GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3 - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:51 AM   #181
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post

Sure they made a big deal about Reverend Wright, which in turn caused Obama to quit that awful church. But what about Ayers, Rezko?

1. these were non-stories to anyone other than right wing conspiracy theorists
2. what do these have to do with your below point -- the economy?




Quote:
I will take Obama anyday on social issues; but economically this country is not better today than it was 4 years ago. .

this is demonstrably untrue. the economy collapsed in September of 2008. months before Obama took office.



you can make the argument that he should have done better, that his policies made the recession worse, etc. but it really can't be argued that we're not in a better place than we were in early 2009 when the economy was loosing more than a half-million jobs a month.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:43 PM   #182
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,220
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
1. these were non-stories to anyone other than right wing conspiracy theorists
2. what do these have to do with your below point -- the economy?
1. Precisely my point! And that's the scary part. Other than a blip from Bill O'Reilly and maybe George Stephanopoulos, these "conspiracy theories" went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media. Why? Bill Ayers is not a good guy....why was this not an issue for the mainstream? At best, Obama displayed bad judgement in picking his friends or associations. I won't go the other way.

2. They don't. Entirely separate issue which stands on its own. But back to my original point (where were these journalists in 2008 when Obama was running?), when the economy is on the verge of collapse and all indicators seem to be pointing towards that...why give the keys to kingdom to someone we know very little about? Makes absolutely no sense to me...









Quote:
this is demonstrably untrue. the economy collapsed in September of 2008. months before Obama took office.



you can make the argument that he should have done better, that his policies made the recession worse, etc. but it really can't be argued that we're not in a better place than we were in early 2009 when the economy was loosing more than a half-million jobs a month.
True, which backs up my point even more. The economy collapsed before he took office. We knew very little about Obama, why did we trust him to fix everything?

One could make the argument that Obama could have done better, though i'm not completely sure he didn't stave off a depression either. But the facts are, 3 YEARS later Obama OWNS this economy. He OWNS the high unemployment. It was on HIS watch that Wall Street crooks received big bonuses while millions remained unemployed, underemployed, and hundreds of thousands more took to the streets in protest. The onus falls upon Obama now to demonstrate why we would be better off giving him another 4 years given his performance over the last 3. He needs to make that case to me and everyone else. Im an Independent, btw, but i'm certainly aware and affected by the awful economy in my line of work.

Democrats are always quick to point out the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, the 99% and the 1%, and how that gap has grown and how much the middle class has shrunk over this last couple of years. They are also quick to put the blame on Republicans and Bush. Bottom line, the Democrats were in control of Congress from 2006 - 2010, and control of the White House from 2009 -present. So which is it?
__________________

__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 05:11 PM   #183
The Fly
 
Achtung11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 252
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trojanchick99 View Post
Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian. He is anti-choice and is for DOMA.
Being "anti-choice" means being "anti-death". True libertarians are not pro-death. You're saying that a fetus is not a human life, which is a whole different argument. Atleast Paul is consistent with his pro-life principles, in that he's against the death penalty as well.
__________________
Achtung11 is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 05:17 PM   #184
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:52 PM
if there was a Libertarian primary,
Paul would win hands down !

pro-choice, governmnet funded abortions is not libertarian at all
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 05:33 PM   #185
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
One could make the argument that Obama could have done better, though i'm not completely sure he didn't stave off a depression either. But the facts are, 3 YEARS later Obama OWNS this economy. He OWNS the high unemployment. It was on HIS watch that Wall Street crooks received big bonuses while millions remained unemployed, underemployed, and hundreds of thousands more took to the streets in protest. The onus falls upon Obama now to demonstrate why we would be better off giving him another 4 years given his performance over the last 3. He needs to make that case to me and everyone else. Im an Independent, btw, but i'm certainly aware and affected by the awful economy in my line of work.

Democrats are always quick to point out the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, the 99% and the 1%, and how that gap has grown and how much the middle class has shrunk over this last couple of years. They are also quick to put the blame on Republicans and Bush. Bottom line, the Democrats were in control of Congress from 2006 - 2010, and control of the White House from 2009 -present. So which is it?
The statistics seem to bear you out.

