Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
ByronLord
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 6:57:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 716
Location: Massachusetts, United States
sprite wrote:
there's a perverse part of me that hopes Romney wins, so that i can, i 2 years time, tell y'all 'i told you so'. :)


What makes you think that they would remember the promises made or recognize the fact that they have been broken - apart from the one about even bigger tax cuts for Mitt. And they will probably increase the military budget but only to start a war with Iran.

I don't get how starting a pointless war and sending US soldiers off to fight it is 'supporting the military'. The expected result of an invasion of Iraq was the death of between 1% and 2% of the Iraqi population and the rise of Iran as the regional power. And that is exactly what happened.

The Bushies were so dim that the guy that they accepted the bogus WMD intel from and were planning to make President of Iraq was identified as an Iranian agent back in the mid 1990s. The US dropped Chalabai after the NSA accused him of telling the Iranians that their diplomatic cipher had been broken after one of the Bushies had stupidly told Chalabai information obtained from the diplomatic channel.

The last GOP adventure made Iran the regional superpower. Under Obama the Iranian religious authorities have been the least secure that they have been since the revolution. The green movement of 2009 was entirely the product of the local Iranian opposition and came rather closer to toppling the regime than many imagine. But it was only possible because Obama refused to help the religious authorities with the usual idiot chest thumping rhetoric of the sort Romney gave in the third debate.

Right now the Iranian regime is under the most crushing sanctions ever. Their currency has fallen by 80%. There is a very real prospect of regime change if the current policy is carried out to completion. But if Romney gets in then it will be a bay of pigs type approach and the US will lose because every country rallies round the flag when attacked and the mullahs are more willing to lose a million lives than the US is willing to lose ten thousand over that cause.

Worst case under Obama is that you get another four years like the last. Most likely case under Romney is you get another four years like W. Bush.

Best case under Romney is you get four years like the last four.

Ruthie
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 8:44:07 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,176
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
there's a perverse part of me that hopes Romney wins, so that i can, i 2 years time, tell y'all 'i told you so'. :)


I've had this thought too, but like LadyX I don't have a trust fund. The Romney/Ryan tax plan would increase taxes on most of us, especially on the poor and middle class. Only the rich will get the cuts he's promised. Funding for programs for the poor would be cut, Medicaid and SNAP and TARP programs which are used by poor families, especially young, poor single mothers. The worst part of the austerity that Romney and Ryan propose would fall directly on the poor, especially women and minorities. Programs meant to help the working poor, like the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit would be cut out.






Green_Man
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 8:50:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/9/2012
Posts: 1,003
Location: A verdant glen, United States
Of course the can, but should they? They are both misogynists of the first order.

tazznjazz
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:21:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
The real scary part isn't Romney, It's Ryan a heartbeat away from the presidency.confused5
angieseroticpen
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 5:58:21 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 594
Location: United Kingdom
Abbey wrote:
Women wake up! Romney and Ryan's positions are clear if only you look at their behavior and not what they are saying to get elected.

In 1983, Romney pres­sured a woman to ignore her doctors’ advice to terminate her pregnancy after she suffered a life-threatening complication – and another woman claims Romney tried to bully her into giving her son up for adoption by threatening her with excommunication from the Mormon Church.

Incredibly, when he was running for public office in the ’90s, Romney presented himself as a pro-choice candidate. These days, he says he believes abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in jeopardy.

BUT as a bishop in the Mormon Church in the 1980s, Romney’s views were far more rigid and coldhearted, Carrel Hilton Sheldon revealed, a woman who was a member of his “ward” (congregation).

In 1983, Carrel, already a mother of four, was in her eighth week of pregnancy when she de­veloped a potentially lethal blood clot. She was given an overdose of the blood thin­ner Heparin, which caused severe internal bleeding and extensive damage to her kidneys. On the verge of needing a transplant, doctors recommended she terminate the pregnancy to save her life.

Carrel’s husband, Garret Sheldon, says that as his wife lay in her hospital bed with her life “in peril,” Romney visited repeatedly to badger her into carrying the child to term.

Romney’s behavior prompted his church superior, Harvard-trained physician Dr. Gordon Williams, to intercede.

“Even HE believed my wife should terminate her pregnancy!” recalled Garret. “He said to Mitt, ‘Hey, this is threatening her life – back down!’”

