WHY OBAMA WILL WIN in '12

poet said:
The Trinity? There is only one Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. You are no trinity. You're not even a whole "one".
Click to expand...

well to be honest, there used to be three of them......and their posts were all so insipid we had trouble distinguishing between them, particularly since they couldn't keep the same name for more than a week......it's just easier to treat them all as the same person than it is to try to tell them apart......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well to be honest, there used to be three of them......and their posts were all so insipid we had trouble distinguishing between them, particularly since they couldn't keep the same name for more than a week......it's just easier to treat them all as the same person than it is to try to tell them apart......
Click to expand...
In other words, you lack the simple ability to read.
 
Jarod said:
I don't know who will win.. I hope it's Obama, if not at least Romney.... Otherwise, in this field, we are in trouble.
Click to expand...

Does no one in America ask this simple question of the candidates (all candidates): Why are you standing for election?

Very simple question with one simple guarantee. EVERY respondent will lie!

Why is Perry standing? He has changed what he believes in, not that there is anything wrong with that. He has 'sympathised' with people who wish to break the Union so how can he even pretend to the position of president of that same union?

Why is Bachman standing? Does she really think that her experience, character and beliefs accurately reflect those of the majority of Americans? Does she honestly think she is capable of running a sweet shop let alone a country of 300 million souls?

So the honest answer will be something like: I want to be famous and get the trappings associated with fame./ I want to increase my perceived value for any future employer. /I am greedy and want lotsa money. /I am completely ga-ga and have no idea of what I am doing.
 
Lowaicue said:
Does no one in America ask this simple question of the candidates (all candidates): Why are you standing for election?

Very simple question with one simple guarantee. EVERY respondent will lie!

Why is Perry standing? He has changed what he believes in, not that there is anything wrong with that. He has 'sympathised' with people who wish to break the Union so how can he even pretend to the position of president of that same union?

Why is Bachman standing? Does she really think that her experience, character and beliefs accurately reflect those of the majority of Americans? Does she honestly think she is capable of running a sweet shop let alone a country of 300 million souls?

So the honest answer will be something like: I want to be famous and get the trappings associated with fame./ I want to increase my perceived value for any future employer. /I am greedy and want lotsa money. /I am completely ga-ga and have no idea of what I am doing.
Click to expand...

People run because they want to be one of (if not the most) powerful people in the world.
 
poet said:
The Trinity? There is only one Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. You are no trinity. You're not even a whole "one". Posing as a poet? Bitch, I have a book of poetry that vouches for me. What do you have? And stick your nice day up your wide ass.
Click to expand...

I have a sweet ass, but thanks for the theology lesson. Have a nice day.
 
cawacko said:
People run because they want to be one of (if not the most) powerful people in the world.
Click to expand...

If one WANTS power it should be denied. Remember that power corrupts, etc, therefore the seekers after power are the potentially corrupt and should be banned from ever taking a position superior to that of a dead parrot.
 
poet said:
The trinity of southern cooking : bell pepper, onion, and celery, aside....to call one's self "the trinity" is sacrilegious. Are you Threedee's spokesperson? Why are you defending?
Click to expand...

Why are you commenting?

oh yeah, because this is a PUBLIC message board.

The 'trinity' MAY be sacrilegious to those that believe in the trinity, but that doesn't mean it should be to those who do not believe. That said, I would be shocked if most people who believed in the holy trinity would take offense to others using the phrase to refer to other trinities.
 
I think one of the things that the right does well is repetition. Why is it assumed that Obama's policies have failed, or made things worse? Because so many on the right have incorporated the phrase "the failed stimulus" into their rhetoric.

The fact is, we have no idea what this economy would look like without the stimulus & other economic measures that have been taken. Everyone seems to be on the same page that there is only so much a gov't can do in a global economy, but apparently, a lot of those same people believe there is some policy out there that would have had everything "fixed" by now & had America back to a sub-5% unemployment rate.

Personally, I'm a firm believer that the stimulus stopped the downward spiral at a time when it could have continued quite a bit longer. We'll never know, of course, but things could certainly be much worse today without that measure...
 
Predictions are fun and I enjoy engaging in them... But remember its impossable to be sure of anything this far out.

It was just a couple months ago when people on this board were calling Obama's reelection a lock after the killing of Bin Ladden.
 
Rana said:
So, which one of the Republican hopefuls will you be supporting, have you made a decision, yet?
Click to expand...

Not yet. I don't like the people who evoke Jesus for votes and the ones that are "assumed" to be the winners. Paul Ryan is likely to enter later, and Chris Christie seems to be making some noise in that direction lately too. I'm waiting to see how things hash out. It's still way too early to pick a horse in this race.
 
Onceler said:
I think one of the things that the right does well is repetition. Why is it assumed that Obama's policies have failed, or made things worse? Because so many on the right have incorporated the phrase "the failed stimulus" into their rhetoric.

The fact is, we have no idea what this economy would look like without the stimulus & other economic measures that have been taken. Everyone seems to be on the same page that there is only so much a gov't can do in a global economy, but apparently, a lot of those same people believe there is some policy out there that would have had everything "fixed" by now & had America back to a sub-5% unemployment rate.

Personally, I'm a firm believer that the stimulus stopped the downward spiral at a time when it could have continued quite a bit longer. We'll never know, of course, but things could certainly be much worse today without that measure...
Click to expand...