Under Obama, corporate profits have increased:



and Wall Street has grown dramatically wealthier while ordinary citizens struggle with, at best, stagnant wages:





Guest Post: 2012 - The Year Of Living Dangerously | ZeroHedge
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 05:46 PM   #186
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Ha ha, what a train wreck of a party. I can't take any one of them seriously.

The GOP had it made, Obama's had a bumpy first term and everyone is distrusting of the system; this should have been a breeze. But this is the bunch they gave us? This is your party? What a joke...
Huntsman and Romney have policies broadly similar to those of centrist Democrats, so if you're including them in the trainwreck jibe, you have to call the Dems a trainwreck too! Romney cannot be blamed for having to debate with weirdoes, do you expect him to ignore them?

Paul is an excellent candidate in my view. He is getting the anti-war message into the public domain in a way no Democrat did in 2008, with the possible exception of Kucinch, who never gained any traction.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 05:48 PM   #187
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:52 PM
I hope Fox is not paying Huckabee too much for his brilliant stating of the obvious


Quote:
Fox News contributor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says that current Republican front-runner Mitt Romney may run the table to the GOP presidential nomination with early wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida this month, following his close Iowa caucus win last week.

“[Romney] could be well be on his way to running the tables in the first several states and if that happens, it’s going to be very difficult to catch up to him,” Huckabee told me this morning on “This Week.”

“I think depending on whether Romney wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, if he should win those two, go to Florida and win there, there may be some folks who limp along for a while,” Huckabee added. “I don’t see how they catch up with him if he runs the table in those early states.”
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 08:38 PM   #188
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
1. Precisely my point! And that's the scary part. Other than a blip from Bill O'Reilly and maybe George Stephanopoulos, these "conspiracy theories" went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media. Why? Bill Ayers is not a good guy....why was this not an issue for the mainstream? At best, Obama displayed bad judgement in picking his friends or associations. I won't go the other way.

2. They don't. Entirely separate issue which stands on its own. But back to my original point (where were these journalists in 2008 when Obama was running?), when the economy is on the verge of collapse and all indicators seem to be pointing towards that...why give the keys to kingdom to someone we know very little about? Makes absolutely no sense to me...

i'm not sure i understand. Obama knew Bill Ayers. that's about it. you're beef seems to be the economy, and that we knew nothing about him, yet the questions you've brought up have absolutely no bearing on the economy. and they did not go unnoticed by the mainstream media. further, if something was there, i'm sure that the GOP opposition research teams would have certainly let us know.

as for the "keys to the kingdom," it was give them to Obama or give them to a 72 year old man who thought that Sarah Palin was the most qualified person to take over the presidency should something happen to him.

elections are choices. do you honestly think we'd be better off today with McCain/Palin in charge?



Quote:
True, which backs up my point even more. The economy collapsed before he took office. We knew very little about Obama, why did we trust him to fix everything?
because he made a more convincing case than did John McCain.


Quote:
But the facts are, 3 YEARS later Obama OWNS this economy. He OWNS the high unemployment. It was on HIS watch that Wall Street crooks received big bonuses while millions remained unemployed, underemployed, and hundreds of thousands more took to the streets in protest.
but he didn't create the conditions that led to the disaster of September 2008, he inherited them. yes, he's had time to work on it, and yes, he certainly owns a great deal of where we are now, but we can't have amnesia about what happened before January of 2009.

i agree with you about Wall Street. these are systemic issues and a problem with politics in general, and the fact that Obama is beholden to Wall Street. he is. i agree. that's where a lot of his money came from in 2008. usually, Wall Street money goes more Republican than Democrat. but Sarah Palin was so culturally foreign and so blatantly uninformed that McCain became unacceptable. hence, they bought Obama.

i never expected Obama to be anything more than a politician. i had hoped he'd be better, that his being a post-boomer and without the Clinton baggage would help the country move forward. i underestimated the amount of fear a massive recession can stoke fear.


Quote:
The onus falls upon Obama now to demonstrate why we would be better off giving him another 4 years given his performance over the last 3. He needs to make that case to me and everyone else. Im an Independent, btw, but i'm certainly aware and affected by the awful economy in my line of work.
which is what his job is over the next 11 months, and that chart i posted will be showcase #1. when he took over we were bleeding jobs. now we are adding them. the unemployment rate has slowly but surely gone down. massive problems remain. the choice is up to you.