Carrel later told about the devastating experience, recalling that Romney heart­lessly told her: “As your bishop, my concern is with the child.”

Author Ron Scott also wrote about the incident in his book “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics.” Scott says that after Romney was unable to persuade Carrel to continue her pregnancy, he went to her parents’ house to make his case.



“I have never been so up­set about anything in my life,” Phil Hilton, Carrel’s father, told Scott, adding that he ordered the young bishop out of his home and was prepared to “throw (Romney) off the porch if he paused for even a sec­ond.”

In another case the following year, Peggie Hayes had a run-in with Romney that changed the way she viewed both him and the Mormon Church forever.

A former baby sitter for Mitt and Ann Romney’s five sons, the now- 52-year-old woman says the GOP candidate had been a father figure and mentor to her during her teen years.

“The relationship we had de­veloped made me feel that I could always rely on him during times of adversity. I grew to trust that Mitt would always be there to support me through the toughest of times.”

But that all changed in 1984, when Peggie says the young bishop com­pletely shattered what she’d always believed was an “unbreakable bond” between them.

At the age of 24, Peggie – who was divorced and raising a 3-year-old daughter alone – learned she was pregnant again. Unwed and scared, she leaned on Mitt and Ann for mor­al support.

But shortly after the birth of her son, Dane, Romney visited Peggie at her home and told her that, because she was raising the new­born without the help of his biological father, the church expected her to give up the baby “so that he could be adopted by a Mormon couple in ‘good stand­ing.’ ”

“And if I chose not to give my son up for adoption,” Peggie continued, “Mitt essentially threatened me by saying I would be excommunicated by the church.”

Peggie refused to give up her son, who’s now an electrician living in Salt Lake City. And although she wasn’t excommunicated, she never saw or spoke to Romney again.

“His staunch conservative actions proved to me that his loyalty to the Mormon Church will always take precedence over innocent people’s lives,” she declared.

This is the real man who would be President.



Thanks for this insight Abbey. Having personally known someone who 'escaped' Mormonism when she left home, and, having read the Book of Morman for myself, I can tell you to beware of these people. I am not against people having belief's and will defend anybody's right to have them but I am always wary of those who beliefs are extreme. Sooner or later their 'indocrination' clicks in and takes over. This man is being considered a potential economic savoiur for the USA. He may well be a good businessman and have economic policy ideas that are appealing but this man will also be Commander In Chief of the American military machine. If his beliefs mean he cannot have compassion on a single Mom struggling to bring up her children how will he be when confronted with an international crisis? Will he send in the Marines if the colour of their skin doesn't fit!

“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
tazznjazz
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:16:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
JessicaX
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:46:10 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 6/6/2011
Posts: 389
Location: Minneapolis, United States
sprite wrote:
there's a perverse part of me that hopes Romney wins, so that i can, i 2 years time, tell y'all 'i told you so'. :)

I can certainly understand your feelings Sprite. The frustrating thing to me in that scenario is that now that the President has the economy starting to rebound, Romney will get the credit for fixing everything. Similar to Reagan getting credit for freeing the hostages minutes after he was sworn into office.

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 8:01:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
So you're saying after he's blamed W. for all the economic woes during his own Presidency, now Pres. Obama will now get credit for any economic advancement in a Romney presidency? Now THAT is the American way! It's always someone else's fault when shit is bad and never someone else's fortune when shit is good. You've just defined the entire two party system.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:02:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
Cock punch.

I don't agree but this is still funny.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:50:30 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:
So you're saying after he's blamed W. for all the economic woes during his own Presidency, now Pres. Obama will now get credit for any economic advancement in a Romney presidency? Now THAT is the American way! It's always someone else's fault when shit is bad and never someone else's fortune when shit is good. You've just defined the entire two party system.


I agree that the blame and credit are always handed out in accordance with partisanship, but there's no denying that recoveries and downturns don't happen instantaneously, or in reaction to real-time events. We can't simply tack current conditions and actions onto the current president and call it a correct analysis, regardless of which party you pull for. But of course, that won't stop the benefiting side from claiming credit, or likewise.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:03:47 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 3,762
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
LadyX wrote:


I agree that the blame and credit are always handed out in accordance with partisanship, but there's no denying that recoveries and downturns don't happen instantaneously, or in reaction to real-time events. We can't simply tack current conditions and actions onto the current president and call it a correct analysis, regardless of which party you pull for. But of course, that won't stop the benefiting side from claiming credit, or likewise.


