve) (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[30] The latter contributed
to a relatively brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell
by 1.9%.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 01, 2012, 08:39:57 AM
Gator,

my effort was to try and show the difference in context and not to show whether or not Reagan was wrong or right.

A rather interesting article considering it was written in 1988 so not at all Obama related:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

Quote
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 01, 2012, 09:21:22 AM
BC,
 
Interesting.  Good summary.
 
So taxes essentially stayed the same under Reagan.  I would expect that.  Even if Romney won, I would expect tax revenue to increase.  As I stated before in my budget summary, the only way to balance the budget is to eliminate all of government including the military.  That will not happen.  So cuts and tax increases are both needed.  Hopefully the tax increases come from more jobs and higher wages.
 
The question under Reagan is who paid what taxes.  Were the Reagan tax changes an effective form of economic engineering to spur growth?  Do the Obama tax increases do the same?
 
You and I were not educated in economics.  What do the economists say?   This CNN survey says of 17 "top economists" surveyed, 9 selected Romney as best for the economy, 3 selected Obama and 5 said neither would lift the economy (your opinion).
 
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/30/news/economy/romney-obama-economists/index.html?iid=Popular (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/30/news/economy/romney-obama-economists/index.html?iid=Popular)
 
Notice the title chosen for the article even though Romney received 3X more votes.   The media's treatment of Obama is another issue.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 01, 2012, 09:27:25 AM
I just mentioned media's favorable treatment of Obama.   
 
Before the administration admitted that the Libya attack was planned by terrorists, the media was echoing the Obama line.  GQ cited one daily that did not (incidentally that source is owned by a Russian oligarch).
 
Here is a short video clip of what one Obama turncoat had to say, claiming the media has become the enemy of the American people.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBR4g6cBYeA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 01, 2012, 10:08:49 AM
BC,
 
Interesting.  Good summary.
 
So taxes essentially stayed the same under Reagan.  I would expect that.  Even if Romney won, I would expect tax revenue to increase.  As I stated before in my budget summary, the only way to balance the budget is to eliminate all of government including the military.  That will not happen.  So cuts and tax increases are both needed.  Hopefully the tax increases come from more jobs and higher wages.
 
The question under Reagan is who paid what taxes.  Were the Reagan tax changes an effective form of economic engineering to spur growth?  Do the Obama tax increases do the same?

You and I were not educated in economics.  What do the economists say?   This CNN survey says of 17 "top economists" surveyed, 9 selected Romney as best for the economy, 3 selected Obama and 5 said neither would lift the economy (your opinion).
 
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/30/news/economy/romney-obama-economists/index.html?iid=Popular (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/30/news/economy/romney-obama-economists/index.html?iid=Popular)
 
Notice the title chosen for the article even though Romney received 3X more votes.   The media's treatment of Obama is another issue.

Gator,

Although we are not educated in economics, I am quite sure we both understand some of the fundamental concepts involved.  That economists still argue over the issue just goes to show no one is really an expert. - all are guessing based on their knowledge.  No one can predict the future.

As far as Reagan goes, it seems he did lower taxes on the wealthy to make the tax system more progressive which in itself is not bad.  This was countered by closing loopholes.  Globalization however created a whole new realm of loopholes and strategies along with additional 'benefits' added over the years when the economic situation was healthy.  Obama if I understand him correctly does want to lower corporate taxes, but close the loopholes as well.  Considering the resistance in Congress it's almost as if the loopholes are worth much much more than we know.  Effective corporate taxes are lower than they have ever been but the major factor seems to be that business emphasis has shifted from brick and mortar to 'virtual' and financial services which do less to drive employment.

As stated in my prior posts, innovation has leveled out with more competition.  The only way to combat that is education, a painful, expensive long term process.  Yes, a big investment, but bang for buck it can't be beat..  Sadly fewer and fewer can afford it.

Jobs is a result of demand.  It is much harder to create demand when the customer is credit shy, even enjoying living more credit free.  That is the bottom line I see.

The economy is readjusting, but even that is hard with the ground moving under your feet.  It seems the more you mess with trying to fix things the more things get broken. OTOH business it seems has not been able to handle deregulation in a responsible manner.  Ethics have been thrown out the window for profit.

That's all I have time for now, but do appreciate your thoughts and insight.

[edit]

Some information seems to indicate that Reagan increased taxes for the middle class.  Remember that the middle class during his time was also the prime 'baby boomer' working years.  Now the baby boomers are starting to retire en masse - also a huge difference of context.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 01, 2012, 03:06:30 PM

Some information seems to indicate that Reagan increased taxes for the middle class.  Remember that the middle class during his time was also the prime 'baby boomer' working years.  Now the baby boomers are starting to retire en masse - also a huge difference of context.

A very important point.  I am serious.
 
Because the boomers did not replace themselves, I guess us seniors must rely on a wave of immigrants, legal and illegal, to create a young base to the demographic pyramid and fund our medicare and social security.   I am not serious.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 03, 2012, 08:34:17 PM
I love presidential debates! My favorite one-liner tonight...

“Mr. President, you are entitled to your own airplane and your own house but not your own facts.”

Obama looked like a shagged beaten dog tonight and I really do hope come November they'll let this sleeping dog lie.

Even CNN's Wolf Blitzer can't spin on what happened tonight. I love the fact Mitt brought up the silly $90 Billion Green Initiative raping of this country benefiting Obama's campaign donors to his face.

Romney CLEARLY displayed who's the better mind to right this country's economic woes.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on October 03, 2012, 08:47:05 PM
I was becoming pretty pessimistic about Romney's chances based on what all the 'experts' were saying the past several months.

But after the just finished 'debate' I think there is the starting of a glimmer of hope for Romney. 

His CEO skills were showing, and it seemed Obama's charisma was not quite up to par, at least on this night.

Not a knock out punch by Romney, but I think it got him back into the race.

Likely Ryan can eat Biden's lunch when they match up.

I also think the 90 Billion dollar spending on some failed companies controlled by Obama contributors is something that Romney should hit a little harder.

It is clear that there is a major difference between a candidate who appeals to our 'rugged individualism' and a 'welfare/socialist' outlook.

Unfortunately, we have a lot more 'takers' than 'givers,' so Romney starts out with a substantial 'golf handicap.'
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 03, 2012, 08:55:38 PM
I love presidential debates! My favorite one-liner tonight...

"..but you can't own your own facts!"

Obama looked like a shagged beaten dog tonight and I really do hope come November they'll let this sleeping dog lie.

Even CNN's Wolf Blitzer can't spin on what happened tonight. I love the fact Mitt brought up the silly $90 Billion Green Initiative raping of this country benefiting Obama's campaign donors to his face.

Romney CLEARLY displayed who's the better mind to right this country's economic woes.
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000!!!!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 03, 2012, 08:57:46 PM
[size=78%]Likely Ryan can eat Biden's lunch when they match up.[/size]

[size=78%]No doubt!!![/size]
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 03, 2012, 09:03:06 PM
I saw some serious bitch slapping of Obama by Romney and Obama had not defense or retort. I looked in on MSNBC afterwards and they were admitting the same. A defeat for Obama of course with all sorts of attacks on Romney/Ryan and Republicans. The suit is empty and the debate was a view of it
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 04, 2012, 04:30:05 AM
The 'winner' of a debate does not a President make.

Remember Kerry won his first debate.

As to tactics, Obama might be playing the sleeper, to let Romney overreact giving a number of promises to debunk down the line. The next weeks of ads and campaign speeches will be full of fact checking slams, mostly against Romney.

Some of this will come out in the upcoming debates as Romney clearly oversold himself, especially now that some parts of his 'plans' are on the record and irrevocable.

It's kind of hard to hit such a vague and moving target as Romney so getting firm points gathered from the first debate will help out in the two subsequent debates.

This looks like a fair assessment of the overstatements both by Romney and Obama.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-article-1.1174495

What surprised me the most was that once the onion was peeled and tears washed away, they were both saying pretty much the same thing in roundabout ways.

Obama is not stupid.  He's playing chess and not checkers.

It's not over till it's over.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on October 04, 2012, 05:14:56 AM
Mitt treated Obama like a "red headed stepchild" last night (politely of course).  ;)
 
I am really curious as to how Newt would have done against Obama last night. I have always been impressed with Newts debate skills and eloquence.
 
I guess we will never know.
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on October 04, 2012, 07:28:59 AM

As to tactics, Obama might be playing the sleeper, to let Romney overreact giving a number of promises to debunk down the line.

Obama is not stupid.  He's playing chess and not checkers.

I think there may be some truth to this.

Or just the simple idea that Obama's people will whip him into shape.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 04, 2012, 08:20:37 AM
I think there may be some truth to this.

Or just the simple idea that Obama's people will whip him into shape.

Or could be another long or all nighter because of the Turkey/Syria situation.  I did note he had to leave very quickly after the debate.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 04, 2012, 09:13:56 AM
 Yeah…reminds me of Tyson’s quote, ”Everyone has a plan until they get hit!

To say Obama’s flop on this debate as some sort of strategy is being disingenuous. You don't rope-a-dope when you have your opponent half-conscious.

1. This should’ve been the very best opportunity to make Mitt obsolete. Days following the DNC, the Obama campaign had literally had Romney on his heels leading up to this debate. They flooded the airwaves with negative publicity almost making the Republican nominee as an after-thought.

2. They need as much leverage and advantage leading up to next week’s Vice-Presidential debate.

Obama faced a guy bred for these types of dialogue through his years of executive experiences. He had no clue how quick AND prepared this guy can be. I bet neither did Obama’s advisers. Mitt royally schooled Obama for what he is, an empty suit. He had nothing to rebut Romney with his attack on his policies. How can he?  Obama’s policies the past 4 years are so atrocious even Obama and his platform is desperately campaigning someone else’s policies 15-20 years ago. How pathetic is that?

As a Reuters news reporter accurately remarked after the debate, said; ”Mitt Romney so overwhelmed Obama, he made him look like a college kid the day of his English final term exam who obviously didn’t study days prior and simply reasoned  *I already know English*”

Mitt should’ve made the point when the conversation went into banks, housing and mortgage loans being approved when they shouldn’t have. He should’ve pointed out it was Obama, then-acting attorney for ACORN, sued banks and the federal government on the grounds of discrimination when unqualified applicants were denied home loans.

True, this is one debate and likely Obama’s circles will throw in a more pro-active stance with the next two. One debate doesn’t lose the presidency bid. Bush and Reagan proved that. But my delight is seeing someone blast Obama for what he truly is in front of (Inter)National TV ~ an idiot.

I play chess BC and for the life of me this is not a strategy…this is a classic blunder. The suit got blitzed!
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on October 04, 2012, 12:14:19 PM
In chess one would call this a sacrifice. In the Grand Theater of American politics its called a work.
Obama beating Romney in a first debate would not be very news worthy. His rhetoric skill are known, so people would not want to watch. Nor would it draw votes if Obama outspeeches Romney from the first try.

By this 'loss' many more people are going to follow the next rounds. More voters to influence, more stories in the news. That is the real deal about this debate, it is mostly to stir up interest in people to be involved.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 04, 2012, 03:22:00 PM
GQ

Very appropriate Tyson's quote. It would appear Obama's entire strategy was "duck and move". There is no defense for his failed leadership and floundering policies. That should continue to stay Romney's focus point of attack. That is the major issue facing Americans today. Part of a longer term strategy? Pul-eeeeeze. Obama is teeth in an empty suit. Promise the world, deliver dic. He is the epitome of "Campaigner in Chief".

I was surprised at the left hammering him on his performance. That is generally, something they will not budge on. No debate to my knowledge ever put a man in the WH but, BO leg's are wobbly like a mofo. It'll be interesting to see if Romney goes for a KO on the next Debate
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on October 04, 2012, 03:31:10 PM
GQ

Very appropriate Tyson's quote. It would appear Obama's entire strategy was "duck and move". There is no defense for his failed leadership and floundering policies. That should continue to stay Romney's focus point of attack. That is the major issue facing Americans today. Part of a longer term strategy? Pul-eeeeeze. Obama is teeth in an empty suit. Promise the world, deliver dic. He is the epitome of "Campaigner in Chief".

I was surprised at the left hammering him on his performance. That is generally, something they will not budge on. No debate to my knowledge ever put a man in the WH but, BO leg's are wobbly like a mofo. It'll be interesting to see if Romney goes for a KO on the next Debate

It's been pleasant to not be involved in US politics since I am enjoying my vacation in Ukraine.  What I posted a month ago is still valid.  The best of two evils.  No question, Obumma is a path to more socialism.  I will return in time to vote.  The choice is obvious!!

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 04, 2012, 04:00:39 PM
Some of you surely know that there is a school of thought out there that there is this banking cartel (The Rothchilds, JP Morgan, etc,) that controls
the world economy, money, the stock market, prices of oil and gold. That a US president can not be elected without their OK and once elected he answers to them. Some say that the Cartel will not allow the dollar to collapse and therefore will keep the price of gold under $2000 and may even bring it down back to a $1000 next year.
If this is the case it really shouldn't matter who is elected to be in the White House. Yet it seems that there are differences in policies set forth by the 2 parties and different presidents (i.e. Carter versus Regan and now Obama who's agenda is noticeably changing this country).
So what is the truth? Is it somewhere in the middle?
Thoughts?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on October 04, 2012, 04:38:25 PM
Some of you surely know that there is a school of thought out there that there is this banking cartel (The Rothchilds, JP Morgan, etc,) that controls
the world economy, money, the stock market, prices of oil and gold. That a US president can not be elected without their OK and once elected he answers to them.

This is very silly Ed.  I am surprised you have been in USA so long, yet still think along the lines of non-free countries with conspiracies everywhere.

Cannot be elected without their OK !!!!!!  Who  the fock is going to tell me and millions of others how to vote.  The idea is patently ridiculous. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 04, 2012, 04:56:19 PM
...I was surprised at the left hammering him on his performance. That is generally, something they will not budge on. No debate to my knowledge ever put a man in the WH but, BO leg's are wobbly like a mofo. It'll be interesting to see if Romney goes for a KO on the next Debate

 It is for now a worthy celebration for the red coats. But as you well know, Bain and the 47 will rear their ugly heads in the next 2 debates since it seems obvious now their bumbling, bobble headed 64’s antic had fast become yesterday's joke. *Lean Forward* on the basis of someone else’s 20 year old policy? Give me a break. Heck, they can’t even critique Mitt’s healthcare program in MA nor can they do with the state’s education program. It’s numero uno…

Obama still have a very strong base. Make no mistake about it. Mitt had already spotted him a ‘47’ but he should’ve known they’re fighting for the centrists, the undecided, and if they're playing games by strategizing their way into these debates, they better game-up soon. Colorado is a battleground state. Big mistake, man.

I got to give Roland Thacher, Van Jones and Stephanie Cutter a big hand of pitiful recognition for the lasting effects of last night’s Kool-Aid. Yup, according to these morons, Obama had them where he wants ‘em..

I can’t wait for SNL’s spoof on this one.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 04, 2012, 05:07:49 PM
Some of you surely know that there is a school of thought out there that there is this banking cartel (The Rothchilds, JP Morgan, etc,) that controls the world economy, money, the stock market, prices of oil and gold..... So what is the truth? Is it somewhere in the middle?
Thoughts?

LOL.

There's a better chance Tarzan coming out and it was Cheeta he had the hots for all these time, than your rumor being true.
 
But who knows, man. After all, Hugo Chavez endorses Obama implying he's the best thing for America! Take that for what its' worth. Seriously!  ;D
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7P7ePjfLM0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7P7ePjfLM0)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 04, 2012, 05:11:16 PM
Last thoughts...
 
So whatever happened to Stevens' journal CNN got a hold of? How come Americans are not made aware of if he in fact 'warned' the State Dept of the pending danger in Libya? Will we ever know?
 
Isn't there supposed to be an investigation going on with this? Will we ever know?  :(
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 04, 2012, 05:27:30 PM
This is very silly Ed.  I am surprised you have been in USA so long, yet still think along the lines of non-free countries with conspiracies everywhere.

Cannot be elected without their OK !!!!!!  Who  the fock is going to tell me and millions of others how to vote.  The idea is patently ridiculous.
What is silly is not recognising that there is a very powerful banking cartel (Central banks, Federal Reserve, etc.) that does control money, comodities, politics and economies. One can only guess how far their power reaches but I suspect far enough.
And if you think "We the people" have any say in what they do, please let me know when the next audit of the Fed is going to take place!  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on October 04, 2012, 08:02:05 PM
ED, the silly part was your statement "That a US president can not be elected without their (banking cartel) OK and once elected he answers to them."

So address this directly.  You really believe that the banking cartel can force me and millions of other Americans to vote the way they want?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 04, 2012, 09:27:21 PM
ED, the silly part was your statement "That a US president can not be elected without their (banking cartel) OK and once elected he answers to them."

So address this directly.  You really believe that the banking cartel can force me and millions of other Americans to vote the way they want?
It wasn't my statement or my belief. I simply stated that there is a school of thought offering this interpretation of "reality". I asked a question:


"If this is the case it really shouldn't matter who is elected to be in the White House. Yet it seems that there are differences in policies set forth by the 2 parties and different presidents (i.e. Carter versus Regan and now Obama who's agenda is noticeably changing this country).[/size]So what is the truth? Is it somewhere in the middle?Thoughts?[/i]


However I do believe that it is possible for this cartel to influence who gets elected by backing them up financially and politically.
I don't think asking questions is silly. Not asking questions and taking everything at face value can be silly on the other hand.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 04, 2012, 09:39:05 PM
ED, the silly part was your statement "That a US president can not be elected without their (banking cartel) OK and once elected he answers to them."

So address this directly.  You really believe that the banking cartel can force me and millions of other Americans to vote the way they want?

What proof do you have that your vote is actually counted?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on October 05, 2012, 02:51:33 AM

And if you think "We the people" have any say in what they do, please let me know when the next audit of the Fed is going to take place!  :D


At this last stage of the game be glad they're not.  If the Fed were audited at this point, the economic crash would be virtually instantaneous...

If the true results were made public that is... which they could not do.. so best not to toss that rock into the hornet nest.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on October 05, 2012, 04:59:40 AM

So address this directly.  You really believe that the banking cartel can force me and millions of other Americans to vote the way they want?
Yes we can!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 05, 2012, 06:04:52 AM
Yes we can!
Are you one of them, Shadow?!?! Please tell us all the secrets!  :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on October 05, 2012, 06:35:22 AM
Are you one of them, Shadow?!?! Please tell us all the secrets!  :D
I am not one of them, nor do I really support outlandish theories. However the electoral system in the US does lend itself for being influenced and even blatant malversations. However this would require such a big organization that it would be highly unlikely that it is done, at least that is what I like to think.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 05, 2012, 07:32:10 AM
...However I do believe that it is possible for this cartel to influence who gets elected by backing them up financially and politically.... 

In that context, of course it is. Soros proves that point. He may not have necessarily negated millions of votes but in fact persuaded them in the direction he sought. The Unions are another entity that directly/indirectly *affects* our voting system.

Here's another...

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20121005&id=15640586 (http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20121005&id=15640586)

Take the labor report released today, 30 days before the election ~ Unemployment rate plummeted well below 8% in nearly 4 years!!! That's 873K people *finding work* when only 144K jobs were created!!! Wonderful math, no? Maybe part-time work? If so, then state so. But regardless, even if the majority of these numbers were attributed to part-time work ~ then things have not changed at all.

But watch the media spin this unto something else.

Much like Obama taking credit for 300K new hire in '10 when that number was actually for the temporary hiring of census workers....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 05, 2012, 08:12:40 AM
 GQ,

Yes it is a grand democratic conspiracy to tweak these numbers.

But no worry.. Its all part of a democratic process so no need to complain.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 05, 2012, 09:40:13 AM
GQ,

Yes it is a grand democratic conspiracy to tweak these numbers.

But no worry.. Its all part of a democratic process so no need to complain.

Complain?! Moi? No, not me....I see it for its entertainment value really...About a year ago, or maybe at the beginning of this year, I cited in this very thread the upcoming media circus and spin doctors' arrival, and were deep in it right now and really quite a show so far! I must say....

 :P

Better than any reality TV at this current time. Heck, the debate commanded 67 million viewers! That's 15 million more than '08 first debate! A whole lot of viewers to witness a wonderful strategy exercised, no?

Or maybe Al Gore is right...maybe it is the altitude!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 05, 2012, 09:44:15 AM
GQ,

Yes it is a grand democratic conspiracy to tweak these numbers.

But no worry.. Its all part of a democratic process so no need to complain.
But... complaining is a vital part of the democratic process, no?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 05, 2012, 09:45:39 AM
[size=78%]Or maybe Al Gore is right...maybe it is the altitude![/size]
Al Gore is always right!  ::)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 05, 2012, 10:06:31 PM
 :ROFL:

Day 2 with the Liberals and its media on why Obama looked like an idiot during the debate...it gets better everytime!

1. It's the altitude!

2. Mitt Romney is a liar!

3. Obama can't afford to look like an angry blackman! He doesn't have the same latitude as a white dude!

4. It's Jim Lehrer's fault! (Debate Moderator)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/10/04/msnbcs-ed-schultz-pulls-race-card-explain-weak-obama-debate-performa-0 (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/10/04/msnbcs-ed-schultz-pulls-race-card-explain-weak-obama-debate-performa-0)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 05, 2012, 10:24:36 PM
How Taiwan viewed the debate, LOL...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsyS3xVxTyU&feature=youtu.be


What a fine strategy!

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on October 06, 2012, 11:32:08 AM
Some of you surely know that there is a school of thought out there that there is this banking cartel (The Rothchilds, JP Morgan, etc,) that controls
the world economy, money, the stock market, prices of oil and gold.
 
Thoughts?

Good to see that there's at least one person here who understands how the world really works.
 
You guys think it was a coincidence that the Federal Reserve (which is a private banking cartel -- neither federal nor a reserve) and the IRS were both established in 1913?
 
Anyone read "The Creature From Jekyll Island"? http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212 (http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212)

How about "Wall St. and the Rise of Hitler"? (taken straight from Nuremberg Military Tribunal documents by Stanford research scholar Anthony B. Sutton) http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html (http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html)
 
Anyone seen a United States Note (not Federal Reserve) that JFK tried to issue in 1963?
 
Anyone know who said, "Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws”?
 
Easy to dismiss all of this with a simple "conspiracy theory" pejorative...


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 06, 2012, 11:52:13 AM

Good to see that there's at least one person here who understands how the world really works.
 
It would be ignorant of me to think that I actually understand how the world really works, but I do think about it, try to learn and keep an open mind. Thank you though!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on October 06, 2012, 12:04:05 PM
Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin and you will! http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X

It was originally published in 1998 and Chapter 2 is titled, "The Name of the Game is Bailouts." Sound familiar?

Here's Amazon's book description:

"Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money. A dry and boring subject? Just wait!

You'll be hooked in five minutes. Reads like a detective story - which it really is. But it's all true.  This book is about the most blatant scam of all history. It's all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity.

Creature from Jekyll Island is a "must read." Your world view will definitely change.  You'll never trust a politician again - or a banker."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on October 06, 2012, 07:59:08 PM
Let's say you were a private international banking cartel that was in a position to issue unlimited credit to the world's most powerful country, with just a few keystrokes and unencumbered by a Constitution or gold standard. In other words, as long as that debt is maintained (or massively increased), you essentially own that country's entire GNP.

Let's also say that IRS revenues did nothing but pay the interest on that debt.

What would you do?

I think Eduard knows... (he's probably the only one who wonders why we're paying interest on our own money!)

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 08, 2012, 01:36:47 PM
Ignoring the conspiracy theory, I have a few comments about the debate.
 
I am not sure how to explain Obama's performance.  It was not rope-a-dope.  Instead it was due to one or all of the following:
 
1.  Obama is simply the equivalent of being out of shape.  He has not been involved in a debate in 4 years.  He has been surrounded by friendly press, giving him only softball questions and never pursuing weaknesses.  Also, I doubt that his staff argue with him when setting policy.  Obama does not know what it means to be challenged with facts and logic.
 
2.  Obama's 4-year record is so bad that he can not defend it; no one can defend it.  Political pundits and  his campaign staff are laughable when they try to defend Obama's record.

3.  That is how a person looks when lectured by a superior.
 
4.  Obama is so arrogant that he does not give a shit about Romney's points.  He stood there with a smirk on his face that says "Mitt, I don't have to listen to you because I will win.  I will be re-elected and continue to do what I have been doing but this time with less restraint.  You will lose and go away.  You are wasting your breath."
 
Obama's smirk.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKMUHcgsbag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKMUHcgsbag)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 08, 2012, 01:52:10 PM
What ever the reasons, the debate has done the following:
 
1.  It has re-energized the Romney supporters.

2.  It should make many of those independent undecided voters to lean in Romney's favor.

3.  It should make some soft voters for Obama in 2008 rethink their 2012 vote.  Some simply may lose interest and not bother to vote, and that is already beginning to show in groups such as the young voters, Jewish voters, etc.    Many could not identify with McCain, and many felt compelled to vote for hope.  That has changed.
 
There are more debates, and Obama will be better prepared.  Ryan should eat Biden's lunch, but the VP has been around a  long time.   The Town hall meeting debate will be a good one as it tends to give reveal the apparent personality of a candidate.    And Obama should be able to prevail when it comes to foreign policy; however......  This election is not over!
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 08, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
Let's say you were a private international banking cartel that was in a position to issue unlimited credit to the world's most powerful country, with just a few keystrokes and unencumbered by a Constitution or gold standard. In other words, as long as that debt is maintained (or massively increased), you essentially own that country's entire GNP.

Let's also say that IRS revenues did nothing but pay the interest on that debt.

What would you do?

I think Eduard knows... (he's probably the only one who wonders why we're paying interest on our own money!)
Cameraman, you are giving me too much credit, I'm just trying to learn and understand. What is your opinion in regard to my question? If this international banking cartel controls practically everything, does it really matter who gets elected? Where is the line drawn in regard to how much power any given US president has to exercise his own economic and political agenda?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 08, 2012, 02:30:23 PM
Ignoring the conspiracy theory, I have a few comments about the debate.
 
I am not sure how to explain Obama's performance.  It was not rope-a-dope.  Instead it was due to one or all of the following:
 
1.  Obama is simply the equivalent of being out of shape.  He has not been involved in a debate in 4 years.  He has been surrounded by friendly press, giving him only softball questions and never pursuing weaknesses.  Also, I doubt that his staff argue with him when setting policy.  Obama does not know what it means to be challenged with facts and logic.
 
2.  Obama's 4-year record is so bad that he can not defend it; no one can defend it.  Political pundits and  his campaign staff are laughable when they try to defend Obama's record.

3.  That is how a person looks when lectured by a superior.
 
4.  Obama is so arrogant that he does not give a shit about Romney's points.  He stood there with a smirk on his face that says "Mitt, I don't have to listen to you because I will win.  I will be re-elected and continue to do what I have been doing but this time with less restraint.  You will lose and go away.  You are wasting your breath."
 
Obama's smirk.   
I'd say "all of the following".
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 08, 2012, 02:37:31 PM
  And Obama should be able to prevail when it comes to foreign policy;
what makes you think that? His foreign policy record is terrible from where I'm sitting...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on October 08, 2012, 03:13:28 PM
Ignoring the conspiracy theory,

Calling provable, factual information a "conspiracy theory" is simply a way of marginalizing or denigrating it.
 
Those who refuse to investigate or even consider these types of "hidden hand" scenarios will be constantly disappointed (or more likely, just blame the other side) when their fervent partisan dogma fails to produce meaningful change (except for massive increases in the national debt.) Meanwhile, K Street lobbyists for the military/industrial Banksters, Big Oil and Big Pharma are laughing all the way to the bank. Divide and conquer. Oldest trick in the book.
 
All the Dubya true believers discovered this phony left/right paradigm in spades. So did the gullible "Change We Can Believe In" crowd. Who's next?
 
Until issues that someone like Ron Paul brings up are seriously addressed, you're just rah-rah-ing for alternate sides of the same coin.

Cameraman, you are giving me too much credit, I'm just trying to learn and understand. What is your opinion in regard to my question? If this international banking cartel controls practically everything, does it really matter who gets elected?

Ask Bernie Madoff or or his corporate counterpart Government Sa, err, I mean Goldman Sachs...  ;)
 
Or better yet, read a historically documented book like Professor Anthony C. Sutton's "Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler" or for you Russophiles, (Eduard, you'll love this one!), "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists" http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X (http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X)

Review
'Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored.' - Richard Pipes, Baird Professor Emeritus of History, Harvard University (quoted from Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future)   

About the Author
ANTONY C. SUTTON, born in London in 1925, was educated at the universities of London, Gottingen and California. He was a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford, California, from 1968 to 1973 and later an Economics Professor at California State University, Los Angeles. He is the author of 25 books, including the major three-volume study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. He died in 2002.

Where is the line drawn in regard to how much power any given US president has to exercise his own economic and political agenda?

JFK would be the ulimate authority on that one...

(http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/United-States-Note-JFK-1963.jpg)

(http://theeconomiccollapseblo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/United-States-Note-JFK-1963.jpg)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 09, 2012, 06:07:58 AM
Last thoughts...
 
So whatever happened to Stevens' journal CNN got a hold of? How come Americans are not made aware of if he in fact 'warned' the State Dept of the pending danger in Libya? Will we ever know?
 
Isn't there supposed to be an investigation going on with this? Will we ever know?

Following this story...

On the eve of the congressional hearing into this matter there apparently are evidences stating that Stevens/consulate had requested security support from the State Dept prior to 9/11 but was refused. There are also reports stating that despite *knowing* it was a terrorist attack, the state dept briefed the department's staff within 24 hours of that fateful night that attack was a spontaneous response to a video and stayed with that alibi for days until Carney finally submitted that ..."it's self evident..." statement.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 09, 2012, 06:21:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 09, 2012, 08:29:49 PM
PHONY IN CHIEF
 
Yes GQ, "Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer."  - Thomas Sowell
 
And Obama has not spoken to the press since the Benghazi attack.  His friendly press is not so friendly now.
 
I have noticed some news agencies becoming more focused on the factual distortion coming from the Obama campaign.  Today Erin Burnett of CNN (I do not watch Fox) challenged Obama's Press Secretary about how Obama claimed Romney lied  about his tax plan and that Romney's  plan would produce a $5 trillion tax cut.   Erin quoted independent sources refuting Obama's claim that Romney is a liar and can not be trusted.  The Press Secretary continued to speak the campaign line. 
 
It is sad indeed that our President is setting such a bad example for dishonesty.  As Thomas Sowell wrote today, Obama is our Phony in Chief.
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief_115715.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief_115715.html)
 
I understand and respect a person's decision to vote for the Democrat platform.  I can not understand voting for Obama, especially with Romney as the alternative.  I hope you democrats know how to "split your ticket."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on October 10, 2012, 02:43:16 AM
You guys sound shocked, absolutely shocked, that the government would lie to you.

Except that's what governments do. ALL of them and ALL the time.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 10, 2012, 07:22:21 AM
You guys sound shocked, absolutely shocked, that the government would lie to you.

Except that's what governments do. ALL of them and ALL the time.

CG-

It isn't so much of a shock to me that ALL politicians lie but the fact despite having all the tools necessary, so many of us still persist not to ask demand the truth. The appointments of Daschle (attempt), Geitner, Dodd, Frank and Jones to positions of high offices in DC despite their recent remarkable achievements (sic) is a very clear indicators how rampant these silliness reside in our country.

If a citizen deceives another, it's called a fraud. When a citizen lies to the country via the court system, it's called perjury. I know that's just the way it is....but what bothers me more are those amongst us who chooses not to ask and accept things as they are told.

This administration, sadly enough, is bookcase by two dead *Stevens'*. Ted and Chris. We're f*cked!

On a happy note: According to this article, it's been a long 6 YEARS (6 years?!? WTH, I've been pointing this out for well over 20 years!) this matter needed to be looked upon by the highest court in the land. Although methinks with Sotomayor's appointment I doubt anything will change at all (dang, there's that bastard word again).