Quote:
Democrats are always quick to point out the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, the 99% and the 1%, and how that gap has grown and how much the middle class has shrunk over this last couple of years. They are also quick to put the blame on Republicans and Bush. Bottom line, the Democrats were in control of Congress from 2006 - 2010, and control of the White House from 2009 -present. So which is it?

in my opinion, it goes back to Reagan, and you'll note that there's only one party that is beholden to a no-tax pledge. but i don't think there's a simple answer here.

the question posed by the election is who you think will do a better job managing the economy (not to mention foreign policy!) from 2012-2016: Obama or (likely) Romney.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:24 PM   #189
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy

Huntsman and Romney have policies broadly similar to those of centrist Democrats, so if you're including them in the trainwreck jibe, you have to call the Dems a trainwreck too! Romney cannot be blamed for having to debate with weirdoes, do you expect him to ignore them?
But that's not really what I'm talking about. Both parties have their bat shit crazy members, but I can't find one single candidate that I can take seriously on the GOP side. Romney starts to lose me when he has to turn his back on his own policies in order to appease his base. He's constantly have to pretend who he is in order to pretend he's an extreme right conservative.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:30 PM   #190
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,220
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i'm not sure i understand. Obama knew Bill Ayers. that's about it.
You seem very certain of this. Like i said, at best he displayed bad judgement in picking his friends or associations. I will leave it at that.

Quote:
you're beef seems to be the economy, and that we knew nothing about him, yet the questions you've brought up have absolutely no bearing on the economy.
I believe i mentioned the economy several times

Quote:
and they did not go unnoticed by the mainstream media. further, if something was there, i'm sure that the GOP opposition research teams would have certainly let us know.
You mean like on CNN, or MSNBC - where Chris Matthews got that tingly feeling up his leg?

Quote:
as for the "keys to the kingdom," it was give them to Obama or give them to a 72 year old man who thought that Sarah Palin was the most qualified person to take over the presidency should something happen to him.

elections are choices. do you honestly think we'd be better off today with McCain/Palin in charge?

because he made a more convincing case than did John McCain.

but he didn't create the conditions that led to the disaster of September 2008, he inherited them. yes, he's had time to work on it, and yes, he certainly owns a great deal of where we are now, but we can't have amnesia about what happened before January of 2009.
No, essentially we're probably screwed either way. The economic collapse was coming regardless who was elected...that's plain to see. The collapse would have still happened even if Kerry had beat Bush in 2004. My point was, given what little we knew about Obama, why the hell did we elect him in such dire times? Its a point, a valid question. Same could be said for the GOP, why did they put McCain up as their nominee? And Palin, wtf?



Quote:
i agree with you about Wall Street. these are systemic issues and a problem with politics in general, and the fact that Obama is beholden to Wall Street. he is. i agree. that's where a lot of his money came from in 2008. usually, Wall Street money goes more Republican than Democrat. but Sarah Palin was so culturally foreign and so blatantly uninformed that McCain became unacceptable. hence, they bought Obama.

i never expected Obama to be anything more than a politician. i had hoped he'd be better, that his being a post-boomer and without the Clinton baggage would help the country move forward. i underestimated the amount of fear a massive recession can stoke fear.
I believe you are right about Palin. McCain rolled the dice on her and she turned out to be a bust....YET so many of the wingnuts and teabaggers absolutely adore her. Why i have no idea...




Quote:
which is what his job is over the next 11 months, and that chart i posted will be showcase #1. when he took over we were bleeding jobs. now we are adding them. the unemployment rate has slowly but surely gone down. massive problems remain. the choice is up to you.

S L O W L Y adding jobs. IM sure that will somehow be spun into a massive improvement. Meanwhile the rich get richer, continue to hoard their fortunes, and for the most part aren't really hiring anyone. Unemployment is down probably because many people gave up and quit looking for work or are no longer collecting unemployment compensation. Housing prices continue to decline, while the cost of everything else like gas, groceries, insurance, are all going up. Speaking of gas prices, wasn't 2011 a record setting year for gas prices? Still Bush's fault? Im pretty sure that was the media spin back in 2003-2006.