This is true. As far as Obama blaming Dubya, it isn't just a charade. Bush's policies were grossly irresponsible and he stood back and did nothing while the banking industry and housing market went crazy. Interest only loans and many other foolish practices were allowed that cost our economy trillions. It's hardly surprising it's taken four years to reverse the damage.

My prediction is that when push comes to shove, Americans will remember this and Obama wins in a landslide.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/cheating/a-trans-atlantic-affair.aspx
principessa
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:30:53 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,914
Location: Canada
Milik_The_Red wrote:


This is true. As far as Obama blaming Dubya, it isn't just a charade. Bush's policies were grossly irresponsible and he stood back and did nothing while the banking industry and housing market went crazy. Interest only loans and many other foolish practices were allowed that cost our economy trillions. It's hardly surprising it's taken four years to reverse the damage.

My prediction is that when push comes to shove, Americans will remember this and Obama wins in a landslide.


From your mouth to God's ears, and this might prove the GOP does not have a monopoly on God.

Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:12:22 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,477
I could never vote for a man that reported an income of 22 million in 2011 and paid less income tax than 97% of real working Americans....he certainly ain't one of us now is he? Obama wins. Romney loses.
Green_Man
Posted: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:03:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/9/2012
Posts: 1,003
Location: A verdant glen, United States
After their asshole acts the last week or so, not a chance.

principessa
Posted: Friday, November 02, 2012 8:18:38 AM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,914
Location: Canada
From The New Yorker: (I thought we could all use a laugh.)


ROMNEY SAYS HE FAVORS ABORTION IN CASES WHERE IT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE FOR HIM
Posted by Andy Borowitz


KETTERING, Ohio (The Borowitz Report)—Hitting the campaign trail one day after the arrival of Superstorm Sandy, Republican nominee Mitt Romney tweaked his position on abortion today, saying he now supports it in cases where it makes people vote for him.

“I would make an exception for abortion in cases where the life of my campaign is at stake,” he told a crowd in Kettering, Ohio.

Sandy, which slammed into the East Coast last night, was such a powerful weather system that it prevented Mr. Romney from changing his position on abortion for twenty-four hours.

“It was important for Mitt to come up with a new position on abortion today,” said his campaign manager, Matt Rhoades. “It sends a message to the American people that in the aftermath of Sandy, things are getting back to normal.”

Mr. Romney made no reference to his comments about eliminating FEMA, which have been declared a disaster area.



ROMNEY: “SEEING HIM WITH CHRIS CHRISTIE IS TEARING ME APART”
Posted by Andy Borowitz


DES MOINES (The Borowitz Report)—A new Mitt Romney is emerging in the closing days of the campaign, aides say: a man who is increasingly “being eaten alive with jealousy” by President Obama’s budding relationship with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

While Mr. Romney has told reporters that he is “totally fine” with Gov. Christie flying around in a helicopter with President Obama, privately he has told aides, “Seeing him with Chris Christie is tearing me apart.”

The trouble began earlier this week, a Romney aide said, when Mr. Romney saw Mr. Christie on CNN mention that President Obama “had given him his number at the White House.”

“Mitt was like, ‘Fine, whatever, do we have to watch this?’ and then basically ran out of the room,” the aide said. “It was completely awkward.”

Making matters worse, the aide said, “Chris Christie isn’t returning his calls.”

“Mitt was trying to explain his position on FEMA to reporters yesterday and he got all excited because his phone started vibrating,” the aide said. “It turned out it was just Ann.”

Mr. Romney, who has been seen doodling Chris Christie’s name in the margins of his briefing books in recent days, has apparently decided on a new course of action: to make the New Jersey governor jealous.