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14339036-high-court-to-hear-biggest-race-case-in-six-years?lite&ocid=msnhp

Yes, your honor! It IS discrimination (I am curious what this court will conclude this time though).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 10, 2012, 07:28:53 AM
...Today Erin Burnett of CNN...

YUM! Today, yesterday and everyday...She's so sexy she can sing me the news anyday good or bad...and Jackie Johnson can whisper the weather in my ears..

 :P

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 10, 2012, 08:20:11 PM
I, too, would like to see Ms. Susan Rice testify under oath on who in the intelligence department factually gave her the information that this was indeed a spontaneous response to a silly video. Then march in Carney and Ms. Hillary Clinton closely behind....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_GAQ97Vobo


...even up to the 7th day post-terror attack in Benghazi (9/18), our brave and fearless leader of Hope and Change said during his free campaign appearance on Letterman's Late Night Show, courtesy of CBS and David Letterman, happily told the American people this (9/11 attack on Libya's consulate) was in fact a spontaneous reaction to a video (unfortunately, it's at 26:20 into the video). Despite learning within 24 hours after the attack that it was a terrorist attack, he still lied on national TV as to what the cause of the attack was...


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7422156n (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7422156n)



As Jennifer Rubin of Washington Post opined (and I'm not a fan of Ms Rubin)...

"...
This is a mess on multiple levels. The Obama administration failed to protect our people. They have failed to assess the growing threat of Al Qaeda. And the president and his advisers have been hiding the ball from voters to save their own political skins. All in all it’s a shabby performance.

People should be fired, but perhaps the voters will take care of that.
So where is the president? He’s not come forward to explain any of this, although his vice president will be on the hot seat at the debate tomorrow night. After all, Jay Carney's dissembling, Susan Rice’s misleading TV appearances, and the president’s own assertions, including his September 25 speech to the UN (“a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world”) have left an evidence trail a mile wide.

Whether incompetent or dishonest or a combination of the two, Obama needs to face the American people and be held accountable. And the media, both reporters and pundits, who have tried studiously to downplay or ignore a scandal that in a GOP administration would be compared to Watergate, have their chance to show they are more than apologists for a president whose stature is shrinking by the minute...."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 10, 2012, 08:43:45 PM
GQ
Personally, I am convinced they are so use to telling us so many lies, feeding us so much of their shyt that they though this was just another one and we will digest just as we have all the other. Frankly, I was shouting about this bullshyt lie right after 9-12 in this thread and couldn't believe nobody seen a connection to 9-11. I questioned my own sanity
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on October 11, 2012, 01:22:16 AM
Hmmmph? Hey, what was that? Something just woke me up!

Did someone just mention government lies and 9/11 in the same sentence?

Oh, never mind -- I'll go back to sleep. Probably one of those annoying "conspiracy theories."

CG-

It isn't so much of a shock to me that ALL politicians lie but the fact despite having all the tools necessary, so many of us still persist not to ask demand the truth.

Couldn't agree with you more, my friend...  ;)

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 11, 2012, 03:55:28 AM

Quote
     CG-It isn't so much of a shock to me that ALL politicians lie but the fact despite having all the tools necessary, so many of us still persist not to ask demand the truth.   

Couldn't agree with you more, my friend...  ;)

The press is responsible to investigate misleading information and lies.  For more than four years the press has failed to investigate Obama.   Could it be that the press's attitude is changing?  This exchange between  ABC's Tapper and the White House Press Secretary Carney says "yes".   

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/10/tapper_to_carney_on_libya_didnt_the_president_shoot_first_and_ask_questions_later.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/10/tapper_to_carney_on_libya_didnt_the_president_shoot_first_and_ask_questions_later.html)
 
You can see this particularly at 2:30 of this video.  Tapper reminded Carney that  Obama said on 60 Minutes, "Romney has a tendency to shoot first and aim later" (regarding Romney's comments on the Benghazi attack).  Tapper then asks  Carney, "Didn't Obama shoot first and aim later?" 
 
I watch a lot of business news and ever since the debate I have seen more and more past supporters of Obama now backing off.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 11, 2012, 04:23:25 AM
Tonight's Veep debate should be entertaining.  Biden must come out swinging.  He has much more experience than Ryan.  Plus Ryan's economic plan from some months ago is more controversial than Romney's current plan, and I presume Ryan will defer to Romney's plan.
 
If Joe can avoid being Joe, the Obama campaign may score a few points.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 11, 2012, 06:50:28 AM
Hmmmph? Hey, what was that? Something just woke me up!

Did someone just mention government lies and 9/11 in the same sentence?

Well, the new normal these days apparently re-defined the words 'lie' and 'truth'. This administration obviously made a conscious decision on who to lie to and who to tell the truth to...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0

Somewhere out there a Pakistani doctor is cursing the very day he decided to help the US intelligence in getting OBL. Even deep-blue coated Diane Feinstein is appalled at all these security info leaking coming from Washington! Feinstein!?! for crying out loud!


Quote
...Couldn't agree with you more, my friend...

LOL, well, CG....I won't be as quesy about your 'guy' being a bit on the racially challenged side as much as I am about his stance with THE Day of Infamy (sic). I do agree with you though that we do need another platform in our politics.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 11, 2012, 05:52:36 PM
...On a happy note: According to this article, it's been a long 6 YEARS (6 years?!? WTH, I've been pointing this out for well over 20 years!) this matter needed to be looked upon by the highest court in the land. Although methinks with Sotomayor's appointment I doubt anything will change at all (dang, there's that bastard word again).

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14339036-high-court-to-hear-biggest-race-case-in-six-years?lite&ocid=msnhp (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14339036-high-court-to-hear-biggest-race-case-in-six-years?lite&ocid=msnhp)

Yes, your honor! It IS discrimination (I am curious what this court will conclude this time though).


Abigail Fisher for President!!!! You go girl! There is hope for America's young! Now more than ever it is incumbent upon us to make sure they're won't be deep in debt and so disadvantaged when they take helm.

I just love an AW who is not afraid to advance herself on the depth of her merit and character and NOT by the color of her skin!

 :clapping:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on October 11, 2012, 07:12:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSjZkFM_Oe8&feature=player_embedded

"Fool Me Twice"....

Author Aaron Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief for WND and hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, the nation’s largest talk station. His co-author is Brenda J. Elliott is an award-winning historian, researcher and New York Times bestselling author. Together they previously wrote “The Manchurian President” and “Red Army.”
“Fool Me Twice” (http://superstore.wnd.com/Fool-Me-Twice-Hardcover-4-95-Special-Offer) is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major “progressive” groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on October 12, 2012, 01:19:22 AM
US military to fight global warming? Does that mean they will blast the SUV's with a bazooke ? >:D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BillyB on October 13, 2012, 07:30:02 PM
 
You guys sound shocked, absolutely shocked, that the government would lie to you.

Except that's what governments do. ALL of them and ALL the time.

We still have a better country than most so those guys have to be doing something right.
 
Welcome back CG but politics should not be the reason you're back. RW should be the reason.
 
US military to fight global warming? Does that mean they will blast the SUV's with a bazooke ? >:D

Bazookas are too weak. Tanks that get 1 mile to 16 gallons are the solution. We will blast global warming back into the last Ice Age where it was born.
 
I like Romney and if those who did not watch the debate, watch the video Gator provided. Obama may come better prepared but how can he realistically defend his record. Biden did a good job in his debate. There are viewers out there that are clueless and will believe one side or the other depending how they present their argument or likability.
 
Spell check at RWD did not like Obama and Biden but was fine with Romney. Another reason to vote Romney.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on October 13, 2012, 08:51:07 PM
  ...Spell check at RWD did not like Obama and Biden but was fine with Romney. Another reason to vote Romney.

Because Romney is a well-known breed of sheep that has been around for a very long time!  ;D   Any candidate named Merino, Hereford or Jersey would pass this test too!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 14, 2012, 01:32:38 AM
...Obama is our Phony in Chief.
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief_115715.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief_115715.html)

I just now read this article and for the life of me I couldn't quite remember where and when I read it before that started my disdain to this clown. It's good Sowell gave citations for his references...

"...In his speech -- delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn't use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience -- he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.

 Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.


Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans -- predominantly black -- "they don't care about as much," according to Barack Obama.


If you want to know what community organizers do, this is it -- rub people's emotions raw to hype their resentments. And this was Barack Obama in his old community organizer role, a role that should have warned those who thought that he was someone who would bring us together, when he was all too well practiced in the arts of polarizing us apart.


Why is the date of this speech important? Because, less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.


Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer. Nor can Barack Obama claim that he wasn't present the day of that Senate vote, as he claimed he wasn't there when Jeremiah Wright unleashed his obscene attacks on America from the pulpit of the church that Obama attended for 20 years.


Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNUY1n3iTZc&feature=relmfu


The result was announced—yeas 80, nays 14, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

YEAS—80:

Akaka, Alexander, Allard,BaucusBayh, Bennett, Biden, Bingaman, Bond, Brown, Bunning, Byrd, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Chambliss...Salazar, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Sununu, Tester, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner, Webb

NAYS—14:

Boxer, Burr, Clinton, Coburn, Dodd, Enzi, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Obama, Sanders, Whitehouse, Wyden

NOT VOTING—6:

Brownback, Coleman, Hatch, Johnson, Schumer, Thomas


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2007-05-24/pdf/CREC-2007-05-24-pt1-PgS6823-2.pdf


The guy is a moron.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 14, 2012, 02:05:35 AM
There was a fairly heated debate between Biden/Ryan when the subject of Tax Plan (Reform) came to light. While Ryan was trying to rebut Biden's claim that the Romney Plan would in fact put additional tax burden on the middle-class, Biden just simply won't STFU and let Ryan have the floor - respectfully.

 :exploding:

The Obama campaign immediately launched a press release in hopes of further clouding the issue once and for all.

http://www.larryelder.com/b/Princeton-Economist:-Obama-campaign-is-misrepresenting-my-study-on-Romneys-tax-plan/-608643759231818827.html (http://www.larryelder.com/b/Princeton-Economist:-Obama-campaign-is-misrepresenting-my-study-on-Romneys-tax-plan/-608643759231818827.html)

"... "Even the studies that  Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to  raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "In  fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey  Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large  tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."..."


Princeton Harvey Rosen's response:

"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.  It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.  The main conclusion of my study is that  under plausible assumptions, a  proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be  revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes  above $200,000 about the same.  That is, an increase in the tax burden  on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make  the overall plan revenue neutral."

Check the math here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html)


My caveat: When pressed for specifics, the Romney/Ryan is admittedly short in clearly laying out how and what tax loopholes will need to be discontinued for their 20% tax plan to maintain revenue neutrality.

OTOH, I can understand as this will require full bi-partisan cooperation, which remains uncertain and volatile (though Romney is confident as he had proven this can done before), and the fact citing clear specifics which tax shelters many of us will lose in exchange for a simplified, lowered tax rates to maintain revenue neutral and ease corporate tax roll to spur employment allowing (should) for a progressive deficit reduction; could in fact appear to be too hot for comfort for some who aren't closely tuned in with the Ryan plan.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on October 14, 2012, 03:11:43 AM
Forgetting (for a moment) all the other bits and pieces, this doesn't make sense to me:
 

"... "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to  raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."..."


Princeton Harvey Rosen's response:

"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.  It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.  The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

That sounds fine, but then we have:
 
That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."

Huh?  If you look at this logically, he's saying that people earning over $200,000 are lower and middle income individuals.  Is there a misquotation somewhere in all of this?  Should it read "below $200,000" instead of above?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on October 14, 2012, 09:36:01 AM
Unfortunately, Ryan did not 'eat Biden's lunch' as a couple  of us had predicted.

I am now really questioning Romney's choice of Ryan.
I agree with much of what Ryan says and stands for, but he just doesn't look Presidential (in waiting).  Almost like a re-run of the choice of Dan Quayle.

I guess the jury is still out on the Ryan - Biden debate.
Joe scored a lot of points for being aggressive; but lost a lot of points for his silly smile, smirks, and interruptions.

But, most say people rarely consider VP candidates when voting.

Kind of strange when you look at it (speaking physically only, and referring to above the neck):

Obama - small head; Biden - large head.
Romney - big head; Ryan - small head

I think people prefer big heads for leaders.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 15, 2012, 07:44:51 AM

The guy is a moron.


The problem is that Obama is not a moron.  He is very clever yet seriously misguided.   Worse, he is a liar.  And he has the gall to refer to Romney as a "liar." 
 
Cameraguy argues that all politicians lie.  That may be true, but there are liars and then there are damned lying liars.   Given the Libya cover-up, examples such as the New Orleans speech, and the lies in Obama's campaign ads,  Obama is challenging Tricky Dick Nixon for biggest liar. 
 
Would anyone expect Obama to tell us Americans how it really is?  As I said before, the Democrat platform is not unreasonable (e. g.,  education, abortion, gun control, etc.).  However, how can a reasonable Democrat vote for Obama? 
 
Democrats, please split your vote.  Your leader is bad for  America.   Many of you Democrats are very intelligent.   How can you elect a President with Obama's character, especially given the character of Romney?   Even more important, how can you elect a President who will accelerate our pace to become the next Greece?
 
I personally believe that America will not re-elect Obama.  Romney will have a difficult job to undertake, yet I feel he has  a far better understanding of what it will take to grow out of the economic doldrums.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on October 15, 2012, 09:08:16 AM


I'm just gonna write in Jesse Ventura.    8)



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 15, 2012, 11:31:27 PM
...
Huh?  If you look at this logically, he's saying that people earning over $200,000 are lower and middle income individuals.  Is there a misquotation somewhere in all of this?  Should it read "below $200,000" instead of above?

AK-

In a nutshell, what Harvey Rosen stated is correct.

The tax reduction will be across the board and because those earning 'above' $200k will more than likely 'lose more' of their tax write-offs/shelter e.g. real estate taxes, etc (maintaining revenue neutral)....which those earning 'below' 200K (likely wouldn't have as much tax deductibles as those above) plausibly/should, etc...result in them not seeing any tax increase with their plan.

What and which exactly will those deductibles going be is not yet certain. I have a strong impression real estate tax be first in the cut line.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on October 16, 2012, 08:10:03 AM
Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer

Quote

…the next president’s overriding task is restoring national solvency—an undertaking that will involve immense society-wide pain, sacrifice, and denial and that will therefore require “fairness” as a defining principle. And that’s why heralding Romney’s record at Bain is so completely perverse. The record is actually all about the utter unfairness of windfall riches obtained under our anti-free market regime of bubble finance.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on October 16, 2012, 05:23:54 PM
Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html)

Without getting stuck in the mire (again!) of how bad Obama is compared with Saint Mitt, this supports my original posts of many moons ago about Romney's credentials as a corporate raider.  Coming from a life-long Republican it's pretty frightening.
 
You guys who attack Obama all the time may be right - but God help you if Romney is elected.  Several of RWD's American members will be fine, because they already have plenty of money.  Those who are less well-off may be struggling.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 16, 2012, 10:02:45 PM

Without getting stuck in the mire (again!) of how bad Obama is compared with Saint Mitt, this supports my original posts of many moons ago about Romney's credentials as a corporate raider.  Coming from a life-long Republican it's pretty frightening.
 
You guys who attack Obama all the time may be right - but God help you if Romney is elected.  Several of RWD's American members will be fine, because they already have plenty of money.  Those who are less well-off may be struggling.


AK, it's blatantly obvious you'll never "get it". Why I continue to post to you on this subject makes it blatantly obvious I'll never "get you" either but, I'll try once more. Suppose just for a minute and I am sure you have much longer than that, that the Romney hack job here is all 100% true. It isn't, but suppose it is. Just by virtue of his experience in high finance capital investment would make him much more imminently more qualified to broach the problems America faces today. Obama's experience of community organizer, city alderman and the whopping 15 months as senator (ALL without any accomplishment) and now his 4 years as a complete failure as president would make Obama qualified?

If you are going to post such tripe as this, at least know of what you speak. Romney can not do any worse for the economy that Obama has in the last 4 years. Many of the RWD guys you speak of are out of work or their work has been diminished significantly. Few if any from this site are dependent on the entitlements or reap rewards from the QE 1,2,or 3. Yes, the economy, the rising debt and lack of a budget is the major problems facing America today. There are others but these, are in emergency priority status. Obama has no one to blame, these are his created problems. He has provided nothing in the way of leadership to face and correct these problems.

As I said, there are many more but these problems must be dealt with. What in your opinion, does Obama have in his record or experience that will help the US fix these issues and start our economy again? Something? Anything?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on October 17, 2012, 05:36:25 AM
...Just by virtue of his experience in high finance capital investment would make him much more imminently more qualified to broach the problems America faces today.

Yes, his experience is in "high finance capital investment."  What has that to do with the real world, where people are trying to make a living, rather than waiting for accountants to create a few more millions with the stroke of a pen?  Romney appears to have absolutely no idea about how the majority of people live - his comments about "the 47%" are just one of many.  The problems which lower income earners and the unemployed face are something which he doesn't seem to appreciate - if he did, he wouldn't have lead a company which callously spills thousands of people out of work while it pursues the almighty dollar.  With his billions he's safe from EVER being remotely near that position.  People who (for example) burble on about how the unemployed are a lazy bunch of no-hopers who should try harder to find themselves a job have obviously never experienced that situation.  Of course many unemployed people ARE lazy no-hopers - most are not.
 
Obama's experience of community organizer, city alderman and the whopping 15 months as senator (ALL without any accomplishment) and now his 4 years as a complete failure as president would make Obama qualified?

Obviously you and many others on RWD don't think so.  If you're the majority, I'll bow to your collective wisdom.  What happens to you if he gets re-elected anyway?

If you are going to post such tripe as this, at least know of what you speak.

I didn't post it - Muzh did, and I'm glad he did.  You take great delight in pontificating about how little I know of your country - surely you will allow that, as an American, Muzh has much greater knowledge of this subject than I do?  ;)   All I'm doing is pointing out that this backs up what I wrote months ago.  You say it's not all true - presumably you therefore agree that some (or most) IS.  Obviously I can't comment on that because I don't know the specifics of each case.  If you support such a man you deserve to reap whatever whirlwind comes your way.
 
Romney can not do any worse for the economy that Obama has in the last 4 years.

Are you so sure about that?  The rich (or perhaps I should say the ultra-rich) won't notice any change, whatever happens.  Of what consequence is a $20 million company loss if you're worth a billion or two?  It won't affect the guy at the top, but thousands at the bottom will suffer.  Some will pay for it with their lives.
 
Many of the RWD guys you speak of are out of work or their work has been diminished significantly. Few if any from this site are dependent on the entitlements or reap rewards from the QE 1,2,or 3.

This is where I share part of MY life story - I've been made redundant twice, and the first time I was out of work for well over a year. During that time I applied for over 300 jobs, for most of which I was over-qualified, but which I'd have been happy to take just to get off the unemployment benefit. I finally got a job when someone who had been made redundant with me got in touch to say that she had found work with her husband's employer and that there was a position available for me if I was interested.  I'm not with that employer now (that was my second redundancy, about three years later  :'( ) , nor am I rich, but at least I have a comfortable lifestyle, and I'm pretty happy with what I've got.


 
Yes, the economy, the rising debt and lack of a budget is the major problems facing America today. There are others but these, are in emergency priority status. Obama has no one to blame, these are his created problems. He has provided nothing in the way of leadership to face and correct these problems.  As I said, there are many more but these problems must be dealt with. What in your opinion, does Obama have in his record or experience that will help the US fix these issues and start our economy again? Something? Anything?

These problems are not confined to the USA - nearly every country in the world faces the same scenario to a greater or lesser extent.  I totally agree that they are the major items which need to be dealt with, but the global financial crisis was not Obama's fault - are you seriously trying to say that he ran your Treasury and made every financial decision?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LiveFromUkraine on October 17, 2012, 05:47:09 AM
[size=78%]These problems are not confined to the USA - nearly every country in the world faces the same scenario to a greater or lesser extent.  I totally agree that they are the major items which need to be dealt with, but the global financial crisis was not Obama's fault - are you seriously trying to say that he ran your Treasury and made every financial decision?[/size]


It doesn't matter who was at fault.  It only matters how we deal with it.


Now we are seeing more and more companies coming out saying they will be cutting employment/hours for people in order to minimize healthcare costs that will soon be implemented.


I can only imagine how many more will follow.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on October 17, 2012, 07:59:51 AM



Go Jesse! Go Jesse! Go Jesse!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGP93KSAqA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGP93KSAqA)







Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 17, 2012, 09:04:10 AM

Yes, his experience is in "high finance capital investment."  What has that to do with the real world, where people are trying to make a living, rather than waiting for accountants to create a few more millions with the stroke of a pen?  Romney appears to have absolutely no idea about how the majority of people live - his comments about "the 47%" are just one of many.  The problems which lower income earners and the unemployed face are something which he doesn't seem to appreciate - if he did, he wouldn't have lead a company which callously spills thousands of people out of work while it pursues the almighty dollar.  With his billions he's safe from EVER being remotely near that position.  People who (for example) burble on about how the unemployed are a lazy bunch of no-hopers who should try harder to find themselves a job have obviously never experienced that situation.  Of course many unemployed people ARE lazy no-hopers - most are not.

Actually, it has everything to do with the "real world" Romney is a man who has not only served as governor of one of the most bankrupt states and brought it out of bankruptcy. His 15 years with Bain capital has created 100s of 1000s of jobs. Yes he also shut down inefficient companies and eliminated them as well. It's call "capitalism" look it up. You can harp on his 47% comment if you wish. You obviously don't know the backstory to that comment you just as well take it like you've been told to take it. Good luck with that
 
Quote
Obviously you and many others on RWD don't think so.  If you're the majority, I'll bow to your collective wisdom.  What happens to you if he gets re-elected anyway?

Nothing that isn't happening now. The sun will come up and the collective finiancial picture of the once greatest country on earth will only get more dire
 
Quote
I didn't post it - Muzh did, and I'm glad he did.  You take great delight in pontificating about how little I know of your country - surely you will allow that, as an American, Muzh has much greater knowledge of this subject than I do?  ;)   All I'm doing is pointing out that this backs up what I wrote months ago.  You say it's not all true - presumably you therefore agree that some (or most) IS.  Obviously I can't comment on that because I don't know the specifics of each case.  If you support such a man you deserve to reap whatever whirlwind comes your way.

You reposted it. Don't attempt to build a strawman with Muzh. I know where he stands and I have a pretty good idea why. I also know Muzh posts much of that axe job for hyperbole as he's too smart to believe all of that crap. I don't know that about you.
 
Quote
Are you so sure about that?  The rich (or perhaps I should say the ultra-rich) won't notice any change, whatever happens.  Of what consequence is a $20 million company loss if you're worth a billion or two?  It won't affect the guy at the top, but thousands at the bottom will suffer.  Some will pay for it with their lives.

I don't give a shit about the rich people. It's me my children and my grandchildren I care about. The rich can worry about themselves. They don't need me doing it for them. Obama is rich (from community organizing btw) being rich is not a crime or something to be ashamed of.
 
Quote
This is where I share part of MY life story - I've been made redundant twice, and the first time I was out of work for well over a year. During that time I applied for over 300 jobs, for most of which I was over-qualified, but which I'd have been happy to take just to get off the unemployment benefit. I finally got a job when someone who had been made redundant with me got in touch to say that she had found work with her husband's employer and that there was a position available for me if I was interested.  I'm not with that employer now (that was my second redundancy, about three years later  :'( ) , nor am I rich, but at least I have a comfortable lifestyle, and I'm pretty happy with what I've got.


Then you have a feel of what 23 million Americans are currently going through. When Obama took office that number was nearly half that figure. Everybody's in the US lifestyle have made changes to some degree since Obama has taken office. Most of it detrimental
 
Quote
These problems are not confined to the USA - nearly every country in the world faces the same scenario to a greater or lesser extent.  I totally agree that they are the major items which need to be dealt with, but the global financial crisis was not Obama's fault

The global financial crisis is his problem to deal with, he hasn't. A complete abysmal failure on the financial crisis and as president. Apparently you didn't pay attention to the last election, did you?  -
Quote
are you seriously trying to say that he ran your Treasury and made every financial decision?

He is the president, isn't he?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 17, 2012, 06:04:09 PM


Now we are seeing more and more companies coming out saying they will be cutting employment/hours for people in order to minimize healthcare costs that will soon be implemented.


I can only imagine how many more will follow.

With something as big as the Affordable Care Act some companies will indeed seek loopholes and adjustments will be made in the future.  No law is perfect and requires time and experience to see what actually happens.  It's a good step forward and over time will even help businesses by leveling the playing field.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 17, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
The entertainment continues.....

I think Obama did much better than he did on the last debate. Much better. Do I think he w'on' the debate? No. If it isn't yet obvious the guy is making stuff up, AND, with immense media support ~ I mean...who in their right mind would believe Obama did in fact believed AND factly cited, 24 hours after the Libyan tragedy, that it was a *terrorist attack* upon the US sovereignty? Here's that speech...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc




You can't fact check a posted unedited video.


Americans have all heard him on the Letterman show (10 days later), during the UN speech (2 weeks later) and that silly AD aired in Pakistan that WE all paid for - all stating that it was an attacked provoked by a video. LOL. The guy lies to his teeth and the Kool-Aid crowd just laps it all up...

I just love that segment about pensions and investing on China. He postured Romney's portfolio as having investment interest in China while he himself carries the very same thing. Stupid, stupid man.

Anyway, a favorite quote I heard....

"....the reason why I'm no longer voting for Obama is because now I realize that everytime he gets asked *What time is it?* He always seem to respond, *Well, it's partly cloudy today but tomorrow's another day!*...

That about sums up his stupid presidency.

I got this from an email. It's the dissection of the media's declaration that Obama 'won' Debate II:

Quote from: CNN's WolfBlitzer
  Here are the results.  Forty-six percent say President Obama won the debate.  Thirty-nine percent say Governor Romney won the debate.  This poll shows it was basically a draw as far as those who actually watched the debate were concerned.


When we dig deeper into the numbers, we're seeing Romney did score points with viewers tonight.  Look at this.  Fifty-eight percent, 58% of debate watchers say Romney would better handle the economy.  Forty percent say President Obama would.  That's issue number one.  Forty-nine percent say Romney would better handle health care, compared to 46% for President Obama.  We also asked who would better handle the issue of taxes.  Fifty-one percent say Romney; 44% say President Obama.  Fifty-nine percent say Romney would do a better job on the deficit.  Thirty-six percent say President Obama would do a better job on the deficit.

RUSH:  That doesn't even sound close, does it?  I mean, that's pretty devastating.  So my question is, how do you get in the overall poll, 46 say Obama won the debate, 39 say Romney, and then you get those numbers?  Well, it's not even close.  It's 58-40 on the economy; it is 49-46 on health care; it's 51-44 taxes; and 59-36 on the deficit, all in favor of Romney, CNN poll.   Then they bring in John King, who used to have his own show at CNN.  Was John King moved out for Eliot Spitzer or did Spitzer get moved out and King put in?  King is back to reporting now, and he says that if the numbers that Wolf just recited are true, then it's over.

KING:  If American voters out there, not just people who watched the debate who participated in our poll, if other Americans think that Governor Romney won on the question of who would best handle the economy, who would best handle health care, and who would best handle taxes, if they don't change their mind between now and Election Day, Governor Romney will win the election.

RUSH:  They're all excited.  "Obama wins. 'Barack is Back,' headline says it all. I'm elated."  Then the polling data, flash polling comes in: not even close.  Here's Anthony Mason last night, CBS special coverage of the presidential debate.

MASON:  We asked those 500 uncommitted voters immediately after the debate, who do they think won?  Thirty-seven percent said President Obama, 30% said Governor Romney, about a third called the debate a tie in their eyes.  Here's where it gets interesting, though, is on the issue of the economy.  Who won the economy tonight?  Well, first of all, we asked which candidate would do a better job of handling the economy.  After the debate, 65% said Governor Romney, 34% said President Obama.

RUSH:  That's devastating.  I mean, their poll was 37-30 with 33 saying it's a tie.  CNN's was 46-39, but then you get into the internals, it's not even close.  So I guess when you say, "Who won the debate?" these people are judging it in its own separate universe, but then you get to the specifics of who's the better guy to deal with problems we got, it's Romney.  So that's that.

******

This clown's policies are so bad, he himself understands just how bad he needs to lie. It is so bad in fact, he's campaigning under someone else's (Clinton's) policy. LOL.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 17, 2012, 08:19:45 PM
Last night Obama did much better in scoring debating points for many issues.  I wonder if Obama took some adderal.   Seriously.  He certainly was alert and energized, and seemed agitated if not angry. 
 
And GQ you are correct about the Benghazi "coverup."  97 out of 100 people have the impression that Obama blamed the videotape for a spontaneous demonstration that led to the killings of our Ambassador and staff.
 
Obama successfully made Romney's tax plan seem sketchy.   While I believe Obama "won" the debate for the evening, somewhat helped by the moderator, the most important issue is the economy.  Early polls show that after the debate Romney picked up even more votes that he is the better candidate regarding the economy. 
 
While Obama is trying to shoot down  Romney's economic plan, where is Obama's plan?  There is nothing to suggest that Obama's vision for the next four years is any differentAnd why would people believe that things will get better? And there is also the question of character. 
 
Most people will come to their senses and vote with their pocketbook.   The soft Obama voters in 2008 will not be there in 2012.   Even some on foot stamps may want a better chance for a job.   Obama's goose is cooked.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 18, 2012, 06:27:05 AM
Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html)

I did not have time to read this yesterday.  Interesting perspective.  Although it is an attempt to disqualify if not attack Romney, in some ways it shows why Romney would be the President that America needs now.
 
Quote

... he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, ....
Most of these "castoffs" were already levered to the hilt before Bain acquired them.   That is, they were in debt up to their eyeballs.  Remind you of something?  It should remind you of our Federal government. 
 
Quote

...gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.

"Gussy" in this case was to trim unproductive parts.   Yes, it resulted in some layoffs; however, a sinking large ship was refitted as a streamlined, viable entity.   And the entity frequently grew, hiring more new employees over time than were laid off initially. 
 
Romney plans the same for our Federal government.  Those units which do not pass a simple test for being effective will be trimmed in some way that is worked out from both sides of the aisle. 
 
Quote
Indeed, the next president’s overriding task is restoring national solvency—an undertaking that will involve immense societywide pain, sacrifice, and denial and that will therefore require “fairness” as a defining principle.

Hello!    That is exactly what Romney would do.  And I trust Romney's fairness microchip better than Obama's.  Obama is a product of political cronyism. Romney has demonstrated throughout his life his love of people, all people.
 

 
What would Obama do to address our budget deficit?  Obama had this task for four years.    The past four years show what Obama would do.  Nothing.  In fact, he made the deficit larger.   And Obama's plan for the next four years?  How does it differ?  Most American voters are starting to recognize that it would be  same old same old.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jone on October 18, 2012, 07:26:29 AM
I used to run political campaigns many years ago.  The interesting take that I have on the Presidential Election is the run-up voting vs. the actual election day voting.  In two crucial states, Iowa and Ohio, Obama's team has done a terrific job of getting people to send in absentee ballots.  Why do they do this?  Because many of the people would not be voting if someone doesn't drive them to pick up their ballot and then pick up the ballot when it's filled out and mail it in for the vote.  (Sometimes I think they even fill in the ballot, but that is just guessing.)  The obvious advantage here is for the Democrats because it turns Registered Voters into Likely Voters.

But now here's the hotflash.  In both of these states, the Republicans decided they were going to match the Democrats and the numbers, while not equal, are growing more even as the enthusiasm picks up for Romney and the enthusiasm wains for Obama.  Should these totals even come close to being even, the race is over and there is a Romney victory.

Oh, ML? 