Quote:
in my opinion, it goes back to Reagan, and you'll note that there's only one party that is beholden to a no-tax pledge. but i don't think there's a simple answer here.
agreed

Quote:
the question posed by the election is who you think will do a better job managing the economy (not to mention foreign policy!) from 2012-2016: Obama or (likely) Romney.
The first part of that is a bit tricky. I give Obama props for ending the war in Iraq and killing Osama Bin Laden. The entire middle east is a powder keg though, and one has to wonder if Israel feels like they are isolated or if we have their back. So, do we? Or better yet, should we? Iran with nukes is a real possibility, and their posturing in the straight of Hormuz is very troubling. Now that troops have pulled out of Iraq we are seeing the double edged sword, violent uptick in the country and possible Iranian influence.

For the record, i admit going into Iraq was a mistake, thought there weren't any easy answers or solutions there with that mess. Other than leave it be, turn our back, etc. Different topic for a different day i suppose...

The second part of your question, who do i think would do a better job managing the economy? Id give the edge to Romney. He's got the pedigree to back that up, which is something we know, vastly different to 2008 when we had an unknown commodity in Obama. Also, the obstructionist GOP controlled Congress isn't going to give Obama an inch of victory anyway, unlike Romney. Just my thoughts, hopefully well stated, in my odd round about way.

On social issues i would still take Obama. And if it were Obama versus one of the wingnut candidates i would vote Obama w/o question. Versus Romney though its a different story i think. I dont think theres a perfect one out there.

Cheers
__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:41 PM   #191
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,220
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But that's not really what I'm talking about. Both parties have their bat shit crazy members, but I can't find one single candidate that I can take seriously on the GOP side. Romney starts to lose me when he has to turn his back on his own policies in order to appease his base. He's constantly have to pretend who he is in order to pretend he's an extreme right conservative.
The GOP base has a bunch of wingnut extremists, so naturally Romney will have to move right of center and perhaps shadow into cuckoo land to appease the whack-jobs. As McCain did.

It should be noted though, Obama has come to the center on occasion since he's been in office. He's pissed off the left of center folks by by compromising with the GOP, which is something the President will ultimately have to do with the other party. Whomever is elected or re-elected this year will have to be the President of the 100%, not the 99% or the 1%.
__________________
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:44 PM   #192
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Compromise is a sign of a serious candidate. Catering to nut jobs is not...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-08-2012, 10:17 PM   #193
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,443
Local Time: 10:52 PM
We'd all be much better off if somebody just took a sledgehammer to both parties.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 10:22 PM   #194
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase
We'd all be much better off if somebody just took a sledgehammer to both parties.
Agreed
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-08-2012, 11:41 PM   #195
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
S L O W L Y adding jobs. IM sure that will somehow be spun into a massive improvement.
Well, Rome wasn't built in a day. I know that's not what people who are desperate for work want to hear, but it is going to take us a while to get out of this mess, 'cause it's a pretty big one.

I'd also add that we might be able to make faster progress if everyone in the country was willing to make sacrifices and work together. But when you've got people arguing and pointing fingers every which way, that's not likely to happen.

And people have to humble themselves. I know working at a fast food restaurant may not be your dream job, but hell, it's better than nothing and would pay at least some of the bills, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Meanwhile the rich get richer, continue to hoard their fortunes
No argument there. The parties should be fighting this, but how can they when they're all in the pockets of the rich? And remember, daring to suggest that the rich have more than enough of their share is evil socialist commie talk in some people's eyes.

As for Bill Ayers, unless he's hanging with Obama at the White House every weekend, I don't see why that's anything worth mentioning. They haven't been spotted together recently or anything like that, so...I don't really see the issue. And most people my age and younger likely don't even have any clue who the hell Bill Ayers is. He holds no relevance to young people's current concerns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
We'd all be much better off if somebody just took a sledgehammer to both parties.
I think this is something that, for once, practically everyone in the country might miraculously agree on.
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
 

Tags
gop, republican

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com