“He’s been calling [New York Governor Andrew] Cuomo,” the aide said. “But Cuomo won’t call him back either. It’s all so sad.”



tazznjazz
Posted: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:17:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
A fair look at both candidates without the usual hysteria.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MXOr3KELqE&feature=player_detailpage
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 10:32:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,548
Location: California
Grizzleebare wrote:



This is to funny now just to be up front I edited a little out of Krugman's rant because it was mildly irrelevant non the less Krugman actualy MAKES THE CASE for Romney/Ryan, to damn funny! Obama's so called (jobs act) sent OUR TAX DOLLORS to Findland to a company called Fiskers that was (supposed) to build a plant in an empty Gm facility but backed out yet (kept) our stimulas money. Then there are these. As President Obama the “outsourcer-in-chief” based on the stimulus spending for foreign projects. “Among them are solar panels built in Mexico, electric delivery trucks assembled in Great Britain and parts used to build U.S. wind-power farms that came from South Korea, Japan and Mexico, not to mention companies in Veitnam, India, Italy, Spain, France and at least a half dozen other countries. Not to mention his (speculating) into (venture capitalisum) which by the way is what Bains Capital does but OBAMA gave (OUR MONEY) to THREE companies to cronies that (contributed large sums to his campain) that went BANCRUOPT with OUR MONEY! Bains money was THEIR MONEY not OURS! A BIG MEGA-DIFFERANCE! That said OBAMA spent over $10,000.00 bucks (EACH) just for SIGNS to put up at any (street) improvement in any city let alone any other project somply saying (American reinvestment act project). MILLIONS for fucking SIGNS! Back to Krugman YES reducing spending LOWERING and ELIMINATING THE DEBT gives the U.S. MORE SPENDING POWER on the social programs that the socialist like Krugman LOVE and Americans have come to (DEPEND ON) DUH! If A TRILLION DOLLORS A YEAR is spent ON INTEREST ALONE (OBVIOUSLY) raising our DEBT and bringing us ever closer to COMPLET and TOTAL DEFAULT (bancruptcy) when we can NO LONGER send out a check for S.S. pay for Medicare, or Retirment benifits for Gov. workers, pay for our soldiers or (working Govt. workers) then HOW THE HELL does SPENDING MORE TAX MONEY (Our MONEY) taking us FARTHER IN DEBT. make ONE DAMN BIT OF SENSE? That is like saying when YOU are in default on your mortgage and out of work then you go out and buy a two hundred dollar pair of shoes a five hundred dollar suite and a fifty dollar tie and saying it is an (investment) to get a job even though you (already) own nine suits, six pairs of shoes and two dozen ties. Krugman simplfies the Republican agenda as (spending cuts) there is MUCH MUCH more to it then that but THAT is a differnt topic then Krugmans artical. Obama wants to (sustain PUBLIC) spending what he is REALLY saying is Obama wants to (sustain) GOVT. JOBS fine then the (question is simple) WERE does the MONEY to (sustain public spending) and those jobs come from? OUR TAX MONEY! Which in turn ADDS TO THE DEBT and is money we have to BORROW from CHINA to pay them! Which ADDS to the INTEREST that brings us even CLOSER TO BANCRUPTCY! So Romney and Ryan say that there are (REDUNDANT) and (IRRISPONSABLE) govt programs with yes (Govt workers) that can be and SHOULD BE eliminated thus bringing (DOWN) our spending and REDUCING the amount we have to (borrow) reducing our (interest) and getting us closer to spending ONLY what the Govt takes in from Tax money. Which then gives US MORE money to pay for the SOCIAL PROGRAMS the LEFT LOVES! Again I say DUH! It is NOT (IMPOSING) anything on Americans! Govt. workers earn TWICE WHAT YOU EARN with BENIFTES FOR LIFE that YOU DO NOT GET that (WE the taxpayer) Can NOT PAY FOR with out BORROWING IT FROM CHINA adding to OUR DEBT! Romney/Ryan say they want YOU to KEEP your EARNINGS FROM YOUR HARD WORK from having to (RAISE YOUR TAXES) to pay for Govt. workers that earn (TWICE) what people in the (same) job that work at in (private companies) then