You mentioned that you were rethinking the Ryan pick for VP?  Rethink again.  In Southern Wisconsin, where I'm from originally, and my Dad was an elected official, Ryan rules that congressional district.  He regularly wins this district with 64 percent of the vote.  Even when the district voted for Obama over McCain by a total of 12 points in 2008.  It is predominantly Blue Collar including Janesville (which lost their GM Plant - it didn't get bailed out) Kenosha and Racine.  The rest of the district is either suburbia or farmland.  If Ryan brings in even close to those numbers in his OWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT then Wisconsin will flip to Romney.  And you can forget about Ohio.  The race will be over. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Muzh on October 18, 2012, 10:34:50 AM

I did not have time to read this yesterday.  Interesting perspective.  Although it is an attempt to disqualify if not attack Romney, in some ways it shows why Romney would be the President that America needs now.
 Most of these "castoffs" were already levered to the hilt before Bain acquired them.   That is, they were in debt up to their eyeballs.  Remind you of something?  It should remind you of our Federal government. 
 
"Gussy" in this case was to trim unproductive parts.   Yes, it resulted in some layoffs; however, a sinking large ship was refitted as a streamlined, viable entity.   And the entity frequently grew, hiring more new employees over time than were laid off initially. 
 
Romney plans the same for our Federal government.  Those units which do not pass a simple test for being effective will be trimmed in some way that is worked out from both sides of the aisle. 
 
Hello!    That is exactly what Romney would do.  And I trust Romney's fairness microchip better than Obama's.  Obama is a product of political cronyism. Romney has demonstrated throughout his life his love of people, all people.
 

 
What would Obama do to address our budget deficit?  Obama had this task for four years.    The past four years show what Obama would do.  Nothing.  In fact, he made the deficit larger.   And Obama's plan for the next four years?  How does it differ?  Most American voters are starting to recognize that it would be  same old same old.


Gator, you are arguing with a guy who was on the inside. The term being there, done that is more than appropriate with the author.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 18, 2012, 06:26:49 PM
Have you guys watched Romney's speech at the annual Alfred E. Smith dinner tonight? It was hilarious!!!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 19, 2012, 06:04:41 AM


Go Jesse! Go Jesse! Go Jesse!


Jesse?!? Why write a vote in when you already have the Roseanne Barr option the ballot?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 19, 2012, 08:18:18 AM

Gator, you are arguing with a guy who was on the inside. The term being there, done that is more than appropriate with the author.

I was merely showing how Romney's experience at Bain is a good basis for what he must do with regard to correcting the nation's fiscal policies  once he is elected President.
If you insist that Stockwell is correct because he did what Romeny did at Bain I suggest that you consider the fact that unlike Romeny, Stockwell was a big failure.   He lost a lot of money (other people's money and his own).    He was even indicted for fraud (later dropped).   And this is your witness?   
 
He was a loose cannon as director for four years of Reagan's OMB and had to resign after Reagan "took him to the woodshed."   Next time please vet your witnesses.
 
Obama's goose is cooked.  He knows it and is looking to buy a home in Hawaii.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 19, 2012, 07:13:24 PM
Romney is hilarious at the Catholic Smith fundraiser.  Remind you of another President?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4Cw-UdQNtw&feature=em-share_video_user
 

This video skips one especially good quip when Romney said that the white-tie-and-tails event made him feel right at home because “I can finally relax and wear what Ann and I wear around the house.”  Admit it Obama voters - Romney is human.

Is that Walter Mondale sitting behind Mitt?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 19, 2012, 07:27:09 PM
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they    are insured. . . but not everyone must [/i][/b]prove they are a citizen."[/i][/b]

    Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, [/i][/b]or are unable, to prove they are citizens[/i][/b]
    will receive free insurance paid for by [/i][/b]those who are forced to buy insurance[/i][/b]
    because they are citizens."
[/i]
[/b]
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on October 19, 2012, 07:44:01 PM
It's fathomless  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 20, 2012, 09:30:21 AM
So based on the intelligence report released yesterday, apparently there were multiple security requests sent to Washington prior to the Libya's 9/11 attack. Even Stevens' himself had sent multiple cables requesting additional force due to 2 bombings upon the consular building since June '12 & the assassination attempt against the British ambassador. Ironically, the last cable was sent on the very day he died, 9/11. All requests went unheeded because the State department wanted to 'normalize' relations with Libya.

This is the *New Normal* this stupid administration was trying to cultivate and Americans must learn to live with it.

Not.

The added insult to our country/injury is, after this unjustifiable sacrificial offering of 4 Americans, this administration still claimed this was 'in fact' (hello Ms. Susan Rice, pls. sweep the floor on your way out) a spontaneous attack as a result of the videotape.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oOxAyU8QwM&feature=related
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 22, 2012, 08:20:59 AM
It would seem that this evening's debate regarding Foreign Policy will be a target rich environment for Mitt Romney, let's see if he can actually get some shots within the 10 ring.  I'm guessing the BS peddled by Obama about Libya will be a hot topic.

It should be interesting.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 22, 2012, 09:46:11 AM
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/romney-obama-state-president.html.csp

Quote
In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.

Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 22, 2012, 09:54:54 AM
JB,
 
I do hope that Romney prevails tonight as Obama has some foreign policy weakpoints.  He has made a couple of speaking errors (London Olympics and Palestinians).
 
Do you recall in 2008 that the biggest concern about Obama was his lack of foreign experience?   That was why he chose Biden as his VP. 
 
Yes, Romney will again try to make some points about Obama's dishonesty regarding the Benghazi attack.   Maybe he will succeed if the moderator does not intervene again on Obama's behalf.  Also, Romney should emphasize that our best foreign policy is to have a strong economy. i. e., returning the debate to the economy.
 
The election is about the economy.   IIRC, only 3% of Americans feel the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are the Number One Issue.  Obama wins if he can garner 80% of the minorities and 40% of the whites.  In 2008 he had more than that.  Many of the 2008 Obama voters were soft, not turned on by McCain.   In 2012 many of those soft voters are disillusioned about the "hope and change" promise. 
 
Then there is Ohio.  A number of local economies in Ohio were kept afloat by ignoring the rights of the creditors and essentially giving Chrysler and GM to the unions in the form of preserving their pay scale and pension benefits, something that will forever hinder GM's return to reasonable profitability.   That gift which you and I paid for may win the election for Obama. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on October 22, 2012, 10:12:59 AM
On Friday, I attended a lecture given by a respected University Political Geographer.  He has published extensively about all past presidential elections from viewpoint of Electoral College, and how the various regions of the USA have shifted over time.  Quite interesting.

As a closing note, he gave us each a sheet showing the states and their electoral votes.  He had combined projected results from several polls that he respected with regard to who was going to get the Electoral votes in each state.

After recording the states that were solid and leaning Democrat, and solid and leaning Republican, there were 95 electoral college votes left in 7 swing (could not be put in solid or leaning status) states.
The swing states were Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.

Romney MUST carry one of either Florida (29 votes) or Ohio (18 votes).  If not, NO way he can win.

And, if he loses Florida, then he must win every other state listed.

If he wins Florida and loses Ohio, then there are 11 different combinations of the 7 remaining states that can provide him a win.

On another note:  Despite the current criticisms of the Electoral College system, I am in favor of it for the reasons put forth by the Founding Fathers, and for some other current reasons.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jone on October 22, 2012, 11:16:05 AM
Do you all remember in the 2008 election where President Obama said that one of his first orders of business, as President, was going to be to sit down with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela?  His personality was going to win over those countries.

Personally, I believe that there are two gorillas in the room whenever the President speaks.  They are jobs and deficit.  He can say whatever he wants, but those two gorillas are never going to go away.  They dominate discussion and because they are there, a foreign policy win tonight for the President will not move the needle when it comes to voting. 

In Ohio, where both candidates are around 47-48%, the independents always break for the challenger, especially in a bad economy.  The true test of this election will be whether the run up voting by the Dems in that state is sufficient to overcome this undecided challenger windfall.  It all comes down to Ohio.  Unless Ryan pulls Wisconsin from the blue to the Red as a favorite son. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 22, 2012, 01:08:44 PM
Quote
The election is about the economy.   IIRC, only 3% of Americans feel the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are the Number One Issue.  Obama wins if he can garner 80% of the minorities and 40% of the whites.  In 2008 he had more than that.  Many of the 2008 Obama voters were soft, not turned on by McCain.   In 2012 many of those soft voters are disillusioned about the "hope and change" promise. 

Gator; I more than agree.  However I fear that too few people are asking the right question, i.e., "... am I better off today than 4 years ago?"  Personally speaking, my finances have not suffered too much although I'm still a little pissed off because my house is now worth 10% less than it was 4 years ago, and although my account balances have increased, my buying power has declined.   In other words, my dollars are worth a lot less today thanks to QE I, II, & III.

My greatest fear is that the 2012 election will again be all about "Bread and Circus", Obama won in '08 with the promise of free stuff and thus won the adulation of the minorities.  Unless Romney scores a knockout punch tonight with some real magic we may be in for a really tough 4 more years. 

BTW... The polls I watch and trust are showing a shift in both Ohio and Florida, I do not think Obama has a lock on 2012 yet.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 22, 2012, 02:07:17 PM
 
BTW... The polls I watch and trust are showing a shift in both Ohio and Florida, I do not think Obama has a lock on 2012 yet.

Isn't that like 'picking your poison?'
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 22, 2012, 02:24:38 PM
BC,

Obama has undergone a slide of historic proportions since October 1st, what looked like a coin toss 3 weeks ago may change to a much different proposition by Nov 6th.  I think the debate tonight with the Libyan "truth" problems may swing a lot of weight towards Romney.  Most Americans don't like to be lied to.

Romney seems to be gaining in the former question mark states,  some states that were leaning Obama have become lean Romney. Some polls show Obama below 270 electoral votes as of this minute;  RCP has peeled 100 electoral votes away from Obama this month.  The trend is clear, and if Obama can't change it, he'll be working on his Presidential Library come January 31st.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 22, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
BC,

As an aside, right now I'm thinking this election is another Reagan/Carter replay.

If I were a Las Vegas odds maker, I'd double down on Romney, it would be safe money.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 22, 2012, 03:13:24 PM
The trend is clear, and if Obama can't change it, he'll be working on his Presidential Library come January 31st.

 :ROFL: Located in Hawaii no less.
 
Your house lost only 10% of its value.  Obviously you don't reside in Florida.   
 
Texas has been mostly immune to the economic downturn, something about being an energy state.   And that reminds me of another strong point Romney can make about foreign policy - his plan for energy independence (in North America). 

Energy independence will give America the lowest price for energy, thus enabling growth in manufacturing.  From a foreign policy aspect, we would have no need to become entangled with peoples who chant "Death to America."  BC and his fellow Europeans can deal with the Middle East (and Russia) regarding energy.

And as an oilman, perhaps you can enlighten me about Obama's energy policies and their effectiveness.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 22, 2012, 03:20:00 PM
BC,
 
Good to see you again.  What does Obama propose now that is different from the past four years?   Do you believe the economy will get much better?
 
Shouldn't we try a moderate leader who will reach across the aisle with some bold new plans?
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 22, 2012, 03:26:36 PM
.... my buying power has declined.   In other words, my dollars are worth a lot less today thanks to QE I, II, & III.


Yes, the result of monetizing our debt. 
 
This will remain a severe problem for Romney when elected.  At least he and Ryan will invite the question of how to deal with our mounting debt. 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 22, 2012, 03:46:48 PM
Quote
And as an oilman, perhaps you can enlighten me about Obama's energy policies and their effectiveness.

OMG~! Surely you jest. 

Most of the western half of the USA's mineral interest is owned by the federal gov., from the north/south Colorado border, up and down, and then west to the Pacific.  It's all tied up in either U.S. Forest Service Lands, or, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or, BIA, (Bureau of Indian Affairs).   Vast acreage is held in all of the west, in CO, WY, MT. UT. ID, NM, & NV.

Obama has forbidden exploration for natural resources on Federal Lands, although there is a "permit" process to explore these lands, Obama decreed that zero permits would be granted. 

I find it strange that Obama touts that oil and gas production has increased under his administration, he omits the fact that it was only on private land that it occurred.  Federal oil and gas production has declined,,, wasteful IMHO.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on October 22, 2012, 09:48:34 PM




"Every time history repeats itself, the price of the lesson goes up."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 22, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
... Personally, I believe that there are two gorillas in the room whenever the President speaks.  They are jobs and deficit.  He can say whatever he wants, but those two gorillas are never going to go away.  They dominate discussion and because they are there, a foreign policy win tonight for the President will not move the needle when it comes to voting....

It's good to see the resurgence of Jane/Joe Public taking a more pro-active interest in this year's election. I agree with what you stated above.

Unfortunately, the reality of our electorate today put little significance to these matters. The folks that will flood the voting stations between now and Nov. 6th are those whose only concern in determining the best man for the job is the man most likely to make sure their food stamps and welfare checks keep on comin'.

All the polls and all the odds maker can dance around this simple reality, but the fact is you can round-up 2,000 of these deadweights and ask them who'll they'll vote for president this year and I'll give you 1:1,000 odd they'll say Obama.

Now I'm not saying everyone who votes for Obama are social leeches. What I am saying is, those who are happen to be so huge in number and by adding them to the 2008 Doped and Banged holdovers and the Union is more than enough to insure this clown's re-election.

Romney is absolutely right. We are on a one way road to Greece...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jone on October 22, 2012, 11:10:54 PM
The poll that I watch is called Suffolk.  Not because it favors either candidate, but because it has a history of being completely right.  Hasn't ever missed.  It is run by Suffolk College, I believe in Mass.

Two weeks ago Suffolk pulled it's polling out of Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.  The reason?  Because the pollster said that with ancillary voting (run up voting and absentee voting) in these three states, the Suffolk poll was already prepared to call these states for Romney.  And that was even before there was polling in VA to show Romney in the lead.  Four days later Florida came out with a St. Petersburg poll that showed a seven point margin in favor of Romney and Obama's team started pulling out of North Carolina.

If you want the straight scoop, follow Suffolk.  BTW it has Ohio as a dead heat right now. 47 to 47.  All Romney had to do tonight was not screw up - which he didn't - and the trend should continue through election day.  Unless we go to war or something.

-j
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 23, 2012, 08:27:05 AM
BC,
 
Good to see you again.  What does Obama propose now that is different from the past four years?   Do you believe the economy will get much better?
 
Shouldn't we try a moderate leader who will reach across the aisle with some bold new plans?

Gator,

bold, new plans tend to create upset.. my goodness look what ROBamacare did..

I am in favor of a period of stability, but with re-election a push to embolden current policy.  True achievements will only be possible when Congress either drops party lines or a President pushes them.  With the weight of re-election off his back Obama will be able to swing his brass and get off the partisan tightrope.

Cement does not solidify as long as the mixer is running.

If Romney is elected, the mix will be volatile along with the weight of achieving re-election.. after all he did mention his policies, even economic would take longer than just a first term..  The challenges with Congress will not change just because he is elected..  In fact I fear worse.

Almost more interesting than the Pres Election is what changes are forthcoming in Congress.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 23, 2012, 09:53:46 AM

I find it strange that Obama touts that oil and gas production has increased under his administration, he omits the fact that it was only on private land that it occurred.  Federal oil and gas production has declined,,, wasteful IMHO.

In the second debate, Obama mentioned that many of the licenses were revoked due to non-use.  I can imagine that there are differences between private and federal land, but what are they and why does industry obviously prefer private land?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 23, 2012, 05:40:11 PM
OMG~! Surely you jest. 


Of course.  And it is far more than restricting exploration and production on federal land.
 
Obama was against the pipeline for Canadian tar sand oil.  His EPA is challenging fracking.  He claims environmental reasons.  I believe the real reason is to increase the price of oil to make expensive green energy more competitive. 
 
And how about T Boone Pickens?  His plan to replace diesel fuel in trucks with domestic natural gas would curtail two million bbls/day of imported oil.  The government is not behind this plan.
 
There is much that Obama could do to reduce the cost of energy and to reduce oil imports.  Instead Obama's policies are doing the opposite.   This is inexcusable in a down economy and a volatile Middle East.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 23, 2012, 05:46:21 PM
Gator,

bold, new plans tend to create upset.. my goodness look what ROBamacare did..

I am in favor of a period of stability, but with re-election a push to embolden current policy.  True achievements will only be possible when Congress either drops party lines or a President pushes them.  With the weight of re-election off his back Obama will be able to swing his brass and get off the partisan tightrope.

Cement does not solidify as long as the mixer is running.

Is that why Obama did not follow through with his 2008 promise for "Hope and Change?"   ;)


Quote
If Romney is elected, the mix will be volatile along with the weight of
achieving re-election.. after all he did mention his policies, even economic
would take longer than just a first term..  The challenges with Congress
will not change just because he is elected..  In fact I fear worse.


No fear BC.  Romney is not arrogant as is Obama.  However, you are correct about the challenge.  The challenges to grow jobs and to reduce the fiscal deficit are huge.   That is why Obama needs to be sent packing to Hawaii.  We have seen his plan for four years.  He was given a mandate and he failed.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 23, 2012, 06:06:44 PM
I am a little upset with Romney. 
 
Regarding policy I think it wrong to not cut our military budget, especially given our deficit. 
 
Regarding the third debate last evening, Romney could have given Obama the coups de grace.  Instead he was too soft. 
 
Obama constantly interrupted Romney and Romney never told him to wait his turn. 
 
When Obama made those condescending remarks about "ships that go under the water and ships that planes land on," Romney should have stopped him and commented about how Romney is trying to take the high road yet Obama is constantly attacking him, now stooping to the low point of making condescending remarks.  "Stop being so arrogant and please show the class and dignity expected from the holder of the highest office in our nation."
 
Also, Romney let Obama slip away regarding Libya.
 
Finally, Romney does agree with much of Obama's foreign policy.  What if Romney had said, "Yes, I do agree with many of your foreign policies.   Obviously you have surrounded yourself with qualified advisers in foreign policy.  Mr. President, why did you not surround yourself with the same level of economic advisers?"
 
Yes, I understand that Romney wanted to appeal to women voters and not come across too assertive.  However, he came across as a bit of a woos.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 23, 2012, 06:26:31 PM

Yes, I understand that Romney wanted to appeal to women voters and not come across too assertive.  However, he came across as a bit of a woos.

Gator,

In many ways Romney was not able to show a unique path.  For much of the debate he simply repeated what Obama stated.

That may be very confusing for many voters as he had very little 'fresh' to say, more an Obama parrot than someone with fresh, workable ideas - almost mimicking Obama's lackluster performance in the first debate, even looking down and taking notes...

Quite lame and most importantly little grasp of the topic at hand.

I'll be heading to the booth tomorrow before the long flight home - for better or worse.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 23, 2012, 09:54:08 PM
I am a little upset with Romney. 
 
When Obama made those condescending remarks about "ships that go under the water and ships that planes land on," Romney should have stopped him and commented about how Romney is trying to take the high road yet Obama is constantly attacking him, now stooping to the low point of making condescending remarks.  "Stop being so arrogant and please show the class and dignity expected from the holder of the highest office in our nation."
 
Yes, I understand that Romney wanted to appeal to women voters and not come across too assertive.  However, he came across as a bit of a woos.

Gator,

In many ways Romney was not able to show a unique path.  For much of the debate he simply repeated what Obama stated.

That may be very confusing for many voters as he had very little 'fresh' to say, more an Obama parrot than someone with fresh, workable ideas - almost mimicking Obama's lackluster performance in the first debate, even looking down and taking notes...

Quite lame and most importantly little grasp of the topic at hand.

I'll be heading to the booth tomorrow before the long flight home - for better or worse.

I saw at least three times Romney could have put a pure bitch slap on Obama with Obama's own remarks and false statements. He didn't and I was getting frustrated as to why not. As a result, as soon as the debate was over I declared it a draw. I spent an hour or two after the debate wondering why Romney would let him off those points so easily. There was a TV pundit that made a statement this evening and a light finally came on.

History has shown in previous elections that the final debate weeks before an election rarely sway any voters. With the gains Romney made in the previous two debates this talking head surmised Romney was just being careful to not offend and not lose. Thus never went into attack mode regardless of the opportunity. The idea being he wasn't going to gain any votes and the strategy was to not lose any. Time will tell if the strategy worked I suppose  ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 24, 2012, 07:00:11 AM
I saw at least three times Romney could have put a pure bitch slap on Obama with Obama's own remarks and false statements. He didn't and I was getting frustrated as to why not.

You and I are confirmed Romney voters.  We understand fully the negative effect of Obama's policies for America's economic future.  Also, we know that Obama is a big fat liar; thus it is repulsive to watch Obama call Romney a liar, when Romney is the more decent and classy man. 
 
Thus, we want to see Romney kick Obama's ass.  However,


Quote
History has shown in previous elections that the final debate weeks before an election rarely sway any voters. With the gains Romney made in the previous two debates this talking head surmised Romney was just being careful to not offend and not lose. Thus never went into attack mode regardless of the opportunity. The idea being he wasn't going to gain any votes and the strategy was to not lose any. Time will tell if the strategy worked I suppose  ;)

Exactly.  With regard to foreign policy, Romney mostly held his own against a sitting President.  That is remarkable considering Romney is a business leader and Obama has been eating and sleeping foreign policy for four years. After calming down, I feel that the debate showed Romney more as a noble supreme  leader and Obama as a bullying, arrogant community organizer.
 
So Romney's posture was for the purpose of winning the undecided.  What perplexes me is how any person can still be undecided at this stage.   For sure they are taking the election very seriously.  However, all they have to do is examine Obama's economic failures for the past four years, determine if Obama has any new plans, and ask "Will the economy get better?"
 
Frankly, I doubt that Romney will return us to a high growth economy.  Debt, demographics and globalization will restrain America's economy.  However, I am confident Romney can lead us in a better direction.  And that is all we should expect for the next four years considering we are in debt up to our chest.  What would Obama do? 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on October 24, 2012, 07:40:50 AM
Another take on  the 3rd debate.

Yes, to objective observer, it would seem that Obama won by a small margin.

However, some 'experts' are saying that actually Romney won by a small margin.   Reason . . . even though Obama got the better of it from his  aggressive actions . . . Romney was successful in turning back the focus to ECONOMICS several  times.  The experts say (and our European folks here will readily agree) . . . the common folk here care zilch about foreign policy.  They are going to vote on perceived ECONOMICS.  So any reminder of the economic situation is a win for Romney.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 24, 2012, 07:43:05 AM
Gator,

In many ways Romney was not able to show a unique path.  For much of the debate he simply repeated what Obama stated.



Romney largely agrees with Obama's foreign policy with some notable exceptions: 

1) Obama should have applied sanctions against Iran at a more accelerated rate,

2) been tougher with China (we fought the war in Iraq yet China got the oil),

3) been more supportive of Israel (surrounded by a sizable Jewish population in South Florida, Obama made sure to say the best words about Israel although Obama's actual actions  towards Israel have not been so supportive,

4) been less cozy with Putin,

5) and been more forthright in messages to Americans (e. g., Benghazi attack).   
 

I believe those are excellent points.  Most Republicans will concede that most of Obama's foreign policies are reasonable, especially when compared with his economic policies.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BoozeBaron on October 24, 2012, 08:01:22 AM
Another take on  the 3rd debate.

Yes, to objective observer, it would seem that Obama won by a small margin.

However, some 'experts' are saying that actually Romney won by a small margin.   Reason . . . even though Obama got the better of it from his  aggressive actions . . . Romney was successful in turning back the focus to ECONOMICS several  times.  The experts say (and our European folks here will readily agree) . . . the common folk here care zilch about foreign policy.  They are going to vote on perceived ECONOMICS.  So any reminder of the economic situation is a win for Romney.


+1

Saw the replay last night -and to me it was a 'tie' but Romney was able to pull topics out that mattered in addition to National Security - whereas to me (the casual observer from afar) Obama looked tired and haggered... I know I would be if I were prez LOL - Ever notice how all who enter office with their usual hair colour - by year 4 or 8 are greying?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 24, 2012, 03:15:40 PM


So Romney's posture was for the purpose of winning the undecided.  What perplexes me is how any person can still be undecided at this stage.  For sure they are taking the election very seriously.  However, all they have to do is examine Obama's economic failures for the past four years, determine if Obama has any new plans, and ask "Will the economy get better?"
 

Yeah I have a problem with that concept myself. But, if the polls are right it is those same voters that will decide which direction this country is headed. Scary thought  looking at it that way huh?

I didn't vote for Obama the first time around as you may have surmised but not for the same reasons I won't vote for him now. I was pretty confident that no matter who won in 08 would be a failure. Obama has held true to form
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 24, 2012, 03:54:12 PM
Well my son and I went and 'did the deed' today before flying back home on Saturday.

Surprising how many folks lined up for early voting.  The process was easy and straight forward.

It ain't over till it's over and again it seems only a few will make a huge difference which seems a bit un-democratic.

In the end, sadly, half the country will be happy, the other half unhappy...

.. then it will be back to the same old game.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 24, 2012, 04:52:39 PM
An interesting aside...

It seems the majority of posters on RW related fora lean Republican.

Is there any logic behind that?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jone on October 24, 2012, 07:21:47 PM
BC,

I am a certified independent.  And, even though I am from Los Angeles, my permanent home is Wisconsin.  Where I will be voting this year.  I already have submitted for absentee ballot.

My great concern, outside of getting America back to work, is the absolute gridlock that we see in American politics.  Obama promised all of us that he was going to fix that.   Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stacked the deck in 2009, giving us legislation that was not vetted with the American people.  So in 2010, Americans voted in the Republicans.  Now, no legislation can get through without the consent of both parties. 

Bohener and Reid are good with working across the isle.  But the President is not.  Anyone who has watched him realizes that he polarizes people.  His persona seems to me to be disingenous.  I was hoping for something better.  So along comes this Romney character and I am hoping that, if elected, he can reach across the isle and we can start getting through legislation again.

So, for me, I am pragmatic.  I want our governmental system to work.  Right now, it is broken.  And having Obama as President for four more years looks like four years of stagnation.  Of course I said that when Bush was up for re-election, too.

 :cluebat:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 24, 2012, 07:56:15 PM
An interesting aside...

It seems the majority of posters on RW related fora lean Republican.

Is there any logic behind that?

Are they leaning Republican or are they leaning away from the liberal policies that they feel are grinding and bringing the country to it's knees?

In my lifetime I have been both. I was raised a Democrat until I saw what Jimmy Carter did to the country. My parents who were lifetime yellow dog democrats thought I was mad and on drugs when I voted for Reagan. By the time George H Bush was running for President they too had converted and are hard line Republican today. For me it was George H that started to sour me. But I maintained.

It was his son, Dubya that convinced me I could no longer be a republican, because I just couldn't support his actions or policies as president. I truly can't go either way and my personal beliefs are currently Libertarian. As a Libertarian I have to vote the lesser of two evils for my vote to count. The current path of Obama's spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave I find completely repulsive and damming for the country. The weakening of America on the world stage is another matter altogether FWIW 

I don't know where the leanings are but, I do see them away from the path we've been on for the last 4 years. Another 4 years like this and I am truly a pauper and lucky to be employed
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 24, 2012, 08:47:59 PM
Well my son and I went and 'did the deed' today before flying back home on Saturday.

I hope you cancel each other's vote.  My AW wife and I stood in line and did that for over 20 years.  :)
 
Did you check your vote? 
 
http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-county-voters-say-they-voted-for-the-wrong-candidate/ (http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-county-voters-say-they-voted-for-the-wrong-candidate/)
 
In Guilford County the George Soros voting machines would take a vote cast for Romney and tally it for Obama!!!!!!!!
 
BTW, while in NC, did you see the billboard below.   Photo taken in Raleigh on New Bern Ave.


Quote
In the end, sadly, half the country will be happy, the other half unhappy...

It will be worse than "unhappy."  Obama has polarized America, even fomenting class warfare.  There were many people unhappy with Bush, but not many to the point of abhorring the man.  You can not believe how many Americans despise Obama.

If Obama is elected, who will be unhappy?  The white middle class who believe in work, faith, family and thrift.   That used to be the American ethic.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 24, 2012, 09:24:17 PM
I saw at least three times Romney could have put a pure bitch slap on Obama with Obama's own remarks and false statements. He didn't and I was getting frustrated as to why not. As a result, as soon as the debate was over I declared it a draw. I spent an hour or two after the debate wondering why Romney would let him off those points so easily. There was a TV pundit that made a statement this evening and a light finally came on.

History has shown in previous elections that the final debate weeks before an election rarely sway any voters. With the gains Romney made in the previous two debates this talking head surmised Romney was just being careful to not offend and not lose. Thus never went into attack mode regardless of the opportunity. The idea being he wasn't going to gain any votes and the strategy was to not lose any. Time will tell if the strategy worked I suppose  ;)

Romney didn't have to push the Libya matter at all. The hard facts are already on his side, so no need to step over the possibility of becoming redundantly annoying to many 'undecided' voters by harping over something that is already a given. I, too, thought it was a good call from his campaign group to sway this debate BACK to the economy.

For one, I was repulsed by Romney's seeming knee jerk reaction right after the night of the attack. By letting that sleeping dog lie during the debate, he certainly appeared much more presidential than that clown sitting on the other side of the aisle.

He definitely looked more like the incumbent than the other way around.

When all of this is over, especially if Romney does win the election, I would love to see Carney, Clinton and Rice testify under oath why they persistently and repeatedly declared for days what is now known to be falsehood about the night of 9/11 Benghazi attack.

This election is still too tight to call. I just hope Jimmy Kimmel was right when he said that there's *a term* for a president like Obama....and hope it stays that way.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on October 25, 2012, 06:22:51 AM

When all of this is over, especially if Romney does win the election, I would love to see Carney, Clinton and Rice testify under oath why they persistently and repeatedly declared for days what is now known to be falsehood about the night of 9/11 Benghazi attack.


Carney is just a mouth piece given a script to read from each day. The WH spokesperson is nothing more than a face on the admin and not privy to much of anything.

Clinton and Rice are completely different stories. The positions they hold give them all up to the minute intel. They flat out lied and have some 'splaining to do. I would be willing to wager that no matter who wins the election, you'll see the whole Bengazi deal quietly go away
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on October 25, 2012, 07:04:05 AM
If the attack was a terrorist action, was putting up the video a diversion?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 25, 2012, 01:24:51 PM
If the attack was a terrorist action, was putting up the video a diversion?

??? The video was already up and running on youtube.  Hours before the Benghazi attack, the video had prompted a demonstration against the American embassy in Cairo.
 
Perhaps by "diversion" you mean Obama wanted to hide the fact that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act, possibly by al Qaeda.  Obama had been campaigning as if all the dragons had been slain.  The attack would prove Obama was wrong.   He could not have that, so hence the emphasis on a "demonstration caused by a video" rather than a planned attack by a terrorist organization.
 
A first hand account of the attack:
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/21/truth-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/21/truth-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html)
 
I guarantee that the investigation currently underway will not be released before the election.  Even if it were released, it would prove that Obama is a liar.  Everyone knows that by now.   His university records would also prove he lied.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 25, 2012, 03:18:29 PM

I hope you cancel each other's vote.  My AW wife and I stood in line and did that for over 20 years.  :)
 
Did you check your vote? 
 
http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-county-voters-say-they-voted-for-the-wrong-candidate/ (http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-county-voters-say-they-voted-for-the-wrong-candidate/)
 
In Guilford County the George Soros voting machines would take a vote cast for Romney and tally it for Obama!!!!!!!!
 
BTW, while in NC, did you see the billboard below.   Photo taken in Raleigh on New Bern Ave.

 
It will be worse than "unhappy."  Obama has polarized America, even fomenting class warfare.  There were many people unhappy with Bush, but not many to the point of abhorring the man.  You can not believe how many Americans despise Obama.

If Obama is elected, who will be unhappy?  The white middle class who believe in work, faith, family and thrift.   That used to be the American ethic.

Gator,

my son of course had his free choice and I told him so.  He was not impressed with Romney though and I doubt any canceling of votes.

NC is still a pink republican state and doubt our votes will make much of a difference, but you never know.  My son did question electoral vs popular vote though without prompting and I still wonder about the popular vs electoral vote debate and whether or not this will change sometime in the future.

btw, some 600 of those little roadside flags for Obama were plucked and discarded in this neck of the woods but still, surprisingly, Romney flags are pretty rare.  Most are for local politicians seeking office.  I really expected Romney flags to be in every yard but they are not.  I did not see much of the big billboard political adverts anywhere we travelled, but guess those are harder to steal.