I agree that the stimulus stopped the bleeding, that said, it was still a failure. It was a failure by the standards Obama himself set. While it did accomplish its initial goal of stopping the bleeding, the success stopped there. Had the focus remained on the job market rather than trying to cram a partially unconstitutional, immense bureaucratic nightmare of a deficit raising health care fiasco.... Obama would not just be announcing his 'jobs plan' 2.5 years later.

While you are absolutely correct to state we can never know what might have happened, the point is that unemployment is still over 9%. His job is to provide an environment that encourages the PRIVATE sector to hire. His policies to date have been anything BUT business friendly. To the contrary his policies have shown his animosity towards the private sector.

I don't think anyone is expecting us to be sub 5% on unemployment... but we should have been below 7% by now. Instead we just get one excuse after another from Obama. If Congress was 534 Democrats and 1 Rep, he and the Dems would still find a way to blame the Rep. No matter how much power they have, they are always using the excuse that it isn't enough to get anything done. Obama has shown time and again he is not a leader, he is in over his head. In my opinion, we would have been far better off under Hillary or McCain (despite his bad VP choice being a heartbeat away).

Again, just an opinion on my part. But it is hardly rhetoric to call the stimulus a failure. It is fact. The excuse that 'it wasn't enough' is where the rhetoric begins.... as that is always the Dem out.... we just needed to spend more money to make it work.
 
Rana said:
So, which one of the Republican hopefuls will you be supporting, have you made a decision, yet?
Click to expand...

I know this was directed at Damo, but I am going to chime in.... Romney would be my choice on the Rep side if voting were to take place today. That said, way too early to exclude those who may enter later.
 
Superfreak said:
I agree that the stimulus stopped the bleeding, that said, it was still a failure. It was a failure by the standards Obama himself set. While it did accomplish its initial goal of stopping the bleeding, the success stopped there. Had the focus remained on the job market rather than trying to cram a partially unconstitutional, immense bureaucratic nightmare of a deficit raising health care fiasco.... Obama would not just be announcing his 'jobs plan' 2.5 years later.

While you are absolutely correct to state we can never know what might have happened, the point is that unemployment is still over 9%. His job is to provide an environment that encourages the PRIVATE sector to hire. His policies to date have been anything BUT business friendly. To the contrary his policies have shown his animosity towards the private sector.

I don't think anyone is expecting us to be sub 5% on unemployment... but we should have been below 7% by now. Instead we just get one excuse after another from Obama. If Congress was 534 Democrats and 1 Rep, he and the Dems would still find a way to blame the Rep. No matter how much power they have, they are always using the excuse that it isn't enough to get anything done. Obama has shown time and again he is not a leader, he is in over his head. In my opinion, we would have been far better off under Hillary or McCain (despite his bad VP choice being a heartbeat away).

Again, just an opinion on my part. But it is hardly rhetoric to call the stimulus a failure. It is fact. The excuse that 'it wasn't enough' is where the rhetoric begins.... as that is always the Dem out.... we just needed to spend more money to make it work.
Click to expand...

I would agree that it didn't hit the marks set by Obama, but disagree that this makes is a "failure." If it kept the market from dropping to 5K - again, we can never really know - then it succeeded, by a lot.

The stimulus was by design an extremely imperfect measure. It passed at a time where time was of the essence; that phrase doesn't even really go far enough. They needed to get something done, and fast, just to reassure the markets, if nothing else. Had they gone for a bill which allocated the money perfectly and didn't have waste, it would have defeated the purpose at that time.

That's why people talk about a 2nd measure. Okay, we stopped the crash; now, let's take our time, put another measure together of equal value, that is more targeted & effective. It's not really just "dems"; there are those in the economic community who thought that the stimulus should have been about twice as much, anyway.

If the stimulus did help the market turn around & start growing again, and I don't doubt that it did, it was cheap. We're talking about trillions of dollars gained (or lost) depending on those swings in the market...
 
Onceler said:
I would agree that it didn't hit the marks set by Obama, but disagree that this makes is a "failure." If it kept the market from dropping to 5K - again, we can never really know - then it succeeded, by a lot.

The stimulus was by design an extremely imperfect measure. It passed at a time where time was of the essence; that phrase doesn't even really go far enough. They needed to get something done, and fast, just to reassure the markets, if nothing else. Had they gone for a bill which allocated the money perfectly and didn't have waste, it would have defeated the purpose at that time.

That's why people talk about a 2nd measure. Okay, we stopped the crash; now, let's take our time, put another measure together of equal value, that is more targeted & effective. It's not really just "dems"; there are those in the economic community who thought that the stimulus should have been about twice as much, anyway.

If the stimulus did help the market turn around & start growing again, and I don't doubt that it did, it was cheap. We're talking about trillions of dollars gained (or lost) depending on those swings in the market...
Click to expand...

Well, we obviously disagree on the first point. Because while I think it good that it did stop the bleeding, it could easily have been put to work in a more effective manner. The market doesn't need an immediate effect, it just needs to see the direction we are heading. That is such a huge part of the problem right now. The future is cloudy and people have no idea what is coming next out of DC. The insane levels of spending lead to one conclusion. Higher taxes. The question then becomes, who does the government go after and to what extent? do they go after corps? 'the rich'? a combo? Do they keep spending at this pace? Or are there plans to stop the insanity in place?

The economic community that thought the stimulus should be higher are those like Krugman who have warped economic theory with their ideological political beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top