receive TWICE the retirement and health benefits (for life) that are EQUAL to the pay they made when they worked! Which is an oxymoron in the first place in many cases! I have not made this up I have FIVE family members that were ALL Govt. workers (now retired) and I KNOW that all I said above is FACT! Now Krugman talks of the bad news from the world and that the (disproportionate) news is from the countries that are (imposing) austerity measures that Republicans want to (IMPOSE on Americans) Krugman is NOT talking about JOE BLOW and the AVERAGE JOHN the FACTORY WORKER he is talking about (GOVT. JOBS) this is (NOT) an IMPOSITION ON (AVG) AMERICANS it is in fact (absolutely the OPPOSITE)!! But Krugman does not tell you that he LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE that it hurts ALL AMERICANS WHEN IN FACT what hurts (AVG AMERICANS) the (Middle class) is the IMPOSITION on (THEM) to PAY for (PUBLIC SPENDING) with OUR EARNINGS! BECAUSE OF OBAMAS POLICY OF (PUBLIC SPENDING) (FOR HIS CONSTITUANCY.. GOVT WORKERS!!) The austerity measures in countries like GREECE and SPAIN are necessary because the (tax dollars) taken in and the (extreme) benefits given out not only to Govt. workers but EVERY CITIZEN soon was (SO MUCH MORE) then the tax they took in forcing them to BORROW so much that when the (house of cards fell) and became MORE then they could even pay on the (INTEREST) causing default or (bankruptcy) the ONLY thing that kept them from that was GERMANY that keeps lending them money with the (provisions) that they REDUCE their spending to the level of their tax dollars taken in! OH MY GAWD THE HORROR! But Krugman does NOT TELL YOU ANY OF THAT!! And for that the Socialists in Greece and Spain Riot, Burn Buildings, Pillage and act out VIOLANTLY and (ONLY BECAUSE) the Govt. has to do what they NEVER SHOULD HAVE DONE in THE FIRST PLACE is (GIVING MORE then THEY HAVE) then BORROW money to PAY FOR WHAT THEY CAN NOT AFFORD! And THAT my fellow Americans is what the Socialist like Krugman and OBAMA want US to do, SPEND MORE THEN WE HAVE BORROW MONEY TO PAY FOR IT so then what can we expect? That is a question.. the answer of course is BANCRUPTCY and there is NO COUNTRY ON EARTH that can keep us afloat NOT GERMANY NO ONE except maybe China and just EXACTLY WHAT do you think THIER DEMANDS WILL BE? Reduce our Armed forces? CUT S.S. Medicare, Welfare? Then what RIOTS, PILLLAGING, BURNING BUILDINGS, VIOLANCE in (OUR) STREETS!? China would LOVE THAT! Krugman says well they did not (ACTUALY) say that but they said that more economies were (disappointing) BECAUSE of more aggressive (fiscal consolidation plans) in other words YES they cut spending but GERMANY still had to GO BACK LEND MORE and DEMAND MORE WHY? Because they STILL had not CUT ENOUGH! Thereby KEEPING the economies (depressed) and of course (disappointing) For THAT the Socialists in Greece and Spain are calling Germany NAZIS sound familiar in OUR COUNTRY? WHO HAS and IS calling REPUBLICANS NAZIS? The LEFT and the SOCALISTS LIKE KRUGMAN! Krugman notes that the economies that experience the most sever depression are the ones making the deepest CUTS in spending. TRUE however they were ALREADY the countries in the DEEPEST ECONOMIC DEPRESSION! The CUTS they have made has NOT KEPT them depressed as Krugman WANTS YOU TO BELEIVE. It is the mere FACT that they have NOT YET CUT (ENOUGH) to bring them to a point of spending LESS then they TAKE IN! (AUSTERITY) It does not help that the WORKERS in Greece and Spain have STRIKED to get their so called (FREE) benefits SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVT. of course that means (taxpayers) so striking workers means LESS taxes paid in causing the cycle to start all over again. LESS IN MORE OUT! Again Krugman WILL NOT tell you THESE FACTS! Krugman proclaims that MORE STIMULAS will (gradually) improve employment we did that TWICE and STILL it has not even come CLOSE to what Obama PROMISED! But we HAVE INCREASED OUR DEBT BY FIVE TRILLION DOLLORS more then DOUBLE then EIGHT YEARS year’s under Bush in only four years! So Krugman declares that BORROWING MORE and MORE DEBT which means HIGHER TAXES which means LESS MONEY for JOE BLOW THE FACTORY WORKER TO SPEND to buy