Isn't the mention of 'white middle class' polarizing? What happened to the melting pot theory? Does it even count anymore?

Anyhoo, going to dinner now and then will enjoy a bit of sailing this eve before packing our bags for the long journey home on Sat/Sun.

Between now and the 7th I think I'll just ignore it all.. we've done our part.

Quello che sarà, sarà.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 25, 2012, 08:43:58 PM


Isn't the mention of 'white middle class' polarizing? What happened to the melting pot theory? Does it even count anymore?



When  11 or 12 years old,  as a  Boy Scout one Saturday I delivered Christmas food packages to needy people in Nashville, Tennessee.   I learned that day how wrong it is to be racist.  That lesson will never be forgotten. 
 
While not a racist, I am now officially polarized.  I have never been that way in the past.  Perhaps it started a long time ago, but I don't think so.  Obama did it.   He creates a horrible taste in my mouth.  If reelected, he will make it worse.   And half of my country will vote for him even though his arrogance and ideology and failures should have sent him packing.. 
 
I almost voted for him in 2008.  Even though I did not, I still hoped he would succeed because it is my country.  He failed miserably.   Now I fully understand why republican leadership did not and could not work with him.  Hit the road Barrack, and don't come back no more, no more, no more...How sweet would that be.
 
You asked about the melting pot.  The melting pot did indeed work in the 19th and 20th centuries.  Everybody pursued the American dream.   We have forgotten what it means to be American.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 26, 2012, 08:00:05 AM
Related to the "melting pot" concept is this Racial Voting Bloc Calculator.  Insert 2008 results as a starting point, and adjust the percentages for 2012 scenarios:
 
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/voting-bloc-calculator/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/voting-bloc-calculator/index.html)
 
Among minorities, I understand but do not respect the 96% black vote for Obama in 2008.  The percentage will change a little in 2012 because religious blacks do not approve of same sex marriage.
 
The democrats have been courting the Latinos for years, promising many favors such as citizenship and not requiring "melting," so I can understand the 68% vote (imagine the results of giving a few million Latinos citizenship).   There may be a small backlash in 2012 because Obama did not deliver his promised immigration bill when he had a mandate in 2009-2010.
 
Why did 64% of the Asians vote for Obama in 2008?  Was this about immigration policies?
 
Regarding Asians and Latinos, perhaps many may support Romney because of the economy.   One can "hope" for such a "change."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 26, 2012, 06:15:50 PM
Gator,

honestly, I'm having a difficult time digesting your last two posts.

Much of my life I grew up around the military overseas where racial lines for the most part disappeared.  It was all about what rank or GS number your father or mother had.  Yes it was somewhat of a status 'thing' but at least a neutral factor.

When I moved back to the US in the late 70's for a short stint, I was confronted with trying to 'belong' to a predominately white group where derogative terms were used when talking about folk that were somehow 'different' than the white folk I ran around with.  Unlike the southern drawl that was easily acquired, words like nigger, spics choked me up a bit.  I tried to 'belong' and uttered the same song for a bit but fortunately it did not last long despite trying to 'belong' to my peer group.  I was ashamed and the values I grew up with were stronger.

White, black, latino, asian, whatever... no matter to me.  On another fora even I have been somewhat portrayed as some kind of euro purse toting outcast.. so be it, but in the end I belong to a group of Americans that number in the millions.

That folks in the US, even institutions such as CNN go so far as to highlight race and religion differences in polls is abhorrent.  After all, despite demographic constituency we are talking about Americans.. or?

Gator, I respect you and your views, but when it comes to politics, for me the democratic process rules regardless of the qualities of it's constituents.

When politics and media take the high road and rise above race, religion and ethnicity I will be a happy man and ready to accept any outcome dictated by he democratic process.

In the meantime I won't allow myself to be distracted by such nonsense.

We the people........
 


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 28, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
A good read:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-375873-video-one.html (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-375873-video-one.html)

Especially this paragraph:
Quote
We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and Special Forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy – or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hell hole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. "Within minutes of the first bullet being fired, the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied," said Ty Woods' father, Charles. "In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured, and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son's life was sacrificed because of the White House's decision."

I personally think the "Libya Lie" will be enough to sink Obama if enough Americans see the truth about the really horrible lack of leadership in Washington DC. 

Early voting is in full swing in TX and tomorrow two adults in this household will go to the polls and cast a vote against the idiot-in-chief.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on October 28, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
Gator,

honestly, I'm having a difficult time digesting your last two posts.

Much of my life I grew up around the military overseas where racial lines for the most part disappeared.  It was all about what rank or GS number your father or mother had.  Yes it was somewhat of a status 'thing' but at least a neutral factor.

When I moved back to the US in the late 70's for a short stint, I was confronted with trying to 'belong' to a predominately white group where derogative terms were used when talking about folk that were somehow 'different' than the white folk I ran around with.  Unlike the southern drawl that was easily acquired, words like nigger, spics choked me up a bit.  I tried to 'belong' and uttered the same song for a bit but fortunately it did not last long despite trying to 'belong' to my peer group.  I was ashamed and the values I grew up with were stronger.

White, black, latino, asian, whatever... no matter to me.  On another fora even I have been somewhat portrayed as some kind of euro purse toting outcast.. so be it, but in the end I belong to a group of Americans that number in the millions.

That folks in the US, even institutions such as CNN go so far as to highlight race and religion differences in polls is abhorrent.  After all, despite demographic constituency we are talking about Americans.. or?Gator, I respect you and your views, but when it comes to politics, for me the democratic process rules regardless of the qualities of it's constituents.

When politics and media take the high road and rise above race, religion and ethnicity I will be a happy man and ready to accept any outcome dictated by he democratic process.

In the meantime I won't allow myself to be distracted by such nonsense.

We the people........

I really don't understand your sensitivity to CNN or other 'news' outlets quoting demographic groups in the polls.  The American electorate is made of of many 'voting blocks'. This includes the political parties, labor unions, corporate interests, environmental interests, race, religion, and many others.   Seems you have a hangup about the ethnicity/race part of the equation.  Just see it as another voting block.  In real life, these blocks vote the way they do and there is nothing unusual about it.  People look out for their own interests in any civilization.  We don't live in a perfect world. LOL
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 29, 2012, 06:45:50 AM

I personally think the "Libya Lie" will be enough to sink Obama if enough Americans see the truth about the really horrible lack of leadership in Washington DC. 


It should sink Obama, but will it?  I believe most Obama voters already accept that he is dishonest.  They do not expect Obama to ever come clean.  Many probably realize that Romney is far better for America's economy, without one hint of scandal in his background.   However, they will vote for Obama because he will protect their interests. 
 
Interests consist of:
 
-   Race,
 
-  Immigration,
 
-  Job and pension protection for union and government employees, and
 
-  Issues such as abortion (the underemployed girlfriend of my son is an Obama supporter solely because of the abortion issue). 
 
In addition, there is not a small educated group with long history of liberal views who can not swallow anything that seems conservative.   This last group is intelligent and I  hope some will split their vote:  vote Democrat for Congress but recognize that Romney is far superior.
 
Nixon was re-elected even though he was widely recognized as dishonest to the point of having the nickname Tricky Dick.   The difference is that Nixon's track record was that of a "pro" and not that of someone who increased the national debt at an unprecedented pace while producing little positive results, i. e., a failure with regard to the economy.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 29, 2012, 07:15:19 AM

Gator, I respect you and your views, but when it comes to politics, for me the democratic process rules regardless of the qualities of it's constituents.



My "polarization" is not about race, so please get off that horse.   And democracy has its flaws, yet it is superior to any alternative.   
 
So what concerns me?   Somehow a President who has proven for four years that he does not know how to correct 1) the slow economy and 2) massive debt crisis is running 50-50 in the polls with someone whose business acumen and leadership is outstanding.   I feel such a President should be losing in a major landslide, even ignoring his dishonesty.

The country needs to be united to prevent us from becoming another Greece or Spain.  Obama has divided us,  more divided now  than I recall in my long  years. 
 
Do you recall a President who has been more divisive at the time when we need to be together?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 29, 2012, 07:55:05 AM
Gator,

Who says it won't be a landslide?  You've no doubt heard of the Bradley effect,,, I think it will be in play for this election.  At least I hope so.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 29, 2012, 12:07:22 PM
Gator,

Who says it won't be a landslide?  You've no doubt heard of the Bradley effect,,, I think it will be in play for this election.  At least I hope so.

I forgot about the Bradley effect.   The effect did not happen in 2008; in fact, some say there was a reverse Bradley effect.  White guilt wanted to elect what appeared to be a qualified black candidate.

Let's examine the facts about 2008.  Many felt the Bush presidency for 8 years was not successful (we had two wars and the economy was staggering), change was necessary, McCain was not dynamic,  and Obama was a breath of fresh air promising hope and change.  That was enough with or without a Bradley effect.   
 
In 2012, we have seen that Obama's four years were worse than Bush's with regard to the long-term direction of the economy, Romney runs circles around McCain, and Obama is not a breath of fresh air (WSJ called his campaign promises a "Second First Term").   Plus, the debt and fiscal problems have approached crisis levels, demanding more immediate attention than abortion, healthcare, immigration, gun control, etc.  that conservatives don't do well with.
 
So why is Obama near the same level of support as in 2008?  It is implausible to me.  Can anyone give me an explanation?   
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 29, 2012, 12:18:47 PM
Another point that JB raised earlier.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331892/benghazi-obama-emerges-fog-war-bing-west (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331892/benghazi-obama-emerges-fog-war-bing-west)

It has been 7 weeks since the Benghazi attack.  That is certainly enough time to know who is lying: POTUS, Panetta, Hillary or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
 
Who told our quick reaction force to stand down?  It points to Obama because if one of the others lied, Obama would have his/her head.  Obama had a chance to come clean early, but this coverup is just a sign of his arrogance. 

Perhaps Obama is negotiating a deal with a scapegoat to make it seem like incompetence.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 29, 2012, 12:43:20 PM
Gator;

I think white guilt went away a long time ago.  Now we just want a White House that looks out for America.

Obama only looks out for Obama.

I may be totally out in left field, but I predict it will be Romney with at least 320 EV before the day is done.

BTW, I voted today.   There was a 45 minute line,,, all of the other voters in line were over 40,,, and mostly white females.  Does that tell you anything?  I think turnout for this election will be crucial.

A week from now we will know...  "Sink or Swim"

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 29, 2012, 02:06:41 PM


I may be totally out in left field, but I predict it will be Romney with at least 320 EV before the day is done.



Sweet!!!!!
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on October 29, 2012, 02:09:15 PM

My "polarization" is not about race, so please get off that horse.   And democracy has its flaws, yet it is superior to any alternative.   
 
So what concerns me?   Somehow a President who has proven for four years that he does not know how to correct 1) the slow economy and 2) massive debt crisis is running 50-50 in the polls with someone whose business acumen and leadership is outstanding.   I feel such a President should be losing in a major landslide, even ignoring his dishonesty.

The country needs to be united to prevent us from becoming another Greece or Spain.  Obama has divided us,  more divided now  than I recall in my long  years. 
 
Do you recall a President who has been more divisive at the time when we need to be together?

Gator,

the vote will decide how divided we are...  didn't the Supreme Court have to decide in one past election?  Isn't this about as divided as it gets?  How did Obama make it even more divided?.. a hundred votes here or there?

My comment about polarization along racial, religious and other lines by the media and pollsters was more about the fact that their assessments lend towards increasing polarization - and that many still bite into that cookie instead of choking on it or better simply going on a diet.

I was simply surprised to see you take a bite into the cookie filled with vitamin F... (fear)

You are worried about the US turning into a Spain or Greece?.. comeon... that's just another vitamin F pill being sold to you.  If you refer to public debt, I'm surprised you did not mention Japan first.  In fact  instead of fearing the weakest, you might want to investigate the strongest and learn how they do things even if it is a tougher cookie to swallow.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on October 29, 2012, 02:11:43 PM
Right now it seems a fresh wind is blowing in Washington.
Take car anyone in the area.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 29, 2012, 06:47:07 PM
...So why is Obama near the same level of support as in 2008?  It is implausible to me.  Can anyone give me an explanation?

Media.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 31, 2012, 01:04:26 PM
Gator,

the vote will decide how divided we are...  didn't the Supreme Court have to decide in one past election?  Isn't this about as divided as it gets?  How did Obama make it even more divided?.. a hundred votes here or there?



The numbers will be about the same as the hanging chad election.  The difference is that 1) many will be divided by race and class and 2) many divided by deeply seated illwill if not unadulterated hatred.
 
My speech again.  When Reagan won by a large percentage, his first step was to sit down with Tip O'Neil and ask "What do you want?"  Tip did not get a 50-50 deal, but he got something. 
 
In contrast, Obama promised to unite the country and instead crammed Obamacare down the throats of the Republican party (check the votes).  Only when he lost the House in 2010 did he talk compromise.  But did he?  No.  He fought with Boehner over the debt ceiling, but walked away from a deal.   Obama even ignored his own Bowles-Simpson commission report, which had achieved bilateral support.
 
Read Bob Woodward's book:   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woodward-book-chronicles-obamas-fiscal-policy-battle-with-congressional-republicans/2012/09/05/0b6ac24c-f6dd-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woodward-book-chronicles-obamas-fiscal-policy-battle-with-congressional-republicans/2012/09/05/0b6ac24c-f6dd-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html)

The arrogance of Obama will be his undoing.
 


Quote
I was simply surprised to see you take a bite into the cookie filled with vitamin F... (fear)

You are worried about the US turning into a Spain or Greece?.. comeon... that's just another vitamin F pill being sold to you.  If you refer to public debt, I'm surprised you did not mention Japan first.  In fact  instead of fearing the weakest, you might want to investigate the strongest and learn how they do things even if it is a tougher cookie to swallow.

No fear here.  The economy I believe will improve over the short term regardless of who is elected even though Obama is an obstructionist.  The business of America is business, and American business is strong, dynamic and adaptive. 
 
The direction concerns me.  Our debt::GDP ratio is okay and far below Greece's and Japan's.  However, it is growing and that growth will accelerate largely due to 1) increasing cost of healthcare and 2) very slow growth ( and growth makes the GDP denominator larger).   
 
Obama accelerates us in the wrong direction (more government, decline in take home pay).  Romney produces more jobs, increases take home pay, and takes a step towards balancing the budget.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on October 31, 2012, 01:15:29 PM
Media.

You are probably correct given how little the press is pursuing Obama about who said what to whom and when about Benghazi. 
 
Of course there is no need for the press to work this because we have an investigation underway.  An investigation did not stop Bob Woodward.  We need a Benghazi Deep Throat.  One will eventually appear but not before the election.
 
Where is the press feeding frenzy such as seen with Bush, Watergate, and even with Romney (the 47% remark, and yesterday the possible FEMA cuts)?  The fog surrounding Benghazi and the huge implications are receiving about the same attention from most of the press as Big Bird.  In Watergate, no one died due to incompetence or worse, cowardice. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jb on October 31, 2012, 06:22:53 PM
I saw a glimmer of hope in the early voting results showing Romney ahead by 6% so far.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 31, 2012, 08:01:50 PM
I can't pass this up...


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0




I'm GQBlues and I approve this message.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on October 31, 2012, 08:11:26 PM

You are probably correct given how little the press is pursuing Obama about who said what to whom and when about Benghazi....
 
 

The general sentiment about Benghazi's affair is, there will be no new revelation or further coverage until after the election. Unfortunately as that may be.


Here's a sampling of the (dis) interested Obama supporter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0)

...and their stated media source preferences.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 02, 2012, 01:03:33 PM
There are hundreds of these endorsements and editorials about Obama's failed presidency, but I found this one interesting.
 
Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, "How Far Obama Has Fallen."
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html)
 
Others include the Des Moines Register's endorsement by its editors.  It is remarkable because the paper has endorsed only democratic presidential candidates for the past 40 years, even endorsing Dukakis and Mondale.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 02, 2012, 01:31:15 PM
To be fiar and balanced, the timeline of the Benghazi attacks provided by an undisclosed CIA individual suggests that the CIA and the administration did much of what could be done.  I know a couple of combat veterans and ex-special ops who feel the same.
 
 
The small CIA response team from a nearby facility arrived at the consulate within 40 minutes of receiving the call, engaged the attackers, and retrieved consulate personnel.  The White House staff would conclude then that the attack was over.  The two ex-SEALs were killed in a subsequent attack that evening at the nearby CIA   facility.
 
This does not exonerate the WH because there still remains the question of where is the missing ambassador and what effort the WH was making to locate him.  Also controversial are the State Dept's decisions a) before the attack to not provide adequate security and b) after the attack to   blame the anti-Muslim video for 14 days when it was apparent that this was a well planned attack by trained fighters.
 
And if the White House is clear of a conspiracy, why are they so silent on a subject that is harming them?  We sure had a lot of information (some of it classified) and boasting immediately after Bin Laden was killed.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on November 02, 2012, 02:51:11 PM
Looks like Gingrich's math is a little off regarding those estimated 320 Romney EVs, not to mention how long a president can serve!  ;D

Errant Gingrich Email: 'Obama Is Going to Win'
By SARAH PARNASS | ABC News – Thu, Nov 1, 2012

An email message mistakenly sent to Newt Gingrich's list serve this morning told subscribers that President Obama would no doubt win in 2012 and that they should be more worried about Obama's winning in 2016.

That's right, despite the 22nd Amendment, which limits any one person to two presidential terms, the email that went out to Gingrich's supporters suggests President Obama would be running again in 2016, and possibly serve through 2020...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/errant-email-newt-gingrich-supporters-obama-win/story?id=17618977
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 02, 2012, 05:32:07 PM
I can't pass this up...


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0)




I'm GQBlues and I approve this message.
funny video...this one is not  http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 04, 2012, 03:55:43 PM
Tic-Toc -Tic-Toc...

2 days and counting....while the early voting/absentee ballots cited majority Democrat and showing Obama with a slight lead, many feel it's technically a dead-heat. With such a small advantage with largely Democrat voters, election days will yield the greater last-to-the-minute surprises...

Boom or Bust. This is it!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 04, 2012, 07:00:07 PM
If Obama is re-elected this is the lack of bipartisan statesmanship we can expect:
 
Quote

After we win this election, it’s our turn.  Payback time.  Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay.  Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.  -  Valerie Jarret, Senior Advisor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Advisor_to_the_President) to the President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Public_Engagement_and_Intergovernmental_Affairs) in the Obama administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_administration).
 

So the half of the country who did not vote for Obama will be the "enemy."   This is a prime example of Obama's divisive nature.  As President he is supposed to be the leader for all Americans.  He isn't.
 
Some questions:
 
-   How can Obama expect bipartisan cooperation?   With this attitude, gridlock is even more entrenched.   Actually over the years gridlock has proven effective as little gets done at the government level (i. e., no changes) and private business can do its thing.

-  How can liberals delude themselves that they are voting for what is best for America?  Over the years I have mostly thought that liberals were reasonable and intelligent, driven by a sense of fairness.  I am wrong. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 05, 2012, 05:38:25 AM
  Over the years I have mostly thought that liberals were reasonable and intelligent, driven by a sense of fairness.  I am wrong.
It's easy to tell Obama voters by their sense of entitlement (wanting everything for free) and rediculous posts on my facebook page. Please people, get out tomorrow and vote for Romney. Don't let them make this country into just another European Socialist state on the way to being a second world country.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 05, 2012, 09:01:48 AM
If Obama is re-elected this is the lack of bipartisan statesmanship we can expect:
 
So the half of the country who did not vote for Obama will be the "enemy."   This is a prime example of Obama's divisive nature.  As President he is supposed to be the leader for all Americans.  He isn't.
 
Some questions:
 
-   How can Obama expect bipartisan cooperation?   With this attitude, gridlock is even more entrenched.   Actually over the years gridlock has proven effective as little gets done at the government level (i. e., no changes) and private business can do its thing.

-  How can liberals delude themselves that they are voting for what is best for America?  Over the years I have mostly thought that liberals were reasonable and intelligent, driven by a sense of fairness.  I am wrong.

This is all over the blogosphere with no known source.  Mainstream media has not touched it, not even Fox.. they would be all over it.

Believe it or not.......  Probably best taken with a good bit of salt.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 05, 2012, 10:29:05 AM
This is all over the blogosphere with no known source.  Mainstream media has not touched it, not even Fox.. they would be all over it.

Believe it or not.......  Probably best taken with a good bit of salt.
AS always...talk is cheap.....
You guys crack me up!!!! The sky is falling...the sky is falling!!!!! Run..run.. :) ..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 05, 2012, 10:34:51 AM
AS always...talk is cheap.....
You guys crack me up!!!! The sky is falling...the sky is falling!!!!! Run..run.. :) ..

The politics of fear....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 05, 2012, 03:55:32 PM
funny video...this one is not  http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0)
I actually meant this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&feature=fvwrel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&feature=fvwrel)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 05, 2012, 04:29:28 PM
AS always...talk is cheap.....
You guys crack me up!!!! The sky is falling...the sky is falling!!!!! Run..run.. :) ..

Not the case.  American business will survive  in spite of the demagogue-obstructionist-phony now in office. 
 
I find Obama disgusting in so many ways, and oddly I find myself not so friendly with those who support him, including a couple in my golf circles.   
 
One of best friends is concerned about his relationship with his wife of 40 years.  He voted for Obama in 2008 and now supports Romney.  She is voting liberal as she has done her whole life.  Their relationship is so strained that they can not watch news together.  I believe hope it will pass.  Both are good old friends, and there are no friends like old friends.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 05, 2012, 04:32:52 PM
I actually meant this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&feature=fvwrel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&feature=fvwrel)

I thought about responding, but Gator said it best in a post above with only one word change....

Quote
-  How can liberals conservatives delude themselves that they are voting for what is best for America?  Over the years I have mostly thought that liberals conservatives were reasonable and intelligent, driven by a sense of fairness.  I am wrong.

Good luck tomorrow folks, regardless who you are voting for.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 05, 2012, 05:23:59 PM

Not the case.  American business will survive  in spite of the demagogue-obstructionist-phony now in office. 
 
I find Obama disgusting in so many ways, and oddly I find myself not so friendly with those who support him, including a couple in my golf circles.   
 
One of best friends is concerned about his relationship with his wife of 40 years.  He voted for Obama in 2008 and now supports Romney.  She is voting liberal as she has done her whole life.  Their relationship is so strained that they can not watch news together.  I believe hope it will pass.  Both are good old friends, and there are no friends like old friends.
Well Gator...I hope you are happy elated the redskins lost on sunday.....per the redskins rule.
And now you and your polical friends here can find something else to complain chat about. ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pokerintherear on November 05, 2012, 05:28:57 PM
Here is a discussion with a Russian woman on the election. This is interesting. This woman sees the con man. Yes it is astonishing how many Americans cant see the poser, fake we have as president. She cant see how people can fall for his BS. She talks of common sense and the gut feeling of knowing.

This transcript was from a talk radio show on Friday. I'm sure some will discredit because of the broadcast it was on. If you listen to the audio there is no doubt where shes from.

...

Russian Immigrant Thought She'd Outrun Socialism
November 02, 2012
Listen to it Button

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Irina from Acworth, Georgia. Great to have you. It's Open Line Friday. You're next. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. My name is Irina, and I appreciate that you took my call, and I want to say special thank you to your team. They were very nice to me. I was born in Moscow. I came here 14 years ago. I was 35 years old. Now I'm 50. And I want to tell you, I'm very optimistic. I feel with all my guts that Romney will win this election. But I still have fear, and I'm terrified by seeing what's going on four years in this country. I'm terrified that people can put an Obama in Oval Office, back again.

RUSH: See, people who lived under socialism know. You've lived under this stuff, and so you have a palpable fear when you see it starting to grow here. Am I right?

CALLER: I see whole symptoms, Rush. They're there. What terrified in any way people... I communicate with many people, and I see how uneducated and unopen-minded they are. They cannot believe it, what they hearing.

undefined

RUSH: Irina, the schools in this country do not teach the evils of socialism. They teach just the opposite. They sing its praises. Little kids in America today are taught that it's the only route to fairness and equality and all of that wonderful, good stuff. Big government, command-and-control economy, authority, this sort of stuff. This is what kids are taught. I mean, look at 'em. Young kids that you saw believe this stuff. Dolts in Hollywood, they fall for it. It is seductive for people that don't like competition.

CALLER: You know, Rush, I totally agree with you. But sometimes in the back of your common sense, sometimes your heart can tell you when people are lying and when they are not. And those celebrities, trust me: If they make a movie, they play certain characters. It doesn't mean anything. People have to understand it. They know exactly how to fly airplane if they playing the pilot? Absolutely not. And even celebrities who travel all over the world and they see the life in other countries, they have to be smart and understand that Obama using them.

RUSH: I actually --

CALLER: He using minority groups to get to the point that they elect him.

RUSH: I'm --

CALLER: And question number one: Do they understand when he use them, what happened after that?

RUSH: I actually am enjoying this. Do you people understand what you're hearing here? Here is somebody who grew up under it. Here's somebody who lived it. Irina is two things. She's scared and she can't believe the people in this country who are falling for it. That's what I love. I love this. She can't believe people are falling for this. She lived it. She grew up in it; she was born into it. She escaped it.

Now it's caught up when her again. She thought she had outrun socialism, but it's caught her. And she's scared. Irina, you're in the right place, and we're gonna beat this back. We are going to beat it back. It's what this whole campaign has been about. It's what this weekend is gonna be about. I'm flattered that you're in the audience. I'm glad you called. It's the voice of experience there folks, the voice of experience. "Celebrities don't know anything." She's right. I appreciate the call.

END TRANSCRIPT
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 05, 2012, 07:42:33 PM
We're on the eve of.....one more day.

Apparently many are citing an early small lead by Obama with the caveat that they are anticipating huge turnover on election day favoring Romney. It is reported that while Obama is holding regions in the early voting precincts, the turnout aren't in the same number and enthusiasm like he enjoyed in '08. Case in point, PA, they are reporting that there hasn't been this much movement in with the 'conservative' crowd in PA since '84-88 election.

I still think this is far too close to be making any kind of 'prediction'. Whatever the result may be, I hope it won't be tarnish with some silly irregularities and mischief.

Living in California, I can't help but be repulse by all the talk about Ohio determining this election like it always had (electoral). I even heard on the radio early this morning how Obama can win narrowly, even if Romney won the nationwide popular vote, if he gets Ohio. You don't say....? May the Buckeye State's conservatives fire up the polls tomorrow!

Polls, polls, polls....there are more silly poles  in the US than Poland, I'll tell you...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 05, 2012, 08:17:12 PM
Here is a discussion with a Russian woman on the election. This is interesting. This woman sees the con man. Yes it is astonishing how many Americans cant see the poser, fake we have as president. She cant see how people can fall for his BS. She talks of common sense and the gut feeling of knowing.

This transcript was from a talk radio show on Friday. I'm sure some will discredit because of the broadcast it was on. If you listen to the audio there is no doubt where shes from.

...

Russian Immigrant Thought She'd Outrun Socialism
November 02, 2012
Listen to it Button

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Irina from Acworth, Georgia. Great to have you. It's Open Line Friday. You're next. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. My name is Irina, and I appreciate that you took my call, and I want to say special thank you to your team. They were very nice to me. I was born in Moscow. I came here 14 years ago. I was 35 years old. Now I'm 50. And I want to tell you, I'm very optimistic. I feel with all my guts that Romney will win this election. But I still have fear, and I'm terrified by seeing what's going on four years in this country. I'm terrified that people can put an Obama in Oval Office, back again.

RUSH: See, people who lived under socialism know. You've lived under this stuff, and so you have a palpable fear when you see it starting to grow here. Am I right?

CALLER: I see whole symptoms, Rush. They're there. What terrified in any way people... I communicate with many people, and I see how uneducated and unopen-minded they are. They cannot believe it, what they hearing.

undefined

RUSH: Irina, the schools in this country do not teach the evils of socialism. They teach just the opposite. They sing its praises. Little kids in America today are taught that it's the only route to fairness and equality and all of that wonderful, good stuff. Big government, command-and-control economy, authority, this sort of stuff. This is what kids are taught. I mean, look at 'em. Young kids that you saw believe this stuff. Dolts in Hollywood, they fall for it. It is seductive for people that don't like competition.

CALLER: You know, Rush, I totally agree with you. But sometimes in the back of your common sense, sometimes your heart can tell you when people are lying and when they are not. And those celebrities, trust me: If they make a movie, they play certain characters. It doesn't mean anything. People have to understand it. They know exactly how to fly airplane if they playing the pilot? Absolutely not. And even celebrities who travel all over the world and they see the life in other countries, they have to be smart and understand that Obama using them.

RUSH: I actually --

CALLER: He using minority groups to get to the point that they elect him.

RUSH: I'm --

CALLER: And question number one: Do they understand when he use them, what happened after that?

RUSH: I actually am enjoying this. Do you people understand what you're hearing here? Here is somebody who grew up under it. Here's somebody who lived it. Irina is two things. She's scared and she can't believe the people in this country who are falling for it. That's what I love. I love this. She can't believe people are falling for this. She lived it. She grew up in it; she was born into it. She escaped it.

Now it's caught up when her again. She thought she had outrun socialism, but it's caught her. And she's scared. Irina, you're in the right place, and we're gonna beat this back. We are going to beat it back. It's what this whole campaign has been about. It's what this weekend is gonna be about. I'm flattered that you're in the audience. I'm glad you called. It's the voice of experience there folks, the voice of experience. "Celebrities don't know anything." She's right. I appreciate the call.

END TRANSCRIPT
I made a very similar outcry on my facebook page, I'm not sure if I can post a link to it here bit got some interesting responces. Mods please let me know if OK to post the link?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on November 05, 2012, 09:22:06 PM
Living in California, I can't help but be repulse by all the talk about Ohio determining this election like it always had (electoral). I even heard on the radio early this morning how Obama can win narrowly, even if Romney won the nationwide popular vote, if he gets Ohio.

I posted this earlier in this thread.  It is not just Ohio; it is Ohio or Florida, plus some others.

- - - - - - - - - -

After recording the states that were solid and leaning Democrat, and solid and leaning Republican, there were 95 electoral college votes left in 7 swing (could not be put in solid or leaning status) states.
The swing states were Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.

Romney MUST carry one of either Florida (29 votes) or Ohio (18 votes).  If not, NO way he can win.

And, if he loses Florida, then he must win every other state listed.

If he wins Florida and loses Ohio, then there are 11 different combinations of the 7 remaining states that can provide him a win.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 05, 2012, 11:34:33 PM
Although I very much dislike politics....I am intrigued with close races and behavior of people.
So for once every 4 years....MHO..Here it goes...
I think most important state races to look at Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia.
With close such close race......possible split between popular vote and electoral vote.
And possibly up to 2 week wait for election to be decided ( recounts and provisional votes).
Who's going to win??? Well, whoever takes Ohio will take the election......yea thats really sticking my neck out, huh!!!
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: jone on November 05, 2012, 11:58:45 PM
I have been in many parts of the country in the months leading up to election day.  Here are some observations:

1.  The enthusiasm for Romney is only recent.  Previously there was only disdain for Obama.

2.  The number of Romney signs posted in front of homes is overwhelmingly greater than those for Obama.  In 2008 it was just the opposite between McCain and Obama.

3.  The state poll prognosticators still have not figured in the enthusiasm factor.  I believe that many of the people who voted for Obama, especially the minorities, are just going to stay home.

4.  There is a real wind that is blowing ill will for the Obama campaign.  I can't place my finger on it, but it seems to be that their internal polls are telling them something that the rest of the country does not yet know.  I would guess that the number of independents that are breaking for Obama and the R+1 point of view of Gallup has shaken them up pretty badly.