that BOAT HE ALWAYS WANTED! And do NOT BE FOOLED taxing (The RICH) even at 100% would ONLY RUN THE GOVT for 30 DAYS! So then what? OBAMA and KRUGMAN WILL NOT TELL YOU that the ONLY MEASURE LEFT is to (TAX THE MIDDLE CLASS) MORE then they do NOW! So the 35 or (actual) closer to 50% with federal energy (gas, elect, fuel) tobacco liquor (medical supplies) etc. etc. is more like 50% Obama would likely not raise (INCOME TAX) but pursue the CLANDESTINE TACTIC of (Raising fed income tax on EVERYTHING ELSE)! The ONLY AMERICANS that would KNOW are those like ME that WATCH EVERYTHING THEY DO! 90% of Americans would uselessly complain that the price of EVERYTHING has gone up! Then what? You have LESS TO SPEND so You can BUY LESS which means Companies MAKE LESS which means MORE people are LAID OFF which, means MORE UNEMPLOYMENT which means MORE WELFARE and then we have to BORROW MORE to PAY MORE and the cycle continues! THAT IS KRUGMAN AND OBAMAS GRAND IDEA! So to get to the conclusion of Krugman’s Rant that the economic doctrine of Republicans that has proved (false) is simply and bluntly a LIE! JFK successfully did what Romney/Ryan are proposing so did Regan and yes G..W BUSH because the TRUTH IS with ALL OF CLINTONS BLUSTER that (HE) balanced the budget is 100% FALSE YES it WAS DONE while he was president with a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and SENATE (THEY MAKE THE BUDGET!) NOT the President! The President can do (ONLY) ONE OF TWO things he APPROVES IT or VETOS it and if he VETOS it then goes (back) to the SENATE that can only (override) the veto with a TWO THIRD MAJORITY VOTE and THEY HAD THAT so Clinton HAD NO CHOICE but sign it! And then the (DOT COM BUBBLE BROKE) cascading us into a RESSESION by (BEFORE) Clinton LEFT OFFICE and BUSH TOOK OVER! Six months later we had 9/11 THAT DEEPENED the RESSESION THAT Bush (INHERITED) so he did what BOTH JFK and REGAN did that ENDED THE RESSION bringing us down to a 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT that (virtually) means that EVERYONE that WANTS to work IS WORKING and the ones that can NOT WORK (no fault of their own) are counted as unemployed (regardless) of the FACT (they can NOT WORK). (BTW for the record REGANS RECESSION WAS WORSE THEN OBAMA’S) Then the (Housing bubble burst) that was CAUSED BY legislation from DEMOCRATES and some Republicans that made it possible for ANYONE TO BUY A HOUSE even IF the COULD NOT AFFORD ONE. Cascading us into ressesion AGAIN! I PERSONALY know many that got caught up in this INCLUDING my brother who is (disabled) and gets $1100.00 a month in S.S.D. and was given a loan for a house in value of OVER150K his mortgage was 1k a month leaving him $100 to pay for EVERYTHING ELSE (elect. Gas, groceries) you get the idea. I asked him THEN HOW THE HELL are you going to LIVE? His response like the MILLIONS of people that did the SAME THING was ( I’ll figure it out.) Then within TWO YEARS FORECLOSER! Hell WE bought a house for 98k at the same time still paid on our old house for six months before selling it and WE earned a little over 6k a month and the six months before selling our old house that was worth then about 72K sold it for 70k and still made about 5k in the sell. Even after THAT we had to watch our budget to pay for EVERYTHING ELSE! CONCLUSION WE SPENT LESS THEN WE TOOK IN! My brother SPENT MORE then HE TOOK IN! He lost we still have our home and just refinanced for 3.2% and will pay about $130.00 bucks LESS a month giving us MORE TO SPEND to buy things to KEEP AMERICAN’S WORKING! Under Romney/Ryan they want to Tax the (RICH) by closing loopholes to REDUCE MIDDLE CLASS Taxes giving US MORE OF OUR OWN MONEY to spend to BUY MORE to KEEP AMERICANS WORKING! OBAMAS PLAN and AS KRUGMAN (ADMITTS) is to (SUSTAIN PUBLIC SPENDING) or what he is (REALLY) SAYING is GOVT, JOBS and MORE WELFARE to SPEND MORE. TAKE MORE ,TO SPEND MORE. TO BORROW MORE. TO PAY FOR WHAT WE SPEND ON PEOPLE THAT TAKE MORE, AND GIVE LESS! So the choice is CLEAR! Obama’s plan to BANCRUPT EVERYONE! Or Romney’s to allow us (MIDDLE CLASS) to KEEP MORE so (WE) can SPEND MORE, THE WAY (WE) WANT TO FOR (OUR) OWN FAMILIES and GIVE LESS! Thank you KRUGMAN YOU SOCIALIST PIG for MAKING OUR POINT!!