5.  I would still like to see what Paul Ryan does in the First Congressional District in Wisconsin.  If he carries his normal vote total there (and there is no reason to believe he won't) then that district swings Wisconsin to a red state (it carries the Blue Collar towns of Kenosha and Racine which normally vote Democratic).

6.  Ultimately, there was some true good will that went towards the President in recent days with his handling of the Sandy storm.  But that good will does not translate into getting out to vote for Obama.

I predict that the race will be over by 1AM East Coast time.  Either Obama gets his minions to vote or Rommey wins big.  So far, in early voting, I haven't seen that Obama is getting his people to the polls.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 06, 2012, 06:37:07 AM
It is good that voting results (and exit polls) are not reported until the close of voting.  Otherwise, the midday votes would show a huge lead for Obama, with Romney gaining only after people got off from work to vote.   :ROFL:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 06, 2012, 06:58:27 AM
Let us do a "What If."
 
Everything is the same today except for one change.  Obama is still the incumbent with the same 4-year record.  However, what if Obama is the Republican incumbent and Romney the Democratic candidate.   
 
What would be the vote?   I assert it would be at least 60-40, maybe 67-33.   The   character and qualifications of Romney would be appreciated by most independents and many Republicans.
 
The character of Obama is what disgusts me the most.   That is why I voted for McGovern over Nixon in 1972 even though Nixon was the pro and got 61% of the vote.  And Obama is no Nixon with regard to leadership.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 06, 2012, 07:03:55 AM


After recording the states that were solid and leaning Democrat, and solid and leaning Republican, there were 95 electoral college votes left in 7 swing (could not be put in solid or leaning status) states.
The swing states were Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.

Romney MUST carry one of either Florida (29 votes) or Ohio (18 votes). 



Polls suggest that Obama will take Iowa and Neveda and even Wisconsin.  Thus, it's over according to the polls even if Romney takes Florida (almost a certainty) and Ohio (remotely possible but difficult given the auto bailout gift to the unions rather than the senior creditors). 
 
However, the best poll is now underway.   The surprise can happen.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 06, 2012, 09:45:21 AM
Oh that quest for instant satisfaction... knowing the outcome before it is known... (sound familiar?)

I really don't know if I am going to stay up all night watching the exit polls, predictions and media cheers of early victory.

What's it going to take to make me sleep through it all??

The ABC stores are probably having record sales today..  work productivity is at a record low....

LOL

Depressing is to hear that there are hundreds of lawyers already filing for court orders in key states.. that's really sad.  I really hope the results are definitive and not drawn out for weeks on end..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 06, 2012, 11:29:12 AM
I got to my polling place this morning @ 6:20 AM anticipating a huge crowd. I was 4th in line and waited for the 7 AM opening. 2 women (both pretty, slim and young non-Russian - too early), and an older man.The poll opened and by this time the line was 2 blocks long. There's a lot of buzz going on around right now in these polling places. It's good to see *more* Americans are taking this election very seriously.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 06, 2012, 01:06:28 PM
Well, I don't know. The hay is in the barn and we'll just have to see how it turns out. I suspect I'll open my new bottle of Woodford Reserve and just sip as the returns roll in. Hoping for the best and expecting the worse.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 06, 2012, 01:48:44 PM
Well, I don't know. The hay is in the barn and we'll just have to see how it turns out. I suspect I'll open my new bottle of Woodford Reserve and just sip as the returns roll in. Hoping for the best and expecting the worse.

Actually, I might open my remaining bottle of UA  Neimiroff vodka and watch the returns.  LOL
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 06, 2012, 04:05:54 PM
I voted.  No line.  We make it easy for conservative neighborhoods to vote.
 
It took 15 minutes to read the proposed state constitutional amendments.  The St. Pete Times newspaper said to vote "no" so I voted "yes" for all.
 
Anyway, Mitt was seen celebrating early:

http://www.jibjab.com/view/heGUgWfDBgE2KvMp3JR8 (http://www.jibjab.com/view/heGUgWfDBgE2KvMp3JR8)
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: TheTraveler on November 06, 2012, 04:13:01 PM

... The St. Pete Times newspaper said to vote "no" so I voted "yes"...

hahaha!!!  that formula works where i live, too!!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 06, 2012, 08:22:19 PM
yep......florida stuck a fork into romney.......
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 06, 2012, 09:01:38 PM
That figures...Gator's state has to #!@#! it all up!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on November 06, 2012, 09:08:21 PM
What????

I took this to the bank!!!!


. . .  if Romney takes Florida (almost a certainty) . . .
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pitbull on November 06, 2012, 09:33:34 PM
Yes!!!!! Obama won!!!! Party!!!!  :toocool:
 
And - the Senate majority!!!???!!!
 
Note to republicans: don't mess woth women!  :devilish:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on November 06, 2012, 09:41:20 PM
How to explain difference between Arizona and New Mexico??
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 06, 2012, 10:07:56 PM
How to explain difference between Arizona and New Mexico??

New Mexico is a welfare state. Washington DC had Obama winning at 91%, LOL. Been to DC lately?

As of the time of this typing, the popular vote count has Romney ahead by 213,000 votes (total 98 million / 61% counted) ~ yet Obama is at 283 v 200 electoral.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 06, 2012, 10:54:15 PM
Even though I voted for Romney, the Republicans deserved to loose.  When you try to force religion down the throats of the electorate, you are likely to be doomed!  The women made the difference because they wanted choice over their decisions, rather than having government dictating those decisions in their behalf (abortion, birth control, etc.). 

Unfortunately, the economic future may well be very grim as well as our shift to more socialism.  We deserve what we select at election time!

Only a viable third party can turn the country around from where we are now.  The right wing owns the Republicans.  The welfare state and Socialists owns the Democrate party.  Middle America can only survive and thrive with a new party.  We need a new Ross Perot that is electable.  Neither present party is going to change their current agenda.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Vasilisa on November 06, 2012, 11:20:51 PM
Even though I voted for Romney, the Republicans deserved to loose.  When you try to force religion down the throats of the electorate, you are likely to be doomed!  The women made the difference because they wanted choice over their decisions, rather than having government dictating those decisions in their behalf (abortion, birth control, etc.). 

Unfortunately, the economic future may well be very grim as well as our shift to more socialism.  We deserve what we select at election time!

I agree (which is strange, I agree with calmissile) , I think if reps wanted to win they shouldn't have picked up Romney, I think if they had picked up someone a little bit  closer to the left side they would have had a really good chance to win. 
Romney sounded very close to what you can call insane in his speeches and it scared many intelligent  people away.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 06, 2012, 11:45:20 PM
I agree (which is strange, I agree with calmissile) , I think if reps wanted to win they shouldn't have picked up Romney, I think if they had picked up someone a little bit  closer to the left side they would have had a really good chance to win. 
Romney sounded very close to what you can call insane in his speeches and it scared many intelligent  people away.
Actually Romney is to the left of most conservatives.
What I learned today......
Whites make up 72% of voters ( goes down 2% each election)...not good sign for 'the right'.
Women voted 55% for obama.
Latinos voted 70% for obama.
Medicinal mary jane as well as same sex marrige was approved in several states.....
Where is this country headed????  Surely not toward the 'good ole days' !!!!!!!!!
 As Aladin said...........it's a whole new world!!!!!!!!!
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 07, 2012, 12:48:41 AM
America has spoken.
My sadness is deep but it's the path of choice they have taken. I doubt many of them see themselves as being/becoming Muslim, personally deprecate the conspiracy theories, am ambivalent about both birth certificates AND tax returns and see only those who wanted an easier life with fewer risks and a group of pseudo-intellectuals who were so insecure in their own minds yet smug in their opinions that they felt it wasn't "right" to be different. The most elitist group I have ever witnessed is the leftist liberals who hide behind their walls (real or imaginary) and wring their hands at the plight of the "less fortunate" or "those people of color".
I feel thankful that I grew up in an America that was at it's peak and regret that it has chosen to pursue the same path as the Romans, UK, Byzantines and all those others throughout history.  I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in our nation's military right now.
   IN Egypt's sandy silence, all alone,
       Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
       The only shadow that the Desert knows:—
     "I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,
       "The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
     "The wonders of my hand."— The City's gone,—
       Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
     The site of this forgotten Babylon.

     We wonder,—and some Hunter may express
     Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
       Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
     He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
       What powerful but unrecorded race
       Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

 
   – Horace Smith.
So, my grandchildren will grow up in a country that has only memories of greatness and declining expectations. Hopefully, we won't go through that boring, post-colonial phase the Brits went through and just settle back into being members of the pack. In a few more years we will be happy knowing we're still in the "top 30 countries" and sit, chugging on our pipes and reminiscing (quietly, I hope) about the glory days of our country. Historical inevitability. Good luck to our successor(s), the world goes on.
I'll keep my passport (for now anyway) but America is just the country I was born in.....forget nationalism, it's all about taking what you can, grabbing opportunities, building networks and holding on to power from this point forward. There is still a bit of frontier out there. Places where opportunities exist and freedom can be found as long as you stay below the radar.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on November 07, 2012, 03:08:29 AM
Even though I voted for Romney, the Republicans deserved to loose.  When you try to force religion down the throats of the electorate, you are likely to be doomed!
 
Agreed, but it's never stopped the GOP from embracing the Fundies or conservatives from voting for a president (TWICE!) who says he was told by God to invade Iraq.

OTOH, Obama didn't deserve a second term. Not even close.

Only a viable third party can turn the country around from where we are now.

Which is exactly why I voted Libertarian and didn't throw my vote away to the the lesser of two evils. You can't bemoan the lack of third parties if you don't vote for them!

Medicinal mary jane as well as same sex marrige was approved in several states.....
Where is this country headed????  Surely not toward the 'good ole days' !!!!!!!!!

Well, if the 'good ole days' includes the government interfering in the private lives and personal choices of citizens that don't harm others, then I say good riddance!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 04:51:47 AM
The stagnant republican party will simply have to adapt to today's demographics to stay in the game.. but in doing so would that not make themselves obsolete by having to accept a wider set of principles?

Watch the second and last debate... how much more towards the middle/left will a future candidate have to move to be successful and still maintain a distinct party identity?

What I see happening over time is that the conservative party will wilt to an extremist minority with possible splits of the remaining, forming a new party..  then again maybe there will be a time where the party concept simply fades.

In any case, I am happy to see that the democratic process indeed worked without dispute and endless recounts.

Nothing to moan about.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 04:57:12 AM
 
Quote from: LAman on Today at 07:45:20
Quote
Medicinal mary jane as well as same sex marrige was approved in several states.....
Where is this country headed????  Surely not toward the 'good ole days' !!!!!!!!!

Well, if the 'good ole days' includes the government interfering in the private lives and personal choices of citizens that don't harm others, then I say good riddance!


Putting legal pot and free sex on the ballot is a pretty good way to win a state. :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 05:13:39 AM
When the Florida vote started to lean towards Obama with much of the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area not yet reported, I turned off the TV and went to bed early .  My sweet and lovely wife commented, "Maybe not so bad?"   Good question.

Obama won, but by such a narrow margin.  Will he recognize that he needs to be the leader for 100% of America and not just 50%?  Will he reach across the aisle?    If not, we have where we left off for the election in our democracy - confrontation and gridlock.  Gridlock usually is not so bad, yet the fiscal cliff necessitates some cooperation.   
 
Obama's first four years say he will not compromise even though that is at the core of the democratic process.  We will soon see if he has learned anything, or will he become even more recalcitrant given that he is not running for reelection.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on November 07, 2012, 05:20:19 AM
Note to republicans: don't mess woth women!  :devilish:

Especially Missouri's Todd Akin, who got legitimately raped!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 05:21:00 AM
The election should be a wake up for the Republican Party.  Our number one issue is the economy, and if a highly qualified moderate candidate with good character can not defeat an incumbent with a bad record and questionable character, how can the Party win any election?
 
Is this more than needing to reach the center?  The single-issue voting bloc of blacks-hispanics-single white women is growing, and their high turnout elected Obama.  This will not change unless the Party changes.

The analysts will study the voting statistics over the next few days and make conclusions about the sentiment and trend of American voters.  Here are a few early statistics that surprised me, and maybe I misheard them:
 
-  The "unemployed" mostly voted for Obama even though Romney's platform was about creating lots and lots of jobs and Obama has not been able to do that.  To paraphrase, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."

-  Only 25% of the voters felt that their life was better today than four years ago.  Yet, the others did not overwhelmingly vote for for Romney.

-  50% of the military in Virginia voted for Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Surely I misheard the reporter.
 
-  15% of the voters thought Sandy was the number one issue.  Shows the value of a good photo op. 

-  53% still blame Bush.  Incredulous considering that the problem started before Bush and "everyone" was to blame.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 05:21:30 AM
Especially Missouri's Todd Akin, who got legitimately raped!

And justifiably so.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 05:28:18 AM
So where do the next four years take us:

-  More taxes (everyone),
-  More debt (does anyone think a social agenda will stem the tide?),
-  Continued high unemployment,
-  Higher prices for energy and continued dependence upon imports and what that implies for placating the Middle East,
-  Weakened military (a little not so bad, but a lot?).
 
What else am I missing?
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 07, 2012, 05:46:03 AM
So where do the next four years take us:

-  More taxes (everyone),
-  More debt (does anyone think a social agenda will stem the tide?),
-  Continued high unemployment,
-  Higher prices for energy and continued dependence upon imports and what that implies for placating the Middle East,
-  Weakened military (a little not so bad, but a lot?).
 
What else am I missing?
"Tell Vladimir that I will be more flexible after the election" is one... I really doubt that BHO have "learned" anything from this election. He has his ideology so nothing has changed. I think we'll see a lot of nasty crap happening in the next 4 years.  Frankly I'm in shock and feel like a tragedy just happened.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 06:09:58 AM
Obama's first four years say he will not compromise even though that is at the core of the democratic process.  We will soon see if he has learned anything, or will he become even more recalcitrant given that he is not running for reelection.

It's up to Congress to compromise and reach a consensus.  The President can only state what he/she would like to see and either sign or veto.  It's a pretty simple process.  I'm pretty sure Obama will show a good bit of brass over the next four years without the weight of another election campaign on his back.  He'll get a lot done and the economy will continue healing 


The election should be a wake up for the Republican Party. 

That is exactly what was said last time 'round...

BC.... Biden / Clinton may be what we see in 2016.  Obama may even be back in the future in the form of Michelle... Clinton / M. Obama in 2020.. .she's a smart cookie, the kids will have grown up and she'll need a hobby greater than the WH vegie garden.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: JBXT on November 07, 2012, 06:42:27 AM
BC,

Your vision scares the crap out of me.

Personally I've come up with a new price list for my services.  Prices have doubled for any survey project within a state or province that voted for Obama.  If your project is in OH or PA, the price is now $1200.00 per day, +the 3 M's, I won't go to NY for any price.

My plan is to let those damned Yankees freeze and starve in the dark.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 06:55:30 AM
It's up to Congress to compromise and reach a consensus.  The President can only state what he/she would like to see and either sign or veto.  It's a pretty simple process. 

BC, with all due respect, you are out of touch.  Although you reference the simple flow chart for legislation, that is not how it works or worked.   Making politics is like making sausage.   Read the Wooward book, The Price of Politics.   Obama was in the middle of the negotiations.   It was more "I will hug your elephant, you can kiss my ass." 
 
Governance requires Obama to build relationships rather than ignore others, especially those who represent 50% of the people.
 
Quote
I'm pretty sure Obama will show a good bit of brass over the next four years without the weight of another election campaign on his back.  He'll get a lot done...

And what would that be?  More welfare, larger government, less use of America's oil, gas and coal resources, sweeping legalization of illegal immigrants, more divisiveness, ..........
 



Quote
   ...  and the economy will continue healing 

Yes, American business is resilient, even with an obstructionist President, but at what pace?  The European pace? 


Quote
BC.... Biden / Clinton may be what we see in 2016.  Obama may even be back in the future in the form of Michelle... Clinton / M. Obama in 2020.. .she's a smart cookie, the kids will have grown up and she'll need a hobby greater than the WH vegie garden.

And I just had my breakfast.   :puke: Michelle is self-centered, undignified, etc.   Maybe you identify with her style, but that's you.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 07, 2012, 07:10:15 AM
So another 4 years of swimming in the tank of bottom dwellers, eh? Sad reality to my country. Where can I file my Section 8 forms, please?

Anyway...so last night during the process a thought came to mind...what if Romney/Ryan got elected? If they got elected, this will mean at least 8 years before Marco Rubio gets his run for the White House. Rubio deserves to be in this race now, not in 8 years...

That would be my silver lining in this election. This gives Marco Rubio a golden opportunity to groom for 4 years and become the first Cuban to become the US president.

So Marco Rubio/Paul Ryan 2016!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 07:15:14 AM

BC, with all due respect, you are out of touch.  Although you reference the simple flow chart for legislation, that is not how it works or worked.   Making politics is like making sausage.   Read the Wooward book, The Price of Politics.   Obama was in the middle of the negotiations.   It was more "I will hug your elephant, you can kiss my ass." 
 
Governance requires Obama to build relationships rather than ignore others, especially those who represent 50% of the people.


Yes, the simplest rule for sure.  But where's compromise in Congress when the Republican ruled House simply say 'No taxes'?  Compromise is different from being stubborn as a rock by principle..
 
Quote
And what would that be?  More welfare, larger government, less use of America's oil, gas and coal resources, sweeping legalization of illegal immigrants, more divisiveness, ..........

divisiveness?  the basic problem of the Republican party is divisiveness.... that's why Romney did not get elected.. he was not inclusive enough.

Quote
Yes, American business is resilient, even with an obstructionist President, but at what pace?  The European pace? 

At a reasonable, steady pace, without booms and crashes.
 
Quote
And I just had my breakfast.   :puke: Michelle is self-centered, undignified, etc.   Maybe you identify with her style, but that's you.

No, I can't identify with her style as I hardly know her.. but she is a smart cookie in my book and over the years will gather a whole lot of first hand OJT..  Don't underestimate her.. I think the majority of voters think just as well of Michelle as Obama.  Think she wants to go back to lawyering after all this?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 07, 2012, 07:27:10 AM
Yes, the simplest rule for sure.  But where's compromise in Congress when the Republican ruled House simply say 'No taxes'?  Compromise is different from being stubborn as a rock by principle.
.

There would have to be a "leader" for compromise to happen. We don't have one
 

 
Quote
No, I can't identify with her style as I hardly know her.. but she is a smart cookie in my book and over the years will gather a whole lot of first hand OJT..  Don't underestimate her.. I think the majority of voters think just as well of Michelle as Obama.  Think she wants to go back to lawyering after all this?

She's not able. She surrendered her license long ago to avoid prosecution
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 07:57:54 AM
She's not able. She surrendered her license long ago to avoid prosecution

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

But yeah.. snopes is some commie / socialist / dem coverup site......

Don't folks try anymore to sift out the trash in their email boxes instead of believing such crappola? 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 07, 2012, 08:09:32 AM
Just came back from the gym - every one is in a daze... chatted with a couple of people, they are talking about selling their homes and moving out of the country. Now that he doesn't have to worry about the reelection the Soros' Marxist puppet will start implementing the new world order agenda a lot quicker. Brace for impact, people.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 07, 2012, 08:13:10 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

But yeah.. snopes is some commie / socialist / dem coverup site......

Don't folks try anymore to sift out the trash in their email boxes instead of believing such crappola?

snopes IMHO isn't the end all/tell all either BC. If you wish to accept that explanation, knock yourself out. I did sift through the net some time back before BO was elected the first time. There has been some serious scrubbing of all information relating to BO and Michelle. Much information that was previously on the net just simply isn't there to be found any longer. Conspiracy, who knows? What I did read before was she knowingly participated in an insurance fraud and was allowed to surrender her license to avoid prosecution. The Bar of Illinois lists her license voluntarily surrendered, not inactive. Good luck finding much more on the incident on the net other than emails and snopes
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on November 07, 2012, 08:13:58 AM
. . . they are talking about selling their homes and moving out of the country.

But first, they will have to find a better place when you consider the entire package.

Yes, I agree our country is in trouble and with Obama's plans we will decline further.

Our children and grandchildren are not going to enjoy the life that we have.

However, really; where is a better place right now?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 08:15:47 AM
Just came back from the gym - every one is in a daze... chatted with a couple of people, they are talking about selling their homes and moving out of the country. Now that he doesn't have to worry about the reelection the Soros' Marxist puppet will start implementing the new world order agenda a lot quicker. Brace for impact, people.

Ahh the doom, the gloom after every election... never stops does it.

Your friends will never move out of the country because of the election.  They did not last time, nor will they this time.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 08:23:33 AM
snopes IMHO isn't the end all/tell all either BC. If you wish to accept that explanation, knock yourself out. I did sift through the net some time back before BO was elected the first time. There has been some serious scrubbing of all information relating to BO and Michelle. Much information that was previously on the net just simply isn't there to be found any longer. Conspiracy, who knows? What I did read before was she knowingly participated in an insurance fraud and was allowed to surrender her license to avoid prosecution. The Bar of Illinois lists her license voluntarily surrendered, not inactive. Good luck finding much more on the incident on the net other than emails and snopes

Faux,

There is a huge effort by some seriously well paid experts to dig any dirt out there by the opposing parties.. if something was amiss it would have shown up by now.

Do you still believe Obama was not born in the US? 

Comeon, get serious..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 08:28:47 AM
However, really; where is a better place right now?

Yeah, finding somewhere 'livable' that does not have universal healthcare, no taxes, no government debt, no unemployment and no regulation on business is going to downright impossible.

A pipe dream... now legal in some states.  Someone mentioned Colorado?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on November 07, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
For those who are seriously thinking about the future of the USA;
ponder these numbers:  http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls)


                                     Total    Obama    Romney    Other

    White:                        72%      39%        59%         2%

    African-American:       13%       93%         6%         1%

    Latino:                       10%       71%        27%        2%

    Asian:                          3%       73%        26%        1%

    Other:                          2%       58%        38%        4%

In any group of people (work group, state, nation, etc.), there are net givers and net takers (work effort, money, etc.)

So as the years roll on, and the population make-up continues to change . . . who will be taking more and more, and who will be asked to give more and more.

(Note: The Asians appear to be an anomaly in the above chart with respect to takers/givers).

Now, for those who think that the future trends cannot lead to anything all that bad . . . please identify the African and Latin American countries that you will be happy for the USA to emulate.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 07, 2012, 08:47:02 AM
Faux,

There is a huge effort by some seriously well paid experts to dig any dirt out there by the opposing parties.. if something was amiss it would have shown up by now.

Do you still believe Obama was not born in the US? 

Comeon, get serious..

Where did I ever state he wasn't born in America? You must have me confused with someone else. I'm just telling you BC what I read a number of years ago. Much of which is no longer there. Why it isn't, I don't know and won't speculate but, I know what I read. I don't hold snopes in any high regard either as the beacon of  truth or holy grail.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 08:51:33 AM

There is a huge effort by some seriously well paid experts to dig any dirt out there by the opposing parties.. if something was amiss it would have shown up by now.

Do you still believe Obama was not born in the US? 



And what hint of a scandal did the experts find about Romney? 
 
And how many questions, serious questions, do we have about Obama?  By serious question I do not mean where he was born, but what are the missing parts of his history, parts that would reveal more about his true character and ideology?  You know them.  There are so many that something is there. 
 
We shall see Obama's ideology and character as the fiscal debates unfold.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 09:02:20 AM

And what hint of a scandal did the experts find about Romney? 
 

He was quite open about his tax returns wasn't he?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 07, 2012, 09:16:17 AM
He was quite open about his tax returns wasn't he?
guess which one of them would raise more eye brows if both released ALL of their records from highschool till now.... I don't believe we'd have Obama as a president if that happened.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on November 07, 2012, 09:22:10 AM
guess which one of them would raise more eye brows if both released ALL of their records from high school till now.... I don't believe we'd have Obama as a president if that happened.

What was 'ppg' and 'fta' for each in high school?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 09:27:46 AM
guess which one of them would raise more eye brows if both released ALL of their records from highschool till now.... I don't believe we'd have Obama as a president if that happened.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

Quote
Claims #1, 2 and 4, college records. Obama’s college records are not “sealed” by a court order, as this graphic would have you believe. It would be illegal under federal law (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) for Occidental, Columbia or Harvard Law School to give any former student’s records to reporters or members of the public without that person’s specific, written permission. Obama hasn’t released them, but neither have other presidential candidates released their college records. George W. Bush’s grades at Yale eventually became public, but only because somebody leaked them to the New Yorker magazine. Bush himself refused to release them, according to a 1999 profile in the Washington Post.

But yeah.. this site is also some commie socialist dem propaganda site.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 09:33:34 AM
He was quite open about his tax returns wasn't he?
He was.  Just another example of diversions by the Democrats knowing their own man is questionable.   Please name one instance of when Romney lied.   
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 09:49:06 AM
Yes, the simplest rule for sure.  But where's compromise in Congress when the Republican ruled House simply say 'No taxes'?  Compromise is different from being stubborn as a rock by principle..

Obviously, you did not read Woodward's book.

 
Quote
divisiveness?  the basic problem of the Republican party is divisiveness.... that's why Romney did not get elected.. he was not inclusive enough.

Based on the 50-49 vote, both parties are equally divisive.  One party aligns itself with the middle class, white, married group (which used to be the American ethic).   The other party...
 
When I mentioned divisiveness, I was talking about our President, not the political parties.  Once elected, the President's governance should build relationships.  He did not do that, and instead ignored if not upset half of his constituents.    BC, you live too far away to understand the deep-seated animosity if not hatred expressed everyday about Obama.  I hope Obama succeeds in bringing us together.  I fear he will fail again.


 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 09:59:38 AM
He was.  Just another example of diversions by the Democrats knowing their own man is questionable.   Please name one instance of when Romney lied.

Gator,

respectfully, it's not about whether one candidate has a 'Persilschein' or not.. (I did not bring the subject up as it has been discussed in detail waaay upthread)  It's more about inevitable changes in a nation with one party not adequately addressing the desires of the constituency, thus loosing an election.

I can imagine you are a bit sour right now.. but what I am hearing from many disgruntled is something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0t1rUFqGQw&feature=related
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: happyandstable on November 07, 2012, 10:03:20 AM
So I guess we have our answer to this question, and for all those who did not get the answer it is:
NO
 Good thing the right guy won. How hopefully we can move on to something more intelligent then talking to republicans.  :deadhorse:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 07, 2012, 10:05:41 AM
But first, they will have to find a better place when you consider the entire package.

Yes, I agree our country is in trouble and with Obama's plans we will decline further.

Our children and grandchildren are not going to enjoy the life that we have.

However, really; where is a better place right now?
With the demographic and political changes in the US, Russia may not look too bad...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 10:13:52 AM

Obviously, you did not read Woodward's book.


I did not.

Quote
   
Based on the 50-49 vote, both parties are equally divisive.  One party aligns itself with the middle class, white, married group (which used to be the American ethic).   The other party...
 
When I mentioned divisiveness, I was talking about our President, not the political parties.  Once elected, the President's governance should build relationships.  He did not do that, and instead ignored if not upset half of his constituents.    BC, you live too far away to understand the deep-seated animosity if not hatred expressed everyday about Obama. I hope Obama succeeds in bringing us together.  I fear he will fail again.

Gator,

I did feel a bit of animosity during my visit, but you are right I am remote.  But does that really matter?  The Constitution can be amended to allow only he 'middle class, white, married group' to vote.. cold exclude Americans living overseas as well since they number far more than the difference in the popular vote this election.  Until then though why not just accept things as they are and yes, hope, and work for the best.. Insha'Allāh
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 07, 2012, 10:15:15 AM

Obviously, you did not read Woodward's book.

   
Based on the 50-49 vote, both parties are equally divisive.  One party aligns itself with the middle class, white, married group (which used to be the American ethic).   The other party...
 
When I mentioned divisiveness, I was talking about our President, not the political parties.  Once elected, the President's governance should build relationships.  He did not do that, and instead ignored if not upset half of his constituents.    BC, you live too far away to understand the deep-seated animosity if not hatred expressed everyday about Obama.  I hope Obama succeeds in bringing us together.  I fear he will fail again.
It is the american way now. In fact, all recent presidents going back several decades. The 'other side' just throws shit and hope it sticks. Hell, just look here.....a microcosm of this nation. Lot of haters here!!!!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 10:36:20 AM
snopes IMHO isn't the end all/tell all either BC. If you wish to accept that explanation, knock yourself out. I did sift through the net some time back before BO was elected the first time. There has been some serious scrubbing of all information relating to BO and Michelle. Much information that was previously on the net just simply isn't there to be found any longer. Conspiracy, who knows? What I did read before was she knowingly participated in an insurance fraud and was allowed to surrender her license to avoid prosecution. The Bar of Illinois lists her license voluntarily surrendered, not inactive. Good luck finding much more on the incident on the net other than emails and snopes

FP,

just received a link from someone in the legal field that might help you and others better understand the situation with Michelle's license to practice law...  -nothing amiss...

http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/105998/
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on November 07, 2012, 10:39:10 AM
  It's more about inevitable changes in a nation with one party not adequately addressing the desires of the constituency, thus loosing an election.


I don't think that is the case at all.  Most American's don't like the way Obama has governed, some do however.


I was looking at some demographics from the exit polls earlier and going from memory.   Romney got 58% of the white vote to Obama's 40%.   Obama got 95% of the black vote.  Obama got 65% of the hispanic vote.  Obama got around 58% of the women's vote.   


I think it was that many didn't like either choice but Obama was the devil they know.
Romney lost a little credibility when he hemmed and hawed about releasing his tax returns.
Romney came off as being a little aloof and didn't relate well to working people and of course Obama's strong area, the welfare people
Romney's pro life stance hurt some with women
Romney's religion bothered some.
Romney spent too much time defending himself against Obama claims and not enough outlining his programs and plans to be a better president.


No one issue was to blame.  If you lose one vote out of a hundred because of the abortion stance, one vote out of a hundred to the religion, one vote out of a hundred to his aloofness, one vote out of a hundred to his failure to clearly outline his plans, one vote out of a hundred over his stubbornness concerning the tax returns then you have lost enough votes unnecessarily to cost him the election.




Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 11:01:10 AM

I don't think that is the case at all.  Most American's don't like the way Obama has governed, some do however.


Yeah, the majority, in popular and electoral vote.. obviously.

Quote
I was looking at some demographics from the exit polls earlier and going from memory.   Romney got 58% of the white vote to Obama's 40%.   Obama got 95% of the black vote.  Obama got 65% of the hispanic vote.  Obama got around 58% of the women's vote.   

I cringe at such demographic analysis... they are all Americans..  Maybe the bus should be divided into sections again?.. first white men, then white women, then in the middle Hispanic and then Blacks at the back? Maybe we should disenfranchise women and minorities again?.. maybe add the unemployed and disabled?

Absolutely nothing personal Turbo, but this is one of my 'pet peeves' about the election process.. I view it as absolutely divisive.

Quote
I think it was that many didn't like either choice but Obama was the devil they know.
Romney lost a little credibility when he hemmed and hawed about releasing his tax returns.
Romney came off as being a little aloof and didn't relate well to working people and of course Obama's strong area, the welfare people
Romney's pro life stance hurt some with women
Romney's religion bothered some.
Romney spent too much time defending himself against Obama claims and not enough outlining his programs and plans to be a better president.

No one issue was to blame.  If you lose one vote out of a hundred because of the abortion stance, one vote out of a hundred to the religion, one vote out of a hundred to his aloofness, one vote out of a hundred to his failure to clearly outline his plans, one vote out of a hundred over his stubbornness concerning the tax returns then you have lost enough votes unnecessarily to cost him the election.

I think voters cast their ballots for who they felt is 'right' and not as who presents the smallest 'evil'.. the Republican Party and Romney did not screw up.. they just did not represent the views of of the majority.... that's it.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Turboguy on November 07, 2012, 11:09:08 AM

I think voters cast their ballots for who they felt is 'right' and not as who presents the smallest 'evil'.. the Republican Party and Romney did not screw up.. they just did not represent the views of of the majority.... that's it.


Well since the majority of the people voted for Obama I can't totally disagree with you but I do think there is one other factor that was the real thing.


People vote for people as much or more than they vote for views.   Obama is very likable.   He is an excellent speaker and comes of as a nice person.  He is easy to like.  Romney was far less likable.  People voting for Romney voted for the views.   People voting for Obama voted for the person.   If people voted for views then one party would dominate but in most states one party can carry the presidency, another the governorship,  the legislative winners are often split.   I will agree that people are very greedy.  They will vote for the person who will help them even if they think he is not the best choice for the country.   Welfare recipients will vote overwhelmingly for the person who they think will give them the most benefits regardless of what the cost to the country is.   



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 07, 2012, 11:15:11 AM
FP,

just received a link from someone in the legal field that might help you and others better understand the situation with Michelle's license to practice law...  -nothing amiss...

http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/105998/

I've seen it before. It is well after the period to which I refer
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 11:22:57 AM

Well since the majority of the people voted for Obama I can't totally disagree with you but I do think there is one other factor that was the real thing.


People vote for people as much or more than they vote for views.   Obama is very likable.   He is an excellent speaker and comes of as a nice person.  He is easy to like.  Romney was far less likable.  People voting for Romney voted for the views.   People voting for Obama voted for the person.   If people voted for views then one party would dominate but in most states one party can carry the presidency, another the governorship,  the legislative winners are often split.   I will agree that people are very greedy.  They will vote for the person who will help them even if they think he is not the best choice for the country.   Welfare recipients will vote overwhelmingly for the person who they think will give them the most benefits regardless of what the cost to the country is.

All this is really quite democrtatic...  Some women might think Obama is sexy and vote for him because of that.. a quite valid vote IMHO in a democracy.   Interesting you mention welfare recipients.. sometimes referred to as 'bottom feeders'..  Just realize that there are also 'top feeders' as well so things indeed remain quite democratic in nature.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on November 07, 2012, 11:38:40 AM
It seems that my prediction about Obama being destined to win was true.
As mentioned, it is incredible that he even had a chance at being elected again if judges to how his popularity has sank since his first election.

Republicans should start thinking of finding a candidate that does not come over to the world as a living dinosaur, with all respect for Romney.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 11:41:28 AM
Good thing the right guy won. How hopefully we can move on to something more intelligent then talking to republicans.

Based on this post and your most recent post before it,  I infer that you have stopped your personal growth.
 
We only become better people by being willing to hear and try to understand points of view that are very different then our own. It is through this kind of personal growth that we can become the kind of people that we ourselves can be proud of.

 ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 12:21:09 PM

I can imagine you are a bit sour right now.. but what I am hearing from many disgruntled is something like this

BC, I had long ago resigned to the likelihood that Obama would prevail (read the first few pages of this thread).  My concern is that if Obama could win given his record, how could the social agenda not win every election!    The American economy will endure four years of Obama thanks to the counterbalance of the House of Reps; however,  the direction we are headed really concerns me.
 
I will admit that after the first debate, I was energized into thinking that Romney could pull this off.  My hopes were buoyed only to come crashing down while watching the Florida and Virginia voting returns. I assert that my feelings today are more than disappointment.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 12:38:45 PM


I cringe at such demographic analysis... they are all Americans..  Absolutely nothing personal Turbo, but this is one of my 'pet peeves' about the election process.. I view it as absolutely divisive.



The voting results, not the mere mentioning of demographics, illustrates racism IMO.   
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on November 07, 2012, 12:56:15 PM

BC, I had long ago resigned to the likelihood that Obama would prevail (read the first few pages of this thread).  My concern is that if Obama could win given his record, how could the social agenda not win every election!    The American economy will endure four years of Obama thanks to the counterbalance of the House of Reps; however,  the direction we are headed really concerns me.
 
I will admit that after the first debate, I was energized into thinking that Romney could pull this off.  My hopes were buoyed only to come crashing down while watching the Florida and Virginia voting returns. I assert that my feelings today are more than disappointment.
The Republicans will have to modernize and perhaps look at a company as Apple to reform their image. Apple did not deliver many innovarions during their rise to power, but they did a great job at packaging them, essentially hiding their weak points under a glamour package. They should find a candidate that on charisma alone can outshine all others, for substance they can always give a running mate. Above all other things, elections are won on show.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 01:11:02 PM

BC, I had long ago resigned to the likelihood that Obama would prevail (read the first few pages of this thread).  My concern is that if Obama could win given his record, how could the social agenda not win every election!    The American economy will endure four years of Obama thanks to the counterbalance of the House of Reps; however,  the direction we are headed really concerns me.
 
I will admit that after the first debate, I was energized into thinking that Romney could pull this off.  My hopes were buoyed only to come crashing down while watching the Florida and Virginia voting returns. I assert that my feelings today are more than disappointment.

Gator,

we both voted.. and that in itself is a privilege that even those elected cannot take away. 

Romney 'took it like a man' IMHO..  Constituents devoted to him should too.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 01:21:48 PM

The voting results, not the mere mentioning of demographics, illustrates racism IMO.

I disagree.  The results show democracy at work and it's evolution.

I do agree though that it is often hard to keep up with the times..
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 07, 2012, 01:38:20 PM
Interesting that so few can get away from rehashing campaigns, mouthing denials and bringing up the conspiracies and unsettled controversies. He won, get over it and begin implementing your Backup Plan. Don't have one? Better go back over the most consistent advice on this forum.....next thing you know, you'll be sending money.

The country will suffer through four more years without leadership, go deeper into debt, drive away still more business and deal with increasing unemployment (watch what happens when they downsize the military, local government payrolls and reduce defense contract spending). Oh yeah, taxes are going up, the Obamacare tax alone will weaken the spending power of the economy, then there's the expiring tax cuts. Guess we will see how long the working people agree to pay others not to work.

This election came down too close (51.2% to 48.8%) to lay blame on any one factor. Many variables could have changed slightly and delivered the necessary number of votes - media bias, voter ignorance, outright lies and misrepresentations and so on. Yet, it really boils down to one simple fact:

A slight majority were content to maintain the status quo.

Over the next four years, we will see whether "the best is yet to come" or "REVENGE" gets played out. More divisiveness, a misperceived mandate or possibly a recognition of problems and assmbly of a qualified group of people to deal with them? Many are betting on more golfing and leaving it up to Leon and Hillary to run things as best they can until the cameras arrive.

In the meantime, remember that you can live outside the US, keep your passport, collect your SS and earn income up to $92,900/year tax-free (unless they cut that exemption and try to collect taxes across international lines).

Lotsa' Luck!

It's a certainty that there will be plenty of folks (about 48.8%) who will be reminding the other 51.2% that this was a choice made by the blues. Someone said we could survive a bad President but should be far more concerned about how he managed to get elected.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 07, 2012, 01:47:28 PM
In the meantime, remember that you can live outside the US, keep your passport, collect your SS and earn income up to $92,900/year tax-free (unless they cut that exemption and try to collect taxes across international lines).

92K exempt from US taxes.... but not local taxes which in most cases are higher than in the US.  Other credits apply, housing credit, overseas taxe credit etc so the 92K can be quite a bit higher before having to owe Uncle Sam.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: happyandstable on November 07, 2012, 02:04:22 PM

Quote from: happyandstable on Today at 10:03:20 AM
Good thing the right guy won. How hopefully we can move on to something more intelligent then talking to republicans.

Based on this post and your most recent post before it,  I infer that you have stopped your personal growth.

Quote from: happyandstable on May 29, 2012, 12:21:53 PM
We only become better people by being willing to hear and try to understand points of view that are very different then our own. It is through this kind of personal growth that we can become the kind of people that we ourselves can be proud of.
 
 ;) ;) ;)

    It is not a cessation of personal growth to learn that it is a waste of time to try and convince some people of the truth when they want to live in a fantasy world that does not exist. It is actual personal growth to learn not to waste one’s time in such efforts. Once you have listen to someone and know that they will never grow themselves because they have chosen to cease all personal growth in favor of clinging to out dated ways of looking at the world.


(http://www.messengerfreak.com/emoticons/smilies/SmileyWave3.gif)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 07, 2012, 02:25:01 PM
 :popcorn:


I enjoy sunsets.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 02:52:34 PM
I disagree.  The results show democracy at work and it's evolution.

I do agree though that it is often hard to keep up with the times..

You can disagree all you want, but first I ask you, "What do you know about America and especially Afro-Americans other than what some reporter tells you and you see during an annual visit?" 
 
I would be careful about what I read because the journalism code of ethics is not what it used to be (on both sides).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 03:06:40 PM
Gator,

Romney 'took it like a man' IMHO..  Constituents devoted to him should too.

Wrong, he took it conceded like the gentleman he is, something foreign to our President.
 
When you sink to such comments, it is time to call it a day.  We  shall see how this plays out, and it will be at full pace in January.  I hope I am wrong about Mr. President.  Meanwhile,  we had a 300-point drop with very high volume in the Dow today.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 07, 2012, 03:23:00 PM
Those would have been 300 points that were gained under the same president, I guess a more than a few people are anxious. so? You could get sea sick feeling every Wall St  wave. Do you recall the doubling over the first four years, if you believe the presidency staying with Obama caused a 300 point drop today, you also likely see this as a buying opportunity.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Globetrotter on November 07, 2012, 03:23:58 PM
One should visit scores of countries from Norway to Bangladesh, and then determine what system has validity, and which has a proper "quality of life, or quality of worklife" and then decide which they want to follow. 
 
If you think billionaires have sway, vote for those that think your way.  If you don't understand the science of global warming, vote for the boys that the Koch's support.
 
Thank God that the most unqualified Dufus politician lost...."who would have gone to war with Iran in a heartbeat", (I lived there) and put our country in more danger than we are already in.  Imagine a politician deciding what probes to place in a woman's vagina, or determine that no fetus could be aborted.  We need government regulation to determine what is a moral issue?  Thank God....and I hope to never hear his name or see his face ever again. 
 
Many think that he would not reveal his taxes because a Mormon promises to tithe (10%) one's earnings that must go to the church, which is on the honor system, and Romney cheated, thus would be barred from being a "Bishop" of the church, or ex-communicated for lying and cheating.  Imagine....they believe Jesus lived here, elephants were here, and oh, those "magic glasses" that were found to read that golden  "Book of Mormon".......... Incredible. 
 
People speak of "socialism" which is a joke.  We have socialism on the lowest end of the scale...food stamps, section 8, welfare, etc., which is proper for the most desperate, then we have socialism for the "princes" of business...Lloyd Stinkfien, (sorry.... Blankfien) oil companies, General Mills, General Foods, GE, etc...   Wow, why not have a subsidity for welders, electricians, plumbers, and all others?  Just eliminate all corporate welfare.  Well, the middle class, which may be most of us here.........have no socialist welfare, as the upper and lowest among us, do.
 
Sorry for the "soapbox" but the best man won!!!       
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on November 07, 2012, 03:27:42 PM
Based on the number of posts, there seems to be a lot of angst in the Gator household...  ;)

I just heard someone say, "Older rich white guys are a dying breed. This country is isn't getting whiter, it's getting more diverse. If the GOP wants to win elections, it's gonna have to appeal to a much broader electorate."

And don't worry about Wall St. It'll be back tomorrow.

P.S. Hey Globetrotter, excellent points. Couldn't agree more. Sometimes because of their insularity, Americans can be a little myopic.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 03:41:52 PM
Those would have 300 points that were gained under the same president, I guess a more than a few people are anxious. so? You could get sea sick feeling every Wall St  wave. Do you recall the doubling over the first four years, if you believe the presidency staying with Obama caused a 300 point drop today, you also likely see this as a buying opportunity.

The doubling started after dropping 25% two months into his presidency.    So no buying today.    I sold a put the other day for Apple at 550, thinking the Xmas season will boost the stock.  I fear that it may be filled. 
 
People are selling now because they want 2012 tax rates for gains (yes, taxes are going up).  There should  be much volatility through January.  Perhaps buy then.   
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 07, 2012, 03:44:43 PM
Timing is timing, but no doubt GWB destroyed wealth with his leadership and his decider skills.


I don't especially need to assign Obama credit or blame, but if he gets the dips he gets the rises.



Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 03:57:30 PM
SF andEE,
I agree.  American business progresses despite its elected leaders, so our pols should not get much credit/blame in either direction.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 07, 2012, 03:59:07 PM

The country will suffer through four more years without leadership, go deeper into debt, drive away still more business and deal with increasing unemployment (watch what happens when they downsize the military, local government payrolls and reduce defense contract spending). Oh yeah, taxes are going up, the Obamacare tax alone will weaken the spending power of the economy, then there's the expiring tax cuts. Guess we will see how long the working people agree to pay others not to work.......



...... In the meantime, remember that you can live outside the US, keep your passport, collect your SS and earn income up to $92,900/year tax-free (unless they cut that exemption and try to collect taxes across international lines).




I trust your morality would not allow for the creation by a nation with overwhelming debt obligations of make work military and contractor positions in order to improperly redistribute wealth within a peaceful nation to a state of warmongering in order to consume labor and supplies in war actions that are created for making sure certain special interest groups get federal funds. You can't justify killing people for money right? That's wrong for white Boomers isn't it? The new confederation values peace, not just dollars. That's wealth redistribution from make peace to make war. Might be a generational thinking, making war has made a lot of Boomers a lot of money.


Those entitlements sound great, you earned those through a politician right? Well done, you take those entitlements and you enjoy them. You've earned those entitlements, because you negotiated with a politician for them. Keep up the "work". Health care too right, you are entitled to that too.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 07, 2012, 04:02:29 PM
CG and GT,
 
No jokes about old white guys. 
 
Romney gone to war with Iran?  That's a good one!   What are you smoking, some of that Iranian hash?  I also lived there and we kept it on the table like a stick of butter.   Spent most of my time in Tehran and along the Caspian Sea.  Got into a NHB fight with three Iranians on the ski slopes - they skied like they drove.      I left late 1978.  You?
 
Romney's  plan was different, but it does not matter now, so no need to mention it.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 07, 2012, 04:08:33 PM
I heard him in the debate he was baiting Iran for a war with the US because for some reason we love Israel more than other governments. He said he loves Israel more than Obama.


That Persian air force isn't so scary, if the Germans aren't scared of Iran why should California be scared? Romney also had tapped the GWB warmonger machine for his cabinet, GWB redux. No thank you. Only good for a few and the simple.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 07, 2012, 04:14:36 PM
Probably a good time that I remind you all to keep the discussion civil. Religion and politics have a way of escalating to flames and blowing up in everyone's face. This thread has been allowed to exist for 60 pages because it has remained civil and stuck to the presidential election. This forum is for the discussion of Russian and Ukrainian women. This thread as mentioned has been permitted to remain because it was informative and civil. It's skirting the boundaries of that now
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on November 07, 2012, 04:15:16 PM
Dear Mr. Gator,

There's no need to smoke Iranian hash in order to understand that a Romney victory would've meant a resurrection of Dubya's Neocon War Cabinet.

Regards,

~CG
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Globetrotter on November 07, 2012, 04:42:29 PM
Yes Gator.  visited Iran from 75-78, and left in Oct. of 78.....deadly.  Actually, the railway wanted me to stay to run it.  The Shah's cousin was the Director and ran the show, and we were friends.  I went there to solve some emergency problems for a week, then wanted to leave to get married.  The director said that if I stayed for 2 more weeks, I could get married there, that he would fly my squeeze  out there first class, etc.  I said no, I'm going home.  He had a group of SAVAK agents at the airport to prevent me from leaving (unknown to me at the time) but decided not to piss me off, so I only learned of this from my sales rep months later.  I've also lived in 50 other countries, and flown around the world 40 or more times.  (Also...didn't get married!)
 
On a happier subject..........my squeeze arrives on Sunday for a 3 week visit, so I am cleaning, planning, etc.  She is 57, and I am 62........(but I look like I am 32....LOL)
 
I still can't believe that anyone believes Romney was anything but a great great A$$hole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....he should be shot!
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 07, 2012, 05:02:31 PM
So where do the next four years take us:

-  More taxes (everyone),
-  More debt (does anyone think a social agenda will stem the tide?),
-  Continued high unemployment,
-  Higher prices for energy and continued dependence upon imports and what that implies for placating the Middle East,
-  Weakened military (a little not so bad, but a lot?).
 
What else am I missing?


A nation that represents the needs and values of a diverse population not a monolithic ruling class.  By the way, American politics are completely corrupt, regardless of party. So if we sink, at least we'll sink with some decency. Elitism is not an American value, hard work rewarded is part of our culture. Indentured servitude should not be allowed to return even if capitalism values cheap low subsistence labor over community. Getting the hem of your pants wet is not drowning. Toughen up all of us!


Importing communism should be rejected by our culture, it is embraced.


It is he sunset of a weird wave of American people that were born into privilege post WWII, they did not suffer the pains of WWII or the Great Depression, but thrived in their afterglow. They then proceeded to deny their own children and fought the "underclasses" the same entitlements they received in work programs, retirement pensions, business opportunities, and educational programs. It is their sunset now, and rather than stepping up and being economic heroes they are insisting on everything they voted for themselves be paid in full and that their children pay their bill. In 30 years they are on average no more, but their debt legacy will be sustained because they were entitled because of promises they made to themselves for their children. A unique and entitled generation.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on November 07, 2012, 05:04:08 PM
It could get worse.
 
In 2 years Obama could win the House, giving him an open wallet again to spend anyway he wants.  :rolleyes:

And we all remember what happened last time he had complete control.....
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 07, 2012, 05:11:41 PM
People who were working at a job that provided health insurance for their child, but were under employed were now able to secure more appropriate employment because they don't have to worry about a pre-existing condition.


That's a good thing. Yay!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pitbull on November 07, 2012, 05:14:27 PM


It is he sunset of a weird wave of American people that were born into privilege post WWII, they did not suffer the pains of WWII or the Great Depression, but thrived in their afterglow. They then proceeded to deny their own children and fought the "underclasses" the same entitlements they received in work programs, retirement pensions, business opportunities, and educational programs. It is their sunset now, and rather than stepping up and being economic heroes they are insisting on everything they voted for themselves be paid in full and that their children pay their bill. In 30 years they are on average no more, but their debt legacy will be sustained because they were entitled because of promises they made to themselves for their children. A unique and entitled generation.

+100000%, the most correct post in this whole thread!
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Globetrotter on November 07, 2012, 05:26:16 PM
Correct, that both political parties are corrupt...as Obama took a $1M donation from Goldman Sachs in his first election.  They hate him now, so no money this time. 
 
Goldman Sachs are the scum of the earth, that produce nothing, only trade in money, and are the frontmen for the Rothschild Family.  (Look them up, and you will see.) 
 
Until this government "governs" taxes, trade, and banking...nothing will change!
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on November 07, 2012, 06:10:00 PM
Went as I figured....



Who is better off than they were four years ago?
Hundreds of thousands--even millions are.
That's why Barack-o will be re-elected I'm afraid.

 

Now maybe soon enough we'll find out what this was all about....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNxEDomUlXw
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: JBXT on November 07, 2012, 07:04:54 PM
The Russians don't call Obama "Ushastick" for nothing.

Those of you who are married to RW can ask them to translate.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Globetrotter on November 07, 2012, 07:59:11 PM
Gator, of course we need to mention it.  Romney was an absolute ass, which should be considered.  I have enjoyed some of your posts, and thought at times you were a smart guy. 
 
Look, from now on, just enjoy your retirement, and your golf game, and your search.
 
 
 
God Bless
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on November 07, 2012, 08:09:44 PM

+100000%, the most correct post in this whole thread!


I have to disagree that the part you quoted is the *most* correct... the most correct is, in fact, this part of the same post...





...American politics are completely corrupt, regardless of party.




As long as we continue to foment the self serving rape and plunder of liberty, the pandering to corporate special interests, the worship of profit at the cost of livable wage American jobs (by action, not two faced hypocritical rhetorical verbiage) -- by both Republishits and Democraps -- we remain right on course to inevitable destruction.


Real change from this ludicrous status quo must go well beyond the four or eight year political pendulum swing...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 07, 2012, 09:43:26 PM
This seems appropriate here......

 Where are the disgruntled masses moving?
By Chris Wilson, Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/chris-wilson/)
It's a sacred ritual of American elections that fans of the losing party threaten to leave the country, and then do not. We can see this phenomenon in effect by examining instances of the phrase "I'm moving to [country]" on Twitter around the time the election was called.Curiously, Canada--long the imagined haven of liberals in years in which Republicans win--is the most popular choice. (Perhaps it's just close?) Australia comes in second, followed by ... Colorado? The people promising to move there are perhaps motivated by electoral news (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/06/14977250-colorado-washington-approve-recreational-marijuana-use?lite) other than the winner of the presidency.
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ELn31LDor1jv2_ZDJ8IMiA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesignal/movingto.png) (http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/LTBkQnW8Yn7FdqPsANOhaw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesignal/movingto.png)
 
Sorry, Russia didn't register........
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on November 08, 2012, 05:09:25 AM
Interesting graph.......
 
I guess the disgruntled masses picked Colorado because they just voted to allow legal pot smoking in that state for everybody?
 
A whole new meaning to the song "Rocky Mountain High".  :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZiL1PMF3xA



GOB

PS.... I can hear the chanting now: "Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty we can smoke some grass!" :)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: acrzybear on November 08, 2012, 10:46:05 AM
how true
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 08, 2012, 11:14:35 AM
So, the haters are just going to keep on hating, sooner or later they'll get hungry when their master can't feed them.....

I'm moving on to predictions:

Unemployment will hit 10% (officially)

Real Unemployment will hit 22%

Market (Dow) will drop about 25% before buyers from outside step in to snap up some bargains in order to gain a foothold on the market in the US/North America

Federal Taxes will go up about 8%

State and Local Taxes will rise due to slashed Fed allocations

Tuition, Food, Gas - all up between 20 and 30%

Terrorism (Worldwide) will accelerate and we will see additional terror attacks inside the US borders resume

Amnesty will probably pass this time

Debt level above $22T (Thanks GOB! B - what was I thinking?)

Debt Downgrade of at least 2 levels during the term

They will try to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban (50/50) and tighten handgun purchase restrictions (partial successes)

States are going to get more "uppity"

Oh, Julia Roberts will win another Oscar.......

I'm on record, see what happens in 4 years.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 08, 2012, 11:31:53 AM
Sounds rough, maybe we should


Increase military spending two trillion dollars
Eliminate the capital gains tax
Cut all taxes 20%
Honor all pension, Social Security, Medicare for Boomers, cut or cap to 55 and younger GenX--the Boomers kids and grandkids)
Eliminate estate taxes
Repeal Obamacare


Then everything will go great for everyone because we know from GWB bad government is better than aspiring to good government.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on November 08, 2012, 11:49:47 AM
Debt level above $22B

??
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 08, 2012, 11:51:28 AM
Sounds rough, maybe we should


Increase military spending two trillion dollars
Eliminate the capital gains tax
Cut all taxes 20%
Honor all pension, Social Security, Medicare for Boomers, cut or cap to 55 and younger GenX--the Boomers kids and grandkids)
Eliminate estate taxes
Repeal Obamacare


Then everything will go great for everyone because we know from GWB bad government is better than aspiring to good government.

Yeah, I would lot rather see your predictions come true rather than mine but we'll just have to see.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 08, 2012, 11:52:42 AM

??
 
GOB

Oooops, thanks GOB!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on November 08, 2012, 11:59:42 AM
Debt level above $22T (Thanks GOB! B - what was I thinking?)

Hope and change maybe??  :o 

GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 08, 2012, 01:05:51 PM
Hope and change maybe??  :o 

GOB

Was just thinking... the elections cost 6 Billion....

LOL
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Shadow on November 08, 2012, 01:30:46 PM
Was just thinking... the elections cost 6 Billion....

LOL
Could save on that one by tossing a coin between Republicans and Democrats every 4 years,,,
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 08, 2012, 01:51:18 PM
Could save on that one by tossing a coin between Republicans and Democrats every 4 years,,,

and the two parties finding something to fight over into eternity over less....
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 08, 2012, 02:27:13 PM
Romney's  plan was different, but it does not matter now, so no need to mention it.


I still can't believe that anyone believes Romney was anything but a great great A$$hole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....he should be shot!

Gator, of course we need to mention it.  Romney was an absolute ass, which should be considered....

Pray tell us, why do you now join what has been a long and mostly cordial political discussion and then make such foolish comments about the defeated candidate?   NEWS BULLENTIN: Romney lost the election.
 
There is never any justification in kicking a man when he is down.  Evidently, your social circles are confined to lowlifes, and I suggest that you study Romney for a fine example of class and integrity.
 
To accentuate your posts, you call Romney a "great great A$$hole."  And three hours later, evidently after pouring yourself a few more, you repeat,  "Romney was an absolute ass..."  even though everyone ignored your first "asshole" post.   And you add the expression, "he should be shot."
 
Your insistent use of the word ass reminds me of the best word to describe your posts - asinine.  You must be the only redneck in America who voted for Obama.
 
Quote

I have enjoyed some of your posts, and thought at times you were a smart guy. 
 
Look, from now on, just enjoy your retirement, and your golf game, and your search.
 
 
God Bless

Golf is a gentleman's game, and integrity is central to playing it.   Try it sometime.  There are plenty of public courses open to Joe SixPacks.
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Maxx2 on November 08, 2012, 07:07:28 PM
Of course Romney lost. His people pis$ed all over the Ron Paul folks during the primaries and at the convention(s) and a few million of them either voted for Gary Johnson or sat it out.



Isn't amazing that Obama got 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Romney got 3 million fewer votes than Mc Cain did in 2008. 13,000,000 fewer voters in 2012 than 2008. Apparently the Left-Right dumb show is losing it's appeal.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 08, 2012, 08:20:24 PM
So, the haters are just going to keep on hating, sooner or later they'll get hungry when their master can't feed them.....

I'm moving on to predictions:

Unemployment will hit 10% (officially)

Real Unemployment will hit 22%

Market (Dow) will drop about 25% before buyers from outside step in to snap up some bargains in order to gain a foothold on the market in the US/North America

Federal Taxes will go up about 8%

State and Local Taxes will rise due to slashed Fed allocations

Tuition, Food, Gas - all up between 20 and 30%

Terrorism (Worldwide) will accelerate and we will see additional terror attacks inside the US borders resume

Amnesty will probably pass this time

Debt level above $22T (Thanks GOB! B - what was I thinking?)

Debt Downgrade of at least 2 levels during the term

They will try to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban (50/50) and tighten handgun purchase restrictions (partial successes)

States are going to get more "uppity"

Oh, Julia Roberts will win another Oscar.......

I'm on record, see what happens in 4 years.
Ed, got any predictions on the prices of real estate and gold/silver? Also are we going to see Russia becoming a new "Land of the free" in a few years while the USA turns into USSA?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 08, 2012, 08:23:42 PM
...I'm moving on to predictions:

Unemployment will hit 10% (officially)

Real Unemployment will hit 22%...

Easy enough. By the turn of next year many in the medical field practitioners and the like will get walking papers soon as Obamacare kicks into full gear.

Quote
...Market (Dow) will drop about 25% before buyers from outside step in to snap up some bargains in order to gain a foothold on the market in the US/North America..

Don't know about this, Ed. WS seem to always find a way to invest in negative money, which is what we have today and will get even worst...

Quote
...Federal Taxes will go up about 8%

State and Local Taxes will rise due to slashed Fed allocations...

No brainer really...with the amount of debt we're carrying and the pending social programs coming into full gear, no doubt.

California passed Prop. 30. That's our (D) Gov's tax increase ~ both on Sales Tax .25% and State Tax. It's supposed to be for 7 years but hey, the '94 Northridge earthquake .5% tax hike was also only for 5 years...and that was 18 years ago.

Apparently the Teacher's Union was out of money and the state is broke. So what else can be done? Of course screw the population so the Union can keep the bad teachers teaching...Democrats just love the Unions, vis-a-vis.

If that isn't funny enough...Prop. 32 was kept from getting barred. That's the proposition that would have prevented the Unions from pumping millions during elections for politicians e.g. Democrats' campaign expenses...

No money....right? That silly tax hike will definitely impact all small businesses even BEFORE the federal tax hike mandate kicks in.

Quote
...Tuition, Food, Gas - all up between 20 and 30%...

You mean the 100% increase in gas prices since '08 isn't enough proof?

Quote
...Terrorism (Worldwide) will accelerate and we will see additional terror attacks inside the US borders resume ...

Oh I'm sure there's enough amateur video producer or a cartoonist or two who'll take the rap for that idiocy.

Quote
....Amnesty will probably pass this time...

Ahead of schedule. ID cards are now being rolled in California for illegal aliens so they can use all public institutions like the library, identification for public provisions, get driving permits, even use the banking systems.

Quote
...Debt level above $22T (Thanks GOB! B - what was I thinking?)...

Look at the bright side, man...the libs only have to pay for HALF of it for putting dweebs into the WH.

Quote
...Debt Downgrade of at least 2 levels during the term...

It didn't stop the 51% now, did it? Why do you think that even matters?

Quote
...They will try to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban (50/50) and tighten handgun purchase restrictions (partial successes)...

Nope. Don't agree with you there. Fast and Furious is as mysterious then as it is now. Besides, AKs are the weapon of choice of a large pool of Obama's voting base. You can't possibly expect him to bite the hands that feed him, no?

Quote
....States are going to get more "uppity"...

My state is broke to be anything else really...

Quote
....Oh, Julia Roberts will win another Oscar.......

Considering the Nobel Prize had been a source of stupidity and mockery...Julia won't even need to make a movie to get an Oscar AND Oscar.

Quote
...I'm on record, see what happens in 4 years....

Patience is a virtue.

So the 51% of 'us' prevailed and thus as an American, I can recognize the US president...as an individual, I abhor the *mf~r*

I still say I wish there was a way where voters can be held accountable for their choices. I hope this country fall off the fiscal abyss and *break* many of the folks who voted to take us all into this road along with them.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Miri22 on November 08, 2012, 08:29:02 PM
The end result is that the republicans forgot that women and minorities can vote. Stuck in the 1950s much?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Miri22 on November 08, 2012, 08:47:33 PM
Maybe the repubs thought they could keep the slaves and women at home.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: tfcrew on November 08, 2012, 08:53:16 PM
The Russians don't call Obama "Ushastick" for nothing.

Those of you who are married to RW can ask them to translate.

Big ears?
LBJ sure was one.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on November 09, 2012, 02:35:29 AM
Drew Linzer: The stats man who predicted Obama's win
By Kate Dailey, BBC News Magazine
 
 Pundits insisted the presidential race was a toss-up, but "polling aggregators" - who analyse polls to make predictions - were being criticised for favouring President Obama. Not any more.
 
 In September we called Drew Linzer, an associated professor of political science at Emory University, to ask for his predictions for the upcoming US presidential election.
 
 Linzer runs the website Votamatic, which uses current election polls and past historical trends to predict the outcome of major elections. He gave the same prediction he had been posting on his site since 23 June:
 
 Obama 332 votes, Romney 206.
 
 Weeks later, the first presidential debate, when Obama's lacklustre performance kicked off a surge of momentum for the Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Obama's election odds had sunk like a stone in national polls, and states once considered toss-ups were being assigned as favourites for Romney.
 
 Asked again for his updated prediction, Linzer gave the same answer.
 
 No change, he said: Obama 332 votes, Romney 206.
 
 Now, Obama has been elected to a second term, and election workers are still counting the votes in Florida, which is leaning ever so slightly towards the Democrats. The Romney team admitted to the Miami Herald that they had lost the state, though it has not been officially called. When it is, the final tally in this once too-close-to call election will be:
 
 Obama, 332 votes, Romney 206.
 
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20246741
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 09, 2012, 03:11:31 AM
The big unemployment problem contribution will come from the highly-touted demobilization and defense spending cuts. Active duty personnel will drop somewhere on the order of 30% +/- and there will be an even greater impact on the defense contractors who supply and support the military. Nothing about morality or hand-wringing histrionics from the left will change the surge in unemployment which will occur as this implements.