confused1



ByronLord
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 1:22:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 716
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Magical_felix wrote:

confused1


Well what do you expect if you read drivel from The Blaze? That is the site run by the Fox News crazy guy Glenn Beck who was so crazy even Faux couldn't keep him on staff.

GM paid back their TARP loan ahead of schedule. By design, the TARP program lent GM more money than they needed because the government wanted to make sure that the suppliers and customers had confidence that the company would survive. The government still owns a lot of GM stock which is why they are $25 billion down on the rescue right now but the market value of those shares would be rather more if GM manages to make a full recovery and the government holds on to them.

Trying to work out what Beck is referring to re Fiskars is impossible since he does not seem to understand that Fiskars was involved in SAAB which is in Sweden, not France. GM had bought SAAB and then sold it in an attempt to stay out of bankruptcy. Not knowing what contractual undertakings GM had made when they bought into SAAB, it is not really possible to know why they might have lent money to Fiskars.

When Beck gets the country wrong it seems fair to point out that he likely has everything else wrong.

TheGulfCoaster
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 7:22:14 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 1/2/2011
Posts: 581
Location: Sarasota County, United States
Polls can be twisted and skewed by many means to indicate different things by different groups. One thing that is rarely, if ever wrong, is the Presidential Betting Odds in Las Vegas. To get away from the 'numbers' involved and straight to the point, Bovada Sportsbook describes the election as "Barack Obama is the Odds on Favorite to be the Next President of the United States". I can't find any records of past elections here, but I can't remember them EVER being wrong.
ByronLord
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 9:23:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 716
Location: Massachusetts, United States
TheGulfCoaster wrote:
Polls can be twisted and skewed by many means to indicate different things by different groups. One thing that is rarely, if ever wrong, is the Presidential Betting Odds in Las Vegas. To get away from the 'numbers' involved and straight to the point, Bovada Sportsbook describes the election as "Barack Obama is the Odds on Favorite to be the Next President of the United States". I can't find any records of past elections here, but I can't remember them EVER being wrong.


Hmm, odds are just that, probability of an event, not an absolute certainty. That said, it looks like Romney is going to lose and the whole GOP should take the blame.

Romney is a terrible candidate. Even his own party loathe him. He is aloof, elitist and rather uninterested in politics. Probably the least likable candidate in living memory. When governor of MA, Mittens demanded that the lift next to the governors office be reserved for his exclusive use lest he meet someone else in it while using it. So much for being approachable or reaching out to Democrats.

Romney's only real legislative achievement was Romneycare which he only signed because he had no real choice. With 85% of the seats in both houses, the Democrats could override Romney's veto which they did 115 times in his first year. Romney resisted Romneycare then ran on it as an achievement in the 2008 presidential race, then ran against Obamacare which is the national level implementation.

Romney is a rotten candidate but the party should bear much of the blame. After the 2008 election a group of house republicans decided on a scorched earth opposition strategy. Ryan was one of the ringleaders. They decided to make beating Obama in 2012 their only prioiry, fuck the country. So they spent the next four years opposing policies that they had previously supported and in some cases been advocates for. Obamacare is based on a plan from GOP think tank the Heritage foundation. Instead of working with the President they pulled out all the stops to demonize it.

Another big hole in the GOP strategy was the racist attacks on Latinos of which the Arizona anti-Latino bill was the best known. It is really stupid to target the fastest growing demographic in the country. GW Bush knew that the Latino vote was going to be essential to win Texas in 2020, his successors decided to attack them because they just cant get turnout without a hate plank. Without the Latino vote in 2020 and beyond there is NO map that gives a GOP electoral college majority.

The voter suppression strategy was also rather stupid. The reason that states like Ohio have early voting is because of previous GOP voter suppression tactics. So spending two years passing innovatie ways to keep black people, old people, students and other likely Democrats from the polls has merely encouraged voters to vote early and not have their vote suppressed by the usual election day tactics like running out of ballots in Democratic precincts, having broken machines in the Democratic precincts and intentionally making it take up to eight hours to cast a ballot.

The GOP could have walked this election if they had been competent. Come to that GW could have gone down as the greatest US president of modern times if he had not decided that 9/11 was his opportunity to attack democrats as unpatriotic, lie to start an unnecessary war and make himself the most divisive figure in US politics since the civil war.