Even more quickly, we will see impacts from government services downsizing as teacher, police and fire department cuts are implemented in state and local government payrolls and operating budgets. Again, contractors and other out-sourcers will suffer the ripple effect as well. Fewer road projects, buildings, parks, etc.

The impact of Obamacare on the medical profession isn't going to be as large (in the first few years at least) as these other two areas. After attending school for 8-9 years to become a neurosurgeon, not many 45 year-olds will take up carpentry to become a more self-actualized handyman. They'll take their paycuts and be happy to have jobs and food on the table as the country spirals further downward into recession/depression.

I agree the market will recover and stabilize, eventually coming back up to present levels. The prediction is an approximate 25% drop before buyers step in and set a new floor. Too many confuse a rise in the market with an economic recovery though. When a business goes under it means little that they sold the final inventory if the workers lost their jobs, the locations were shuttered and taxes are no longer being paid.

All prices are going to go up until the market breaks. This will occur if it goes past the predictions significantly. Too many unemployed and gas will deflate as the demand melts away. As much as it may astound the Saudis and Kuwaitis, we don't buy their oil so they can eat, we buy it so we can heat our homes, travel, power industry, etc. Without those things, there is no need for all those hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil each day. Think of ripple effects spreading out even further onto the worldwide markets as US consumer demand shifts downward to basics like food and simpler clothing.

A lot of the Left have guns hidden away themselves or have their bodyguards/police forces to supply, but there will be the continued fear of the masses having weapons and empowering resistance while fostering self-reliance. Don't kid yourself that the elite worry about those little children who find mommy's gun under her pillow and blow their head off looking into it, they are worried about resistance just as Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler and others have done throughout history. All spoke of no need for weapons as they lulled the citizens into believing the state would care for them, removing the need for these by individuals. The first thing to do after the revolution is kill the true revolutionaries who disdain power in the new regime for idealism.

Guns, cars, choices in education, free travel...all these things contributed to our mentality, successes, national pride and attitudes. There is a feeling now that we were wrong to be different, we should change and be more like "normal" people/nations (most of whom seem to be broke or in the process of downward slides themselves). I travel a bit and am horrified by this thought, but the [slight] majority have spoken. Now, they'll get what they wanted.

Hope they live through it and it turns out to be the Utopia some say they believe in but my suspicion is that it will be little different from the promises of a worker's paradise or peaceful heaven promised by others throughout history if we would only let them make decisions for us.

And, FWIW, I hope I am wrong. I would love to see the magic work, with sickness, poverty, war, crime, energy prices and world hunger all solved bbut technology still growing, mankind still making progress - I just don't see it.

But, if it happens, I'll step up, join the circle, hold hands with my borthers and sisters in love while we sing Kumbaya 'round the campfire.......

What a GREAT day that will be!   :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on November 09, 2012, 07:54:35 AM
While I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I am a firm believer in the majority being head in the sand ignorant both by deception and by choice.


This is a long one, and well worth the time.  I absolutely agree with much of it while other aspects, e.g., crop circles, challenges my 'scientific proof' methodology so I cannot accept those assertions.


This version has English subtitles to assist with accents, etc, for our non native English listeners...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MSEHQVRIug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MSEHQVRIug)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 09:31:14 AM
Bringing it to relevance to FSUW,if any find this remotely appealing


Depending how you feel about the American nationalism and pessimism by posters.


A break down of voting reveals that by far the major source of Mitt Romney's votes came from white men over 55. Add from the South, with fundamental "Christian" and you have a major Romney voting block. Military votes split a bit this time with the retired and entitled military  and contractors voting overwhelmingly much more so than the soldiers in the trenches for Romney.


American women voted for Obama.


So depending on the type of personality and politics that pleases you, you have a general sense of the menu. If you want a socially tolerant, open-minded, man who can see America's flaws with its' strengths who does not want to be associated with hate speech towards women. Avoid men who voted for Romney, you now know what they look like, how old they are, and where they live.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 09, 2012, 09:51:59 AM
Bringing it to relevance to FSUW,if any find this remotely appealing


So depending on the type of personality and politics that pleases you, you have a general sense of the menu. If you want a socially tolerant, open-minded, man who can see America's flaws with its' strengths who does not want to be associated with hate speech towards women. Avoid men who voted for Romney, you now know what they look like, how old they are, and where they live.

Bullschit
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 09, 2012, 09:57:39 AM
Bringing it to relevance to FSUW,if any find this remotely appealing


Depending how you feel about the American nationalism and pessimism by posters.


A break down of voting reveals that by far the major source of Mitt Romney's votes came from white men over 55. Add from the South, with fundamental "Christian" and you have a major Romney voting block. Military votes split a bit this time with the retired and entitled military  and contractors voting overwhelmingly much more so than the soldiers in the trenches for Romney.


American women voted for Obama.


So depending on the type of personality and politics that pleases you, you have a general sense of the menu. If you want a socially tolerant, open-minded, man who can see America's flaws with its' strengths who does not want to be associated with hate speech towards women. Avoid men who voted for Romney, you now know what they look like, how old they are, and where they live.

Interesting 'angle'.......

On another subject related board I mentioned the leaning of most posting  males in the poll was toward the riight (conservative) voting for Romney.

I really wonder who RW would vote for if they did or could.......

Almost willing to bet Obama would win that poll....

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Ade on November 09, 2012, 10:28:28 AM
Bullschit


As fairly broad generalisations go, I think his was as accurate as any.  ;D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Ade on November 09, 2012, 10:35:34 AM
Interesting 'angle'.......

On another subject related board I mentioned the leaning of most posting  males in the poll was toward the riight (conservative) voting for Romney.

I really wonder who RW would vote for if they did or could.......

Almost willing to bet Obama would win that poll....


Not so sure about that. A lot of FSUW we know or know of are fairly well placed to the right. Yes, there is the abortion rhetoric, but I think a lot of FSUW would sympathize with many of the other right of center republican views that may swing them that way in any case...
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Globetrotter on November 09, 2012, 10:44:56 AM
Now I remember why people tell others not to discuss religion or politics with strangers!
 
As for Gator............me, the Redneck?  I can only guess that senility has prevented  you from remembering the state where you live.  Suggest you walk to your carport and read the tag on the back of the car, then play a round with your hero and mentor, Rushmo.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 09, 2012, 10:45:16 AM

As fairly broad generalisations go, I think his was as accurate as any.  ;D

Not only was it so broad as to be completely irrelevant seems it was there to serve no other purpose than to back handed insult to Romney supporters.

I don't personally care what anyone's politics may be, power to them in any event but, just as there are sore losers, this is further evidence of sore winners
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 10:47:55 AM

Not so sure about that. A lot of FSUW we know or know of are fairly well placed to the right. Yes, there is the abortion rhetoric, but I think a lot of FSUW would sympathize with many of the other right of center republican views that may swing them that way in any case...


I see your point and can agree on the surface. Having lived here though you realize the hypocrisy of "work ethic" and entitlement rhetoric gets old. Too much evidence shows it is just tribalism. The values of old white Boomers may be genuine, but the hypocrites that have been using them as a political sledgehammer for the past 30 to 40 years are dying and also getting bad at using them, for example the "legitimate rape" arm of the Reoublican party.


 :popcorn:


Most entertaining. No doubt there are idiots and hypocrites that vote for Obama too, but we didn't see them run to be Senators of Indiana and Missouri. Interestingly states with deep KKK roots, white religious men over 55. I didn't see legitimate rape believers that looked differently.


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Ade on November 09, 2012, 10:48:55 AM
Not only was it so broad as to be completely irrelevant seems it was there to serve no other purpose than to back handed insult to Romney supporters.

I don't personally care what anyone's politics may be, power to them in any event but, just as there are sore losers, this is further evidence of sore winners


Perhaps. But if you are objective you have to admit that there were (and still are) a bunch of fruit and nuts on the republican team. ;)
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 10:50:45 AM

As fairly broad generalisations go, I think his was as accurate as any.  ;D

It is unadulterated bullshit.   Please examine each characterization made by SFEE:
 
socially tolerant - What does that mean?  Imply?  I will agree that core Republicans are less tolerant of extreme behavior that go against traditional family values.  However aren't RW all about traditional family values?

open-minded - I assert that many in both parties are closed-minded.   For every example you can give, I can name one on the other side.

man who can see America's flaws with its' strengths - Divergent philosophical viewpoints about how best to optimize America's strengths and remedy flaws does not not mean a Romney supporter is blind to flaws and strengths.   One Obama supporter here at RWD said Romney "should be shot."

who does not want to be associated with hate speech towards women - hate speech???   A couple of  senate candidates made  asinine statements, which were immediately rebuked by their party leadership.
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 10:51:57 AM

Perhaps. But if you are objective you have to admit that there were (and still are) a bunch of fruit and nuts on the republican team. ;)

I will admit that the Republicans have more nuts, but the Democrats definitely harbor the fruits.   :D
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 11:01:46 AM
Not only was it so broad as to be completely irrelevant seems it was there to serve no other purpose than to back handed insult to Romney supporters.

I don't personally care what anyone's politics may be, power to them in any event but, just as there are sore losers, this is further evidence of sore winners


I don't know about winner, I think we all lose when individuals lose all accountability and introspection. You don't know who I voted for, you can be sure I did not vote for the "legitimate rape", 47% hating, inherited or corrupt capital team. Which one is that or were those opinions too.



I thought I was noting statistical facts, I think they are informing, albeit as I noted too generalizations.


The insults by these stereotypes especially about "work ethic" and entitlement have been oozing and dripping by their three stand bearers on this thread for 62 pages.


An entitled 65 year-old white man is just as big a problem for me as an entitled 25 year-old black female. Problem is the 65-year old has been shaping American politics for almost 50 years, that young, black, female--just barely got her voice, if anyone is listening.


The inability to have a reflective, man-in-the-mirror moments for right-wing conservative males is reflective of them, not the people they vote against. Voting Romney did not make you wealthy, fit, hygienic, industrious, or smart. It doesn't exclude you from that, but voting for Romney, does not make you Romney. You probably take as good as you give. We've had these discussions in the past, the South and R States take far more federal funds than they give. They take from the Blue States, they are the parasites, the ticks on the American animal. They voted for Romney. It's facts, provided with a sharp tongue. Very FSU-like.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 09, 2012, 11:03:13 AM

Perhaps. But if you are objective you have to admit that there were (and still are) a bunch of fruit and nuts on the republican team. ;)

Undeniable and I don't know anyone that would. There are enough fruit and nuts that cover every political belief it makes no matter which one you choose. SF & EE is evidence of that. I know plenty of crazies on the right. I happen to personally know more on the left.  ;D

To insinuate that a liberal political belief makes a better match for a RW is really way the hell out there and not even remotely related
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 09, 2012, 11:04:23 AM
Bullschit

LOL, no kidding. Considering over 95% of African-American voted for Obama.
 
Anyway, apparently news have it (3 days after the election) we are for all intent and purposes officially in another recession.
 
Surprise!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 11:05:32 AM
 
Interesting 'angle'.......I really wonder who RW would vote for if they did or could.......
 

I assume many RW  believe it makes little difference who is the President (based on their FSU experience).  If they had to vote, the vote would be split between 1) a single issue of abortion or "hipness"  and 2) strong right leanings.  In the end, they would probably vote for Obama if they believe Obamacare will fix the American healthcare system, which they feel is far inferior to Russia's healthcare   
 
So let us try another angle which hits home.   What is that angle?
 
Considering that most AM are older than their RW wives, and that women live longer than men,  most husbands will die well before their wives. Let us presume that a husband was successful enough to have built an estate.   Further, the husband will bequeath his estate to the RW and their children. 
 
In my experience, RW are not that accomplished in financial planning, so a RW will be very dependent upon the executor.   Who would be the better executor to assure that the husband's estate will  be managed  optimally for the long-term benefit of the RW wife and the children: Obama or Romney?
 
We  always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and  underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.  Don't let yourself be  lulled into inaction. - Bill Gates
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 11:15:57 AM
Undeniable and I don't know anyone that would. There are enough fruit and nuts that cover every political belief it makes no matter which one you choose. SF & EE is evidence of that. I know plenty of crazies on the right. I happen to personally know more on the left.  ;D

To insinuate that a liberal political belief makes a better match for a RW is really way the hell out there and not even remotely related


I was asking FSUW women unlike you, I think you were telling them what they prefer. Common generational difference, we were the babies of 60's and 70's. latch-key kids, children of divorce, abortion, and birth control. We know our fathers and mothers well.


I am not liberal or left, my voting record is strong evidence. As to my comments they are generalizations and they are pointed. If the older man party wants to work from 2012 to 2016 they are welcome to help us recover from the past 12 years, if not then I guess they are entitled to the things they gave themselves through hook and crook. We need a better infrastructure--their parents paid for the one we are using, they received government contracts using debt to give them their wealth, now they want the rot to continue because they don't want to help pay to replace what they consumed and the debt they created.


Stop insulting me. I am not insulting any individual, I am provoking a conversation. As a moderator you should not insult individuals if their general points offend you. Perhaps it hits home, I have no idea, but I did not mention Faux Pas, you attacked me. Might I add, you made claims about me that are false.


My politics are mine, but they are not Republican and they are not Democratic. My preference would be to have the Bull-Moose party back, it would be great for these times. I am against corruption and cronyism in government and business. That is the world of the 65 year-old white man.


No doubt other groups are entitled and cronies, just seemed relevant to talk about the group that is pursuing FSUW on this board.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 11:18:24 AM

An entitled 65 year-old white man is just as big a problem for me as an entitled 25 year-old black female. Problem is the 65-year old has been shaping American politics for almost 50 years, that young, black, female--just barely got her voice, if anyone is listening.


Please review  history and answer this question:   Which party was responsible for  enacting Social Security and Medicare?
 
Another question, which President moved the surplus funds of the  Social Security program into the General Budget, funds that would enable Social Security to be self-funded?
 
Final question, should the typical 65-yo feel "entitled" when the amount he will receive over his remaining years will be less than what he paid into the program while working?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Cameraguy on November 09, 2012, 11:20:45 AM
I really wonder who RW would vote for if they did or could.......

Almost willing to bet Obama would win that poll....

Even though I didn't vote for Obama, I believe you'd win that bet.

An overwhelming majority of people in 20 of 21 countries favored Obama:

U.S. Election: International Polls Indicate World Would Vote For Obama
By Eline Gordts
Posted: 11/05/2012 7:49 am EST

If the world could vote for a U.S. president this week, the outcome would be less than a thriller. Several polls indicate the overwhelming majority of people outside of the U.S. would vote for Barack Obama if they had the chance.

According to a 21-nation poll conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA for the BBC World Service, an average of 50 percent of people surveyed abroad favor Obama. Only 9 percent of those polled prefer Romney, and in 20 out of 21 countries voters would chose Obama.

GlobeScan Director of Global Insights Sam Mountford explains:

While the presidential race in America looks like it's going down to the wire, global public opinion appears to be firmly behind Barack Obama’s re-election — even if two in five express no preference between the two candidates.

According to the survey, two-thirds of Canadians would vote for Obama instead of Romney, a percentage consistent with a recent Angus Reid survey that indicated 72 percent of Canadians favor the current president over his Republican challenger.

If Europeans could cast their ballot, they would overwhelmingly vote Romney out of the picture. Europe is Obama's terrain, and France is the president's strongest backer. Seventy-two percent of the French polled by GlobeScan want to see Obama re-elected. Only 2 percent would vote for Romney.

In Africa, too, Obama would be headed for a clear win, the survey says. Yet markedly, the president has lost support in Kenya, where his ratings drop 21 points.

Pakistan is the only country in the survey that prefers a Romney presidency. Fourteen percent of polled Pakistanis would vote Republican, against 11 percent Democrat. Seventy-five percent of Pakistanis do not favor either candidate.

A September survey by Win-Gallup International indicated similarly that the world favors a second Obama administration. That poll gave 18 percent of global support to Mitt Romney, while Obama won the global vote with 81 percent. "A global straw poll among over 26,000 men and women in over 30 countries shows that if an election was held this week, Obama will face tough competition from his republican challenger, Mitt Romney at home but will win a landslide in the rest of the world," the study concluded in September. According to that survey, Obama found his strongest supporters in the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland and Iceland, while Romney was most supported in Pakistan, Georgia, Israel, Macedonia and China.

Israel was not polled in the GlobalScan study, but a survey by the University of Tel Aviv found that Israelis prefer Romney by a 3 to 1 margin. 


A recent study by the Russian Public Opinion Center concluded that 42 percent of Russians favor Obama, while only 4 percent believe Romney should be the next U.S. president. According to the Wall Street Journal, most Russian Obama supporters come from the country's large cities and its socialist and communist parties. Yet the Journal notes: "In the end, most Russians are not deeply engaged in the U.S. presidential politics, as only 40% of those who responded said they knew the election was being held this year."
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 09, 2012, 11:21:23 AM

LOL, no kidding. Considering over 95% of African-American voted for Obama.
 
Anyway, apparently news have it (3 days after the election) we are for all intent and purposes officially in another recession.
 
Surprise!

YUP. Then there is that nagging "financial cliff" that we are just as unprepared and unwilling to approach as we have been for the last 4 years while we were passing healthcare and running for president. In between playing golf. Never mind Iran building nuclear weapons and radical Islamists attacking and killing Americans, the unions looking for more payback and ready to collect their share of the Chinese credit card. What's another recession? The check writing printers at the GAC are operating nicely
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 11:29:20 AM

Please review  history and answer this question:   Which party was responsible for  enacting Social Security and Medicare?
 
Another question, which President moved the surplus funds of the  Social Security program into the General Budget, funds that would enable Social Security to be self-funded?
 
Final question, should the typical 65-yo feel "entitled" when the amount he will receive over his remaining years will be less than what he paid into the program while working?


You may think you are right and you are framing the discussion to try and focus on the points that you think make your point. You want a history lesson. I live in the present, do you. As I pointed out, the future is closing in on the Grey-Old-Party.


Should a 30 year-old, single, working mother of three children get help with educating and feeding her children or should a 65 year old get his non-means tested SS check, possibly throw away money on golf club membership and alcohol. He didn't fund his entitlements, he's had full political party and judiciary control a few times. Started two unfunded wars with that power and created a huge unfunded, lobby written pharmaceutical plan that only benefitted him.


Selfish isn't cool, greed is not good. If it attracts FSUW, let's find out. Do they like evangelical Christians too? Mormons? (95% comment)


When the time comes that blacks can vote in their interests independent of their tribal issues that will reflect well on American politics not them. I used to use your 95% comment myself, I am ashamed I did, and I am glad I now better understand where that is coming from and can say it is no longer in my heart. If it works for you, hey, it's a free country, and certainly there are some sexy girls who like that kind of talk too. Just keep it on an anonymous Internet forum, not so much Oakland stadium.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 11:31:50 AM

As fairly broad generalisations go, I think his was as accurate as any.  ;D


Thanks Ade we've disagreed adamantly in the past, I agree it is a broad generalization. It is meant to point out a few important pieces of data we learned from this election. They are clear, undeniable, and fully exposed. On a micro level.


As to individuals of course there are exceptions, but if you are shopping in Wal-Mart, don't expect Tiffany's.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pitbull on November 09, 2012, 11:36:15 AM

Thanks Ade we've disagreed adamantly in the past, I agree it is a broad generalization. It is meant to point out a few important pieces of data we learned from this election. They are clear, undeniable, and fully exposed. On a micro level.


As to individuals of course their are exceptions, but if you are shopping in Wal-Mart, don't expect Tiffany's.

Dunno about other RW, but I agree 100% with every single word  SFandEE has posted in this thread.
 
My suspicion is that not all RW would have this view, just the highly-educated, intelligebt and worldly ones. And humble too  :-[
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 09, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
So let us try another angle which hits home.   What is that angle?
 
Considering that most AM are older than their RW wives, and that women live longer than men,  most husbands will die well before their wives. Let us presume that a husband was successful enough to have built an estate.   Further, the husband will bequeath his estate to the RW and their children. 
 
In my experience, RW are not that accomplished in financial planning, so a RW will be very dependent upon the executor.   Who would be the better executor to assure that the husband's estate will  be managed  optimally for the long-term benefit of the RW wife and the children: Obama or Romney?
 
We  always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and  underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.  Don't let yourself be  lulled into inaction. - Bill Gates

Interesting questions Gator!  I like it!

I also think the majority would vote for Obama.  My wife likes him.. she did watch Romney a bit but there was very little appeal.

Yes, even I am significantly older and will not outlive her unless something unfortunate happens..  Here by law it's 2/3'ds to the kids and 1/3rd to the wife.  Insurance is wife kids equally.   Quite allright..  Romney or Obama at that point won't matter a bit.. Everyone will have a few years 'worth' to adjust to a new life doing whatever they please... If they use it wisely fine.. if they blow it all away also fine..  I doubt I will even be in condition to care at that point but will rest well knowing that I have done my part.

Bill Gates is pretty right for his position and wealth..  but that does not necessarily mean it applies to the rest of us.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 11:49:50 AM

Dunno about other RW, but I agree 100% with every single word  SFandEE has posted in this thread.
 
My suspicion is that not all RW would have this view, just the highly-educated, intelligebt and worldly ones. And humble too  :-[


Throw in sexy and fond of heels and those are the kind of FSUW that attract me. The ones that focus on disposable income, not so much. (I think this is a concer for WM with or without money, except for those who truly think they are purchasing a bride)


Thanks pitbull we have disagreed in the past too, I am glad you can find ways to agree with people with whom you have had disagreements too. It is a great character quality, some of my best friendships and associates thrive in the ability to disagree well.


Something foreign to American polar politics, hopefully the death of a poor generational character found primarily in one party will result in results and not rhetoric.


Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on November 09, 2012, 11:59:29 AM

You may think you are right and you are framing the discussion to try and focus on the points that you think make your point. You want a history lesson. I live in the present, do you. As I pointed out, the future is closing in on the Grey-Old-Party.

...


The future is closing in on both parties... rapidly.  They're all destroyers of liberty and the constitution and should be dealt accordingly.












Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 09, 2012, 12:03:21 PM

I was asking FSUW women unlike you, I think you were telling them what they prefer. Common generational difference, we were the babies of 60's and 70's. latch-key kids, children of divorce, abortion, and birth control. We know our fathers and mothers well.


I am not liberal or left, my voting record is strong evidence. As to my comments they are generalizations and they are pointed. If the older man party wants to work from 2012 to 2016 they are welcome to help us recover from the past 12 years, if not then I guess they are entitled to the things they gave themselves through hook and crook. We need a better infrastructure--their parents paid for the one we are using, they received government contracts using debt to give them their wealth, now they want the rot to continue because they don't want to help pay to replace what they consumed and the debt they created.


Stop insulting me. I am not insulting any individual, I am provoking a conversation. As a moderator you should not insult individuals if their general points offend you. Perhaps it hits home, I have no idea, but I did not mention Faux Pas, you attacked me. Might I add, you made claims about me that are false.


My politics are mine, but they are not Republican and they are not Democratic. My preference would be to have the Bull-Moose party back, it would be great for these times. I am against corruption and cronyism in government and business. That is the world of the 65 year-old white man.


No doubt other groups are entitled and cronies, just seemed relevant to talk about the group that is pursuing FSUW on this board.

I didn't insult or attack you. If you took my play on words as an attack or an insult then possibly that shoe fits. When you make the asinine statements as you did upthread and then continue to make, what is it that you expect in return, everyone nodding in agreement? Tough shit, it ain't going to happen. It is a crying shame everyone can't be as enlightened politically as you are, isn't it? Why is it only you and those "like" you that can see the strengths and weakness of our country? Why are those so few in number?

I was refraining from posting to you directly after our previous exchanges in the past didn't seem to offer me anything of value. However, I do not mind to try once again.

What in your opinion makes the 65 year old white man's station in life less valuable to him than the 26 year old black females station in life does to him? Who has offered and put up more (yes more of the negative political conditions also) bacon on the collective table? The 65 yr old white man or the 26 yr old black female wanting more?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 09, 2012, 12:08:50 PM
Interesting questions Gator!  I like it!

I also think the majority would vote for Obama.  My wife likes him.. she did watch Romney a bit but there was very little appeal.


My wife is just the opposite. She thinks him along the same lines as she does Putin and I can assure you that's not very much.

We discuss politics often. Both ours and Russia's. I'm sure she has some of my influence as I do hers. But, she doesn't seem to be influenced by my opinion as much as she is of her own and that of her family and friends back home
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 12:23:06 PM

I was refraining from posting to you directly after our previous exchanges in the past didn't seem to offer me anything of value. However, I do not mind to try once again.
It's hard to offer some thing to a man who has it all, especially knowledge. I do not recall past exchanges with you. Thanks for remembering me, I'll do better.


I guess it is just lost on you, age discrimination. Your generation has been voting for decades, a 26 year old inherited the politics and the debt of the Boomers. Your generation has a history of separation and conflict, how did all those marriages work out for Boomers--lot of divorces, a record.


If means testing a 65 year old SS check is offensive to you in principle, let's be practical kids need to eat and be educated. When Boomers were 26 they were given some good times, hiccups and difficulties, but often difficult times because of the inability to come together.


This mess isn't about work ethic. The country's economic engine is in serious jeopardy and all hands need to be part of the solution. Even older pale, or obnoxiously tanned ones.


We need ecomic heroes, enough with the war heroes. Let them come home and work with the rest of us to heal this country so that being American will mean something special again.  If you are old and disagree, four years from now you will either be older or gone. The message 2012 election gave is that the oldsters drove the car in the ditch in 2008, they lost their driving privileges. Please play nice with your grandkids in the back seat. Also learn to say "thank you" and "please" as we pay for your entitlements you failed to fund, but you insist on receiving. That's mine.


Obama is 51
Romney is 65
Bush is 65
McCain isn't he 80 or something
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ML on November 09, 2012, 12:25:52 PM

 Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel ,
 "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead
 you to the Promised Land."
 
 Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
 
 Today, our government is set to steal your shovel, tax your asses, raise the
 price of Camels and mortgage the Promised Land!
 
 I was so depressed last night thinking about all of this that  . . . I called a Suicide Hotline.
 
 I had to press 1 for English.
 
 I was connected to a call center in Pakistan . . . I told them I was suicidal.
 
 They got excited and asked if I could drive a truck  . . . . . .
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 12:55:01 PM
Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel ,
 "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead
 you to the Promised Land."


Where is your Messiah now, Moses?


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D0Qcv3YV4aA

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 09, 2012, 01:16:37 PM
I only joined into this discussion around page 60, never read anything said here but knew it was mostly men bumping chests, complaining about politics with little information , which to me is just boring. But just one question.....
How many here on RWD has spent time in recent elections on campaigns whether it be calling on phones, going dooor to door.....explaining your candidates postion in trying to help elect him? I hope so, based on the amount of complaining venting about this government and the direction of the country!!!
If not, then you can now see the reason Obama was elected. He had an excellant grass roots efforts in northern Ohio and northeast Virginia.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 01:21:39 PM
Interesting questions Gator!  I like it!

I also think the majority would vote for Obama. 

So they would choose a career politician with a less than satisfactory economic record to manage their money vs. a proven businessman who can grow a small amount of assets into something sizable.  OK!    It explains much, especially why our economy is where it is now with 51% of the people not as concerned about the direction.


Quote
Bill Gates is pretty right for his position and wealth..  but that does not necessarily mean it applies to the rest of us.

I disagree.  One of the reasons for not having money is not looking 10 years down the road, e. g., dropping out of school.   Bill's opinion applies to much of life and not just about money.   For example, politics is driven by staying in power, i. e. reelection or two years down the road, not 10 years.    While having children unlike politics is a long term view, many of us underestimate what the responsibility entails and how quickly it proceeds (I did, but my sons have done well despite me).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 09, 2012, 01:22:13 PM
SFandEE,

So that we can put your views into perspective please tell us:

Your age.

Your occupation.

Are you a Berkley graduate?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on November 09, 2012, 01:26:06 PM

An entitled 65 year-old white man is just as big a problem for me as an entitled 25 year-old black female.

How is Sculpto doing?
 
What's up with this "Old Whitey" stuff anyway?
 
You come across as militant dude.
 
GOB
 
BTW... Those 65 yr old white men that your referring to, have been paying into SS for the last 45+ years..... just some food for thought and that 25 yo Black woman on welfare with 3 kids?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 01:32:05 PM
I have no association with Sculpto


I'm not militant, just have an opinion different than you, and I am strong enough to have gotten there through reasoning it out. Is there anything the people who have issues with me are saying that are different from Rush Limbaugh? It's a great chance to talk politics with Rush.


The old whitey stuff is an analysis of the demographics of the election. If listening is a valuable skill that party needs to do listen to the demographics.  2012 should have easily gotten rid of Obama, I would be just fine with that, but the choices were clearly inferior to Obama and biased towards one group. I am not in that group. Many of you are and have been posting for months amongst yourselves. Look at the title Mitt or Newt, really the best the GOP could offer?


As to not properly educating kids, again that is just a generational thing I think. Maybe moral. Kids shouldn't go hungry in America. Best to have their parents care for them, even ideal to have a nation that provides an environment for work that sustains life.


I really don't want to have n argument with people about your stuff and that it's yours. If you don't have any sense by now that you promised yourselves more than you funded, I don't care. That is what the election said to you too.


Do 65 year olds care about unemployment, no, they want their retirement benefits and Medicare. Can we take away all MediCare right now, anyone? That will save trillions, is that agreeable, seniors? Welfare, you did not fund MediCare adequately. If it goes away you can take care of yourselves, just like the rest of us. You had your whole lives to make political and financial decisions to provide for your health. Why didn't you? Why are you counting on the government to pay your bills?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 09, 2012, 01:39:28 PM
I have no association with Sculpto


I'm not militant, just have an opinion different than you, and I am strong enough to have gotten there through reasoning it out. Is there anything the people who have issues with me that are different from Rush Limaugh?


As to not properly educating kids, again that is just a generational thing I think. Maybe moral. Kids shouldn't go hungry in America.

What is your age?

What is your occupation?

Are you a Berkley grad?

Come on, these are relatively simple questions!  As strong as your views are, I would think you don't mind giving us an answer to them.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pokerintherear on November 09, 2012, 01:48:33 PM
Here is a county by county map of election results. For the non US residents....... Red is Romney and Blue is Obama. This makes things look different.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on November 09, 2012, 01:53:42 PM
Are you a Berkley grad?

He could be a Berkley handwringer, but my best guess is Grambling or Norfolk State.
 
GOB
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 01:56:27 PM
That's almost he same map of states that take more federal funds than they give and states that give more federal funds than they take


The key


Red--takers
Blue--givers


Why do people post this map? To show the people who like the GOP live in remote, barren parts of the US with few major universities and industry pretty much in oil, coal, and agriculture.


I like the South, just not its history of bigotry.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 09, 2012, 01:56:57 PM

So they would choose a career politician with a less than satisfactory economic record to manage their money vs. a proven businessman who can grow a small amount of assets into something sizable.  OK!    It explains much, especially why our economy is where it is now with 51% of the people not as concerned about the direction.


Romney would say let businesses fend for themselves.. they will take care of whatever ail's them.  I have agreed with this in the past and still do today.  Problem is that in the aftermath of the financial crisis, business did not step up to the plate and instead waited for Govt to chip in.  By then the damage was done and the responsibility of repair handed over.  The interests of the Govt at that point rules.

I'll reflect a bit before addressing Bill.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 09, 2012, 01:59:03 PM
Here is a county by county map of election results. For the non US residents....... Red is Romney and Blue is Obama. This makes things look different.

The map also clearly shows population density.

Is the map not an example of democracy at work?... or do weeds, cows and ears of corn also have a vote?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 09, 2012, 02:05:46 PM

He could be a Berkley handwringer, but my best guess is Grambling or Norfolk State.
 
GOB

His bio indicates that he is in California that's why I wondered about Berkley, the bastion of socialism/liberalism.

He claims to come to his beliefs using reasoning.  Like many liberals, he must have no sense of history.  He is pissing on the boomer generation, yet it is the generation that made the US the greatest nation on earth.  How does he reconcile that?