Now we are going to get 4 more years of Obama and by 2016 the economy will be fixed. Obamacare will be the laws of the land and the deficit will have been mostly cleared up because all the Bush tax cuts have expired due to the GOP refusing to allow the common man a tax cut unless the likes of Romney get a much bigger one.

So I think the GOP have pretty much screwed themselves for a very long time unless they come to their senses. Instead it will probably take the death of Rupert Murdoch or him flipping to the Democrats. Murdoch did exactly the same to the UK Conservative party and then having driven it to the far right decided to back Blair and the Labour party.

Guest
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 9:46:29 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,477
So, you kids are all still up, are you?
(I hope that man with the unfortunate testicular condition is all right. I don't see him here).

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/02/joseph_stiglitz_makes_the_case_for_obama/


Hopefully we can all sleep safely after Tuesday, (except those still without power in New York. Good thing Global Warming isn't real. If it were, that storm would have been devastating).
Guest
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 9:52:51 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,477
We know what Romney possesses.
The question is: "What is possessing him?"


http://www.salon.com/2012/11/02/poll_most_republicans_believe_in_demonic_possession/

Maybe they should change election day to Halloween, (Romney could vote disguised as a human being).
Guest
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 12:47:36 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,477
Guest
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 12:53:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,477
Mazza
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 2:15:47 PM

Rank: Mazztastic

Joined: 9/20/2012
Posts: 2,854
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom


woops
keoloke
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 3:02:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 557
Location: United States
Mazza wrote:


woops


Simply put it's.. So so true.

Practice Happiness, it is a choice

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is not much needed.
Hasabrain2
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 3:27:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/1/2011
Posts: 119
Oh I hope not.

I recently read a book, titled "Obama on the couch" (Same author did "Bush on the couch" --- him that's doesn't sound right).

The book is most psychobabble about Obama, but there is one chapter on Obama's detractors. The author, a pyschiatrist, posits that
many don't like Obama, not because the are racists as such. They may have black friends, neighbors coworker and think nothing of it., but
these people are their peers. The President (any President) has to be smarter than us. But, many (not all by sure) people are
uncomfortable with a black person being smarter than they are. To relieve their cogntiive dissouance (sp?) they must say
the black person either is stupid (and therefore shouldn't be Presidnet) or in the extreme that he can't really be a legitimate President (look
at all the fuss over his birth certifcate).

One small part of me hopes Romney wins, then his lied will be exposed. We have trillons of dollars in debt, but he was to increase spending for the military and cut taxes, George Bush Sr had a term for that "voodo economics."
tazznjazz
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 6:09:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
Ruthie
Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2012 8:50:00 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,176
Location: United States
TheGulfCoaster wrote:
Polls can be twisted and skewed by many means to indicate different things by different groups. One thing that is rarely, if ever wrong, is the Presidential Betting Odds in Las Vegas. To get away from the 'numbers' involved and straight to the point, Bovada Sportsbook describes the election as "Barack Obama is the Odds on Favorite to be the Next President of the United States". I can't find any records of past elections here, but I can't remember them EVER being wrong.


UK bookmakers are making odds on Obama. At the moment Ladsbroke is giving 3 to 1 if you bet Romney and he wins. The best bet is probably over 25.5 states won by Romney at 5/6. William Hill had Obama at 7 to 1 before the first debate, and later fell off to about 1.8 to 1. If you think the Republicans have a reasonable chance of stealing Ohio and suppressing enough of the vote in other swing states to win the 3 to 1 odds are pretty good. I wonder what the odds would be of there actually being a fair election with no chicanery.

If you believe that the election will be decided fairly, it will take you £400 to make £100 on Obama.

Bovada won't pay quite as much on Romney, but it'll cost less on Obama to make 100, only 375. The best bets with Bovada is individual states. Bovada will only take Presidential bets online. 400 will get you 1100 on Romney at the moment. The fractional odds on Obama have slipped to 2 to 7 so it will only take 350 to get 100 on Obama.

Pretty much all that means though is that Obama bettors are betting more than Romney bettors. Bovada will make money no matter who wins, and so will Ladsbroke. Only the American people can lose.




tazznjazz
Posted: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 4:09:08 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
VOTE FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA3some
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.