His views on the boomers and SS is interesting.  He seems to forget (or not know) that it was the great liberal LBJ that took SS from the trust fund and transfered it to the General Fund so that it could be pissed away with government spending.  The 'Great Society' programs of LBJ is what got us the welfare state we now have.

Resistribution of the wealth has never worked to prop up the underachievers.  If they taxed the rich 100%, it would not produce enough money to meet the appetite for the liberal/socialist programs.  Only a very motivated, hard working middle class will restore us to greatness again.  When there is no requirement or motivation to work hard (welfare) we will not get out of this rut.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 02:09:21 PM

We need ecomic heroes, enough with the war heroes. Let them come home and work with the rest of us to heal this country so that being American will mean something special again.

The Republicans nominated an economic hero, a business specialist at turnarounds, with an admirable personal character regarding honesty and integrity.   51% of America did not want him.
 
I never hear viable proposals from the Democrats.  Today the President proposed as part of the fiscal cliff to keep the same tax measures for people earning less than than $250k pa.  That seems reasonable.  I believe the extra revenue from those earning over $250k will keep the government running for a couple of days.   In other words, the extra tax revenue is peanuts.  Its a start, but where were the President's words about cutting government spending?   The Democrat's history (and Republicans at times) raise taxes not to reduce the deficit but to support more spending.
 
More than that, where are the initiatives to deal with what is really wrong with America.   Here is a clear example of what's wrong (and no candidate talked about it).  For each engineer the US graduates, smaller South Korea graduates 17.  For each lawyer South Korea graduates, America graduates 40.  Which country is focused on wealth creation and which on wealth redistribution?   
 
Yes, America has problems but a President who is a career politician and a Congress composed mostly of lawyers is not going to fix it.   Do you recall your Biology 101?  Lag pase, growth phase, etc.?  If something is not growing, it is dying.  We need growth, not redistribution.
 


Quote
   
Also learn to say "thank you" and "please" as we pay for your entitlements you failed to fund, but you insist on receiving.   

"Thank you."    Again, those of us who worked paid more than we will ever receive.   Repeat,  those who worked paid more than we will ever receive.     (Hint:  Consider investment of those payments with compounded returns).
 
Maybe you should move and start your own country.  Us old dudes don't have that option; however, I am moving my money.  Completely legal, and not done to escape higher taxes.  Simply moving to emerging markets to obtain better returns than possible with American companies constrained by government initiatives.  You will now respond with something about unequal work conditions, etc.   Maybe your President will correct it.
 
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 02:11:22 PM
His bio indicates that he is in California that's why I wondered about Berkley, the bastion of socialism/liberalism.

He claims to come to his beliefs using reasoning.  Like many liberals, he must have no sense of history.  He is pissing the boomer generation, yet it is the generation that made the US the greatest nation on earth.  How does he reconcile that?

His views on the boomers and SS is interesting.  He seems to forget (or not know) that it was the great liberal LBJ that took SS from the trust fund and transfered it to the General Fund so that it could be pissed away with government spending.  The 'Great Society' programs of LBJ is what got us the welfare state we now have.

Resistribution of the wealth has never worked to prop up the underachievers.  If they taxed the rich 100%, it would not produce enough money to meet the appetite for the liberal/socialist programs.  Only a very motivated, hard working middile class will restore us to greatness again.  When there is no requirement or motivation to work hard (welfare) we will not get out of this rut.


It wasn't Boomers that made this the greatest nation, what parrotry.


Their parents built, fought, and died for what you call the greatest nation. The boomers were given a golden ticket by birth. A decimated Europe and Asia, institutionalized bigotry, birth control without AIDS......and a credit card, an unfunded credit card. Boomers created the debt. They voted for it, or failed o defeat the politicians that did.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 09, 2012, 02:19:12 PM

It wasn't Boomers that made this the greatest nation, what parrotry.


Their parents built, fought, and died for what you call the greatest nation. The boomers were given a golden ticket by birth. A decimated Europe and Asia, institutionalized bigotry, birth control without AIDS......and a credit card, an unfunded credit card. Boomers created the debt. They voted for it, or failed o defeat the politicians that did.

You have a very distorted view of history.  Please consult with your parents or grandparents.
Our nations achievements after WWII were a result of a hard working middle class, almost no welfare programs, and a balance between labor and business power.  We also had anti-trust laws that broke up monopolies and ensured competition.  We also used tarrifs to protect our industries.

What is your age?

What is your occupation?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 09, 2012, 02:27:22 PM
Guys there's like five of you stop asking me questions, you're old it's old. Listen to the results or don't. I don't care.


Gator, last budget surplus. Democratic president, Republican Congress. Tax rates were higher than they are now. The train wreck came in 2000. Republicans had it in their control and they screwed us all, including the elderly, although they comped you some unfunded drugs and a few nfunded war if you own oil and Halliburton stocks.


I resolved to stay away from this group of politics until after the election. There is nothing but bickering here, I do not care if you are unhappy, worried, or angry. The demographics voting in such harmony to overcome Boomers was amazing. I think it's funny that this group exists and I wonder how FSUW know about this attitude of their older suitors. In general. I wish compromise had been made available, but ou refused.




I know our history. Do you know hat a windfall is? Downhill running? Wind-assisted race? No Boomers died in WWII, not a one. They were our heroes, Boomers were present. Boomers were the hippies of the sixties, the Vietnam fiasco (both sides, what a horribly run war)


It has become a tedious exercise, I will stay out of politics here and contribute and enjoy posts about FSUW. Read the results. I'm not telling ou anything that isn't there.




Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pokerintherear on November 09, 2012, 02:33:06 PM
The map also clearly shows population density.

Is the map not an example of democracy at work?... or do weeds, cows and ears of corn also have a vote?

Your answer is in your question. When the financial system crashes to the ground (I.E. Greece) and it will. Who has all the assets for survival and to maintain the same lifestyle? Where will the inner city masses flock?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 09, 2012, 02:41:57 PM
Your answer is in your question. When the financial system crashes to the ground (I.E. Greece) and it will. Who has all the assets for survival and to maintain the same lifestyle? Where will the inner city masses flock?

Excellent point.  The masses will be flocking to rural areas trying to take what YOU have provided for your family (after looting the local stores).

That is why it is important for fiscal conservatives to transer their wealth into something of intrinsic value, or move it to a safe haven.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 02:44:44 PM


I know our history. Do you know hat a windfall is? Downhill running? Wind-assisted race? No Boomers died in WWII, not a one. They were our heroes, Boomers were present. Boomers were the hippies of the sixties, the Vietnam fiasco (both sides, what a horribly run war)
 

I like your passion, so keep going.  But please temper your thesis with consistent examples.   Vietnam was created by the same people who fought WWII.  And Vietnam did change remarkably the Boomers' sentiment about war, peace, prosperity, etc.   
 
Very few of us went though the days wasted.   I assert that there is much more drug us today that when I was in my 30s and 40s.   Maybe on Saturday evening while watching SNL we would smoke weed.   Almost all of us worked our ass off, just as strident as the dedicated young people do today.  That's a fact, so get off that horse.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 02:47:10 PM
Excellent point.  The masses will be flocking to rural areas trying to take what YOU have provided for your family (after looting the local stores).

That is why it is important for fiscal conservatives to transer their wealth into something of intrinsic value, or move it to a safe haven.

AK-47 assault rifles or whatever they are called have intrinsic value.   Where are you Ecocks?   I am a Republican and own only a 20 ga. shotgun (and haven't touched it in 5-7 years).
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on November 09, 2012, 02:50:24 PM

...
That is why it is important for [anyone who sees what is coming] to transfer their wealth into something of intrinsic value, or move it to a safe haven.
[size=78%]  [/size]


I chose to invest in Bullets.. and Rice..  so, when the looters head my way, there'll be plenty of fresh meat to go with the Rice..










Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 09, 2012, 02:51:31 PM

AK-47 assault rifles or whatever they are called have intrinsic value.   Where are you Ecocks?   I am a Republican and own only a 20 ga. shotgun (and haven't touched it in 5-7 years).

I hope it's a 5-7 shot auto.
You better oil it up, you want it to work when you need it.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: calmissile on November 09, 2012, 02:52:28 PM
[size=78%]  [/size]


I chose to invest in Bullets.. and Rice..  so, when the looters head my way, there'll be plenty of fresh meat to go with the Rice..

+1  Funny.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: LAman on November 09, 2012, 03:09:23 PM
This is what happens when men get emotional.............. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 09, 2012, 03:18:01 PM
Problem is that in the aftermath of the financial crisis, business did not step up to the plate and instead waited for Govt to chip in.  By then the damage was done and the responsibility of repair handed over.  The interests of the Govt at that point rules.


Quickly.  95% of the businesses kept working, business as usual. 
 
For those taking TARP, TARP was repaid.  What emerged?   Because of Dodd-Frank, the big banks no longer lend, instead taking QE money and buying treasuries. 
 
Ford did not take Fed money but got saddled with the same pro-union deal as GM and Chrysler ($6,000 cost per car just for unfunded pensions, something no other car company pays).  The Big Three will never be competitive.  They will die a slow death.  The next time maybe they will go through bankruptcy and a viable entity emerge.  However, the plan worked as it gave Ohio's electoral votes to Obama (in effect, us taxpayers paid for his reelection even though half of do not like the man).
 
 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 09, 2012, 03:41:17 PM

The Republicans nominated an economic hero, a business specialist at turnarounds, with an admirable personal character regarding honesty and integrity.   51% of America did not want him.
 
I never hear viable proposals from the Democrats.  Today the President proposed as part of the fiscal cliff to keep the same tax measures for people earning less than than $250k pa.  That seems reasonable.  I believe the extra revenue from those earning over $250k will keep the government running for a couple of days.   In other words, the extra tax revenue is peanuts.  Its a start, but where were the President's words about cutting government spending?   The Democrat's history (and Republicans at times) raise taxes not to reduce the deficit but to support more spending.
 
More than that, where are the initiatives to deal with what is really wrong with America.   Here is a clear example of what's wrong (and no candidate talked about it).  For each engineer the US graduates, smaller South Korea graduates 17.  For each lawyer South Korea graduates, America graduates 40.  Which country is focused on wealth creation and which on wealth redistribution?   
 
Yes, America has problems but a President who is a career politician and a Congress composed mostly of lawyers is not going to fix it.   Do you recall your Biology 101?  Lag pase, growth phase, etc.?  If something is not growing, it is dying.  We need growth, not redistribution.
 

 
"Thank you."    Again, those of us who worked paid more than we will ever receive.   Repeat,  those who worked paid more than we will ever receive.     (Hint:  Consider investment of those payments with compounded returns).
 
Maybe you should move and start your own country.  Us old dudes don't have that option; however, I am moving my money.  Completely legal, and not done to escape higher taxes.  Simply moving to emerging markets to obtain better returns than possible with American companies constrained by government initiatives.  You will now respond with something about unequal work conditions, etc.   Maybe your President will correct it.
Phil, this is an awesome post that really speaks the truth to any thinking person.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GoodOlBoy on November 09, 2012, 05:37:06 PM

I chose to invest in Bullets.. and Rice..  so, when the looters head my way, there'll be plenty of fresh meat to go with the Rice..

 :offtopic: 
Not necessarily directing this comment at you Daveman, but if there are any members of RWD who are seriously worried about the direction that the GoodOl' USA is heading towards, I would strongly encourage you to contact your local state militia (Google is your best friend).
 
Before anybody starts howling that these groups are nothing but a bunch of white guys running around with sheets on.... you couldn't be further from the truth.
 
Some may be your neighbors down the street.
 
Some of them are former "professional" soldiers/Marines.
 
Some members are even former Commissioned Officers.
 
Also, before anybody considers going out and buying a bunch of junk pistols and rifles to protect themselves and their families, I would suggest consulting with some professionals and getting several opinions on the matter before wasting your money.  ;D
 
GOB
 
PS... BTW, there are some excellent (well trained) militias in your neck of the woods Daveman.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pitbull on November 09, 2012, 05:40:35 PM

Throw in sexy and fond of heels and those are the kind of FSUW that attract me. The ones that focus on disposable income, not so much. (I think this is a concer for WM with or without money, except for those who truly think they are purchasing a bride)


Thanks pitbull we have disagreed in the past too, I am glad you can find ways to agree with people with whom you have had disagreements too. It is a great character quality, some of my best friendships and associates thrive in the ability to disagree well.


Something foreign to American polar politics, hopefully the death of a poor generational character found primarily in one party will result in results and not rhetoric.
Hmm... don't remember fighting with you, but whatever the disagreement was -  all is forgiven for your great posts in this thread  :-*
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Faux Pas on November 09, 2012, 09:26:36 PM
Quote
I was refraining from posting to you directly after our previous exchanges in the past didn't seem to offer me anything of value. However, I do not mind to try once again.

What in your opinion makes the 65 year old white man's station in life less valuable to him than the 26 year old black females station in life does to him? Who has offered and put up more (yes more of the negative political conditions also) bacon on the collective table? The 65 yr old white man or the 26 yr old black female wanting more?

It's hard to offer some thing to a man who has it all, especially knowledge. I do not recall past exchanges with you. Thanks for remembering me, I'll do better.


I guess it is just lost on you, age discrimination. Your generation has been voting for decades, a 26 year old inherited the politics and the debt of the Boomers. Your generation has a history of separation and conflict, how did all those marriages work out for Boomers--lot of divorces, a record.


If means testing a 65 year old SS check is offensive to you in principle, let's be practical kids need to eat and be educated. When Boomers were 26 they were given some good times, hiccups and difficulties, but often difficult times because of the inability to come together.


This mess isn't about work ethic. The country's economic engine is in serious jeopardy and all hands need to be part of the solution. Even older pale, or obnoxiously tanned ones.


We need ecomic heroes, enough with the war heroes. Let them come home and work with the rest of us to heal this country so that being American will mean something special again.  If you are old and disagree, four years from now you will either be older or gone. The message 2012 election gave is that the oldsters drove the car in the ditch in 2008, they lost their driving privileges. Please play nice with your grandkids in the back seat. Also learn to say "thank you" and "please" as we pay for your entitlements you failed to fund, but you insist on receiving. That's mine.


Obama is 51
Romney is 65
Bush is 65
McCain isn't he 80 or something

As I suspected. I asked you a very simple question of your opinion. You toss red herring freely I suspect for nothing more than avoidance. Dialogue with you is like nailing jello to a tree. One must accept that you are either incapable of any direct frank discourse or scared.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 09, 2012, 11:55:47 PM
Good equipment is going to be essential if you HOPE to survive the CHANGE ahead....

It could/might get so bad that these will come in handy someday for someone.

My gear stash these days includes:

.22's (7 rifles) in various configurations and magazine sizes ranging from a single-shot (or my grandson) to 30 rounds in an AK-style mag for my Ruger.

A solid .22 handgun (Browning Buckmark) and thinking about a couple more of the same model.

A 9mm pistol (and two 9mm carbines) along with the .40 caliber handguns I usually carried and practiced with regularly. Plenty of ammo and multiple mags for all of them.

A Mossberg 590 12-gauge with extended magazine (but I am looking more closely at their 20-gauge model and the #3 load). Yes, nothing says "I didn't hear you knock and ask for permission to enter my home." quite like racking a round in a pump shotgun. Although I do keep a round in the chamber on everything I own when I'm home.

An FN-AR PBR (Patrol Battle Rifle) in 7.62X51 (nice game round), 20 rd. mags, Nikon scope and some minor polish work on the feeds. Good for me out to 600m but I have a buddy who can use it reliably out to 700 without a problem. Heavy sucker though so I have some lighter rifles for moving around.

Just obtained a Ruger Scout Rifle in 7.62 but it's still in the box along with two SKS carbines (and a case of stripper clips).

Don't neglect your ammunition stocks! I have a share of my buddy's reloading bench capacity so the stocks are high for me/us. Plan accordingly.

I have a lot more which are for various purposes (hunting, concealment, back-up, collection, etc.) but these are the ones I consider primary and three of them are essential if it really came down to selections in a hurry with limited carrying capacity.

For now, they're all in storage back in the states. You never know, my plans might change again and moving back into the US may become necessary.

Living in countries without firearms rights is worrisome. The people are powerless against their governments and it shows in their stoicism and rationalized acceptance of poor/corrupt government. In talking to the average person over here they cannot understand why half of the USA doesn't want a le....lea...(gag)..."leadur" who promises to give more money, distribute food and not make you work so hard. More than a few are happy to see the US fall from the top tier. It's clear they largely cannot imagine a level playing field for all and have resigned themselves to living a notch or two above subsistence, taking a beach vacation once or twice a year and someday not having to work their jobs around the 25-odd holidays and 5 weeks of vacations they get each year.

Pay attention to good gear, get good advice (about your selections, ignore the idiots who want to tell you about why you don't need guns or the ability to defend yourself, family, others and property), practice regularly and be prepared. After all, you're a Boy Scout or Young Pioneer, aren't you?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: BC on November 10, 2012, 05:31:47 AM
Gator,

I mulled a bit over Bill Gate's comment you posted:

Quote
We  always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and  underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.  Don't let yourself be  lulled into inaction. - Bill Gates

I find it can be seen in both positive and negative light.

I therefore have no qualms with his statement whatsoever, but do tend to think the thought originated as a positive statement, something akin to working hard and keeping momentum going forward and not against you.

With that I'm going to bow out of this election thread and move on to other topics. 

The election is over.  Life is what it is and lets hope the short term negative political impacts are being overestimated and that we are all surprised with real changes in the long term.

Poka to this topic till sometime late in 2015...  It's been fun and enlightening.

Cheers all!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 10, 2012, 06:53:11 AM
Ed, why do you need so many guns? I do have a 9mm and a shotgun, thought that was enough? What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: GQBlues on November 10, 2012, 07:27:38 AM
...Ford did not take Fed money but got saddled with the same pro-union deal as GM and Chrysler ($6,000 cost per car just for unfunded pensions, something no other car company pays). The Big Three will never be competitive.  They will die a slow death.  The next time maybe they will go through bankruptcy and a viable entity emerge.  However, the plan worked as it gave Ohio's electoral votes to Obama (in effect, us taxpayers paid for his reelection even though half of do not like the man).

Not quite sure if you are up-to-date about this Union sweet-of-a-deal. When all was said and done and tax monies finally stopped spinning around, the US taxpayers parted with a doozy 1.3 billion dollars through the Chrysler deal which is now owned by Fiat, aka Fix It Again Tony. Repeat: CHRYSLER is no longer an AMERICAN OWNED CAR manufacturer.

Remember the hip *Imported From Detroit* Chrysler commercial touting their 200 & 300 sedan series not too long ago? LOL, bet you don't see it anymore, no? Well, Chrysler had to settle with a lawsuit after getting sued because the fact is, none of these cars were made in Detroit.

This is how stupid 51% of Americans today are. They get hosed with their money, then fed with bull*#!t, bought into the 'rescue' campaign slogan then re-elect the clown who orchestrated the money scheme to begin with.

I just bought a Ford not too long ago and one of the reason why I even considered Ford was mainly because they did not participated in that silly Union payback scheme. They took their lump, re-negotiated their Union contracts, paid off Gettlefinger, and moved on. At the present time, I couldn't be more happier with my Ford, product-wise and their customer service.

GM is a whole 'nother story altogether. If this is part of the reason why Ohio folks turned blue, then all I can say is this country is really screwed.

Peace out.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 10, 2012, 03:27:31 PM
Ed, why do you need so many guns? I do have a 9mm and a shotgun, thought that was enough? What are your thoughts?

Why do I "need" them? I don't.

I have them for several reasons.....

1. Guns are tools. Some tools work better for one purpose, others are better for another. Handguns are convenient for carry and concealed placement, carbines come in handy for movement in confined spaces, shotguns have a higher fear factor and can be useful for hunting fowl and other fast-moving, smaller-sized game while rifles give you a dramatically extended zone of control.

2. Calibers are good for different purposes as well. Some carry better (7.62X51), others spread more effectively (OO and #3 shot for instance), ballistic data indicates that .40's knock-down better than 9's and .22's (see below) are useful in a great many situations for small game, practice and low costs.

3. I have guns because I can. Some people have trains, others boats, some knit, I enjoy shooting as a hobby.

That heavy AR is good for the long, mid-range. A 7.62X51 is an excellent hunting round as well as giving a measure of control out to the 500m mark. I have a couple of pother rifles which are used for hunting but would not fall into my first choices for self-defense.

Carbines, particularly 9mm, are useful for closer-in defense of an area while giving you more range and allowing you to use pistol ammunition inventory. Personally, I also find them to be good options in case I have to equip friends.

When it came to a SD handgun, I read the ballistic data, considered it, then balanced magazine capacity against control and power when I decided to carry .40's as my main handgun caliber. I still keep a 9 in my inventory since there is so much 9 out there and you never know what you might have to scrounge if you lose the ability to reload and are forced to work from others stocks.

Shotguns, particularly pumps, are utilitarian, give you a lot of close-in punch and still allow you to have the capability to take fowl and several types of small game.

The .22's are wonderful for training, small game, excellent control (particularly for older folks who suffer joint pain) and still are the most lethal caliber for civilian deaths.

I picked up the SKS because it has a reputation for being simple, reliable and low cost. Another choice for equipping friends that might not be able to reach their own weapons which doesn't break my wallet.

Not a day goes by that I don't miss my guns, but life goes on. Looking around various countries I am convinced that reducing them or restricting the individual's ability to own and carry them is a step on the path to enslavement.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Miri22 on November 10, 2012, 04:30:46 PM
Yeah, but I'm fairly sure most people don't say "not a day goes by I miss my Lionel train set.." .. Nor do they advocate contacting your "local toy train militia"
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Eduard on November 10, 2012, 04:54:03 PM
Thanks Ed, I too enjoy target practicing and I can do it right in my yard, although lately have very little time to enjoy the sport.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 11, 2012, 01:34:25 AM
Yeah, but I'm fairly sure most people don't say "not a day goes by I miss my Lionel train set.." .. Nor do they advocate contacting your "local toy train militia"

Heh, I'm fairly sure they do when someone brings it up in a conversation and then questions are asked about types and styles, go figure.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 11, 2012, 01:40:59 AM
Thanks Ed, I too enjoy target practicing and I can do it right in my yard, although lately have very little time to enjoy the sport.

Make time to go to the range and get in some practice time. Just like you don't automatically learn English when you finally arrive in the US, you won't magically become a Special Operator just because people are shooting at you and you find a firearm laying on the ground. Practicing the mechanical workings, figuring out the sights, learning control and building endurance over time are key in developing your skills. Otherwise it's no different than if you have to learn to drive a car in 10 seconds when you have never done so before.

Get a couple of .22's and build some skill then work up your heavier weapons over time. Best of Luck!
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Anotherkiwi on November 11, 2012, 04:51:42 AM
...Looking around various countries I am convinced that reducing them or restricting the individual's ability to own and carry them is a step on the path to enslavement.

Ted, you would have to be one of the scariest characters I've ever encountered (and I can't imagine you being a pussy cat in real life  ;) ).  This thread is the first time that I can recall you listing your arsenal in such detail, and I'm SO glad that I don't live anywhere near you!
 
Fine, you have the right to bear arms, even if you and the rest of the pro-gun lobby have retained the twisted meaning that some lawyer ascribed to the Fourth (?) Amendment 100 or more years ago, but don't expect the rest of the world to buy into it.
 
"A step on the path to enslavement" is total bollocks.  I know that Azerbaijan is somewhere that you probably wish you had part of your collection with you, and I can sympathise with that, but please don't tar the rest of the world with the same brush.  My "on the way to enslavement" country had only 39 murders last year - for the whole country!  Of those, fewer than 10 were shot.
 
I do realise that our population of 4.5 million is only about the same as St Petersburg, and is far less than (for example) New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, but I'd be willing to bet your whole national debt (was it $22 trillion quoted in another thread?) that any of those four cities would love to have that small a proportion of its citizens lying in a morgue with large round holes in their bodies in places where no holes should be.
 
FWIW, I can actually use a gun, but there's no way I'm going to purchase one even though, like most people in New Zealand, I would pass the requirements needed to get a gun licence.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: ECOCKS on November 11, 2012, 08:18:48 AM

Ted, you would have to be one of the scariest characters I've ever encountered (and I can't imagine you being a pussy cat in real life  ;) ).  This thread is the first time that I can recall you listing your arsenal in such detail, and I'm SO glad that I don't live anywhere near you!
 
Fine, you have the right to bear arms, even if you and the rest of the pro-gun lobby have retained the twisted meaning that some lawyer ascribed to the Fourth (?) Amendment 100 or more years ago, but don't expect the rest of the world to buy into it.
 
"A step on the path to enslavement" is total bollocks.  I know that Azerbaijan is somewhere that you probably wish you had part of your collection with you, and I can sympathise with that, but please don't tar the rest of the world with the same brush.  My "on the way to enslavement" country had only 39 murders last year - for the whole country!  Of those, fewer than 10 were shot.
 
I do realise that our population of 4.5 million is only about the same as St Petersburg, and is far less than (for example) New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, but I'd be willing to bet your whole national debt (was it $22 trillion quoted in another thread?) that any of those four cities would love to have that small a proportion of its citizens lying in a morgue with large round holes in their bodies in places where no holes should be.
 
FWIW, I can actually use a gun, but there's no way I'm going to purchase one even though, like most people in New Zealand, I would pass the requirements needed to get a gun licence.

Zeke, Donk, Crocodile (you don't bother with my correct name so I won't bother with yours), you're entitled to your opinion(s) and beliefs, just as I am mine.

FWIW, I'm truly happy you found a place in the world you feel safe and certainly wish you the best. Like you, I am equally glad to live next door to and among like-minded individuals who understand their rights and responsibilities as American citizens and human beings. Oh BTW, it's the Second Amendment and it's clear to quite a few Americans, along with the US Supreme Court, that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with militias (read the decisions in Heller and McDonald before you spout off about something you're apparently clueless about).

The rest of the world can sit and worry themselves into a frenzy or wet their undies regularly as they worry about America's weapons, but really, they might be better served seeing to their own rights and privileges, food supplies and personal security along with various other side issues like their debt ratios, unemployment, government interference in their lives and the slowing of the world's technical development. "Bollocks to the bollocks-criers!" is one of the catch-phrases we might consider while living our lives these next few years.

I detailed a bit of my "arsenal" (not all of it by any means) because the subject came up and it's a kick-it-around sort of discussion. At least one member engaged and asked a reasonably intelligent question about it. If all you could think of after seeing that was that it scared you to think of living next door to someone who had those then I suggest you check and make sure I am not your neighbor when you buy your next house. Maybe you can somehow get your government to paint a marker symbol on houses with guns to prevent this from happening in your future (see, that's pussycat me, trying to help your world be a safer place!)?

Wow! Over 25% of your murders involve a firearm! That's shocking! So, 75% of the people who decide to commit murder don't let not having a gun stop them from killing someone...interesting information and useful for when I run into some wanker prattling about how dangerous firearms are in the hands of citizens. 

It's great that you could have a gun if you want to but chose not to do so! "A good man should know his limitations!" is another great phrase to keep in mind as a guide in life.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: pokerintherear on November 11, 2012, 09:10:03 AM
Ted, you would have to be one of the scariest characters I've ever encountered

Actually I see the scariest people in the world as men who hand all their freedoms to a government. Men who want to be controlled by a government. Men who would happily hand over more family money in the form of taxes and agree with it.

Inspiring is men who fight to keep their freedoms and rights knowing what they do with these rights is of principals and character. Not because of what a government says is right and wrong. The inspiring men don't abuse the freedom and rights.

Societies with large percentage of people with character and morals need very few man laws.

Now for your little history lesson. The US constitution was based on Christian principles. It was said by the founders it could not stand without Christian principles as the foundation. To apply this to the 2nd amendment........A gun in a good mans hand is not a danger to society.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 11, 2012, 09:32:37 AM

Poka to this topic till sometime late in 2015...  It's been fun and enlightening.



Yes, I believe enough has been said for now.  Let the dust settle and see what unfolds.
 
You say "2015."   It will again be lively in 2014 when the entire House is contested again.  There is a real fiscal battle ahead about taxes and spending.  The President and Senate want more taxes, especially from the wealthy.  The House wants more cuts in spending.  Here is the key:   Article I Section 7 of the Constitution states it very clearly and without ambiguity: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."  Conflict can not be avoided.
 
I very much doubt this President can structure a reasonable compromise.  Thus, the Republicans in the House who stand their ground as elected  will come under severe attack by the Democrats and be demonized by the liberal press/media. 
 
Meanwhile the Republicans will make some changes.   One alternative is for the GOP platform to remain conservative regarding fiscal policy and foreign policy yet adopt a more libertarian social agenda.  I would welcome that.
 
Also, the GOP must develop a closer relationship with the Latinos.  The work ethic of the Hispanics is similar to that of the GOP; however, it is difficult for Latinos to vote for GOP when they fear the GOP is intent on "deporting their grandmother."  In this regard, many will say keep your eye on Senator Marco Rubio (FL).    Rubio is a superb leader; however, Ted Cruz, the newly elected senator from Texas, may be even better.   
 
Another point.  How can control be taken from the Right Wing GOP during the primary process?
 
So we will see you again BC in 2014. 
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 11, 2012, 09:37:43 AM



Now for your little history lesson. The US constitution was based on Christian principles. It was said by the founders it could not stand without Christian principles as the foundation. To apply this to the 2nd amendment........A gun in a good mans hand is not a danger to society.



For clarification purposes to non-Americans (FSUW), and points of argument with uninformed Americans. Christ and Christians are not in the US Constitution, so the effort to steal/steel American constitional law for Christians is a long-standing fraud. The insertion of God into pledges and commerce is recent and most unfortunate. Any help from other nations harming the bigotry and fundamentalism of this group is welcome, I don't want any part of Merican fundamentalists.


That election was a slight hope that a majority coalitiion against fundamental Christans exists, this has just started. Please do not feed or play with our political crazies. The major core is dying, it is a generational ideology death, not just an age thing. As the younger Americans age, Ameican extremism will weaken.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 11, 2012, 09:43:59 AM

Another point.  How can control be taken from the Right Wing GOP during the primary process?
 
So we will see you again BC in 2014.


State and federal houses are gerrymandered, rigged by partisan corrupted hacks. Senate, governor, and presidential elections are more telling.


California now allows for a final election to have candidates from the same party. They are the top vote getters from the primary. This means that in SF, where there will always be a liberal, citizens will be able to choose between the type of liberal rather than the most crazy liberal that won the primary and the conservative who chose to run for political exposure.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Gator on November 11, 2012, 10:13:54 AM
That election was a slight hope that a majority coalitiion against fundamental Christans exists, this has just started. Please not feed or play with our political crazies. The major core is dying, it is a generational ideology death, not just an age thing. As the younger Americans age Ameican extremism will weaken.

I have no  religious belief, at least not enough to attend church.   If a Democrat has no religious belief, not only does he not attend church, he wants any mention of God and religion  silenced.   

Politics and religion in the same thread.  Yes, BC, I am out of here too.

Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: SFandEE on November 11, 2012, 10:42:26 AM
Politics and religion in the same thread.  Yes, BC, I am out of here too.


It would be nice if your party could take your same attitude towards this thread, in its' platform, leaders, and talking points. Unfortunately for fiscal conservatives who only favor unfunded spending for war and Boomer drug plans, separating from religion would be political death. Hopefully rather than continuing to lash out against the morality of others with political differences, your party will be honest about keeping government out of wallets, the bedrooms, the.churches (subsidizing/socialized religion), and personal life choices.


I agree about this thread having no value , if it ever did, but when I see posts trying to lie about Christ is fundamental to America that is a problem. The US Constitution is fundamental you and gun yielding people know this and should self correct when your allies mobilize differently. It is best for all of us, keep your crazies on the fringe please.
Title: Re: Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?
Post by: Daveman on November 11, 2012, 11:50:20 AM
The answer to the question has been given...


Can either of 'em beat him?  Nope...


So we'll let this Presidential Topic fade for four years..  ;D