Post: #126

(10-05-2012 01:15 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Fisto Wrote:I keep citing his business experience, not because I think he's going to run the country like a private equity firm, but because (as I already said) he understands what environment fosters economic growth.

If this is the case we shouldn't even have elections. We should just draft Bill Gates for president, or Steve Jobs if he was still alive. Just automatically make the president the guy who runs the biggest corporation.

Fisto, can you point to any specific policies of Obama's that are anti-business?

Raising taxes on small business is anti business. I also posted the link yesterday about his killing the Keystone oil pipline which is anti business.

You aren't hearing me Speakeasy. I'm talking about his credentials in ONE area for what it takes to be president. I'm talking about his experience as a businessman and how that applies to the economy. I admit this is a huge component on my priority list, but it isn't the only one. So, I reject the idea we should just draft Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, but mostly because they are liberals ; )

Here's a few more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...48242.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...23268.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12...technology

This study shows how the Obama administration added 46 B per year in new costs

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...-year-mark

Post: #127

(10-04-2012 04:23 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  That lack of preparedness is exactly what many are criticizing Obama for in this thread and across the country. The fact that Obama failed to point out the lies does not mean that they were not lies.

Ok, Athlone, you know I respect you but I'm sorry, I have to push back on this.

It is unfortunate that people term "lies" positions taken that are based on contestable assumptions or based on what I'd consider to be pedantic parsings. It is misleading to call such things falsehoods, lies. It's all in an effort to play "gotcha."

Three examples from your list.

On Medicare, Romney said his plan would offer two choices for those in younger generations -- the "current" medicare program or a private plan. Your link implies, however, that because Romney proposes to slow the growth in the expansion (not cut government Medicare back, slow the growth) that he is in fact not supporting the "current" plan and, therefore, is uttering a lie.

"Stretch" doesn't begin to describe this wild claim from your source. Now we can debate whether Romney's approach is a good idea or a bad idea, but to call what he proposes a lie is a pedantic parsing of the first order.

Second, the $5 trillion number. Of course, that number comes from one specific source that ran the numbers and came up with that $ amount. That study was based on assumptions. Those assumptions are contestable, arguable. Romney has his plan -- and THOSE assumptions are contestable and arguable. But just because one source says one thing, and Romney says another, does not mean Romney is uttering a lie. He is making an argument.

Third, the claim that he called for the "full repeal" of Dodd Frank. He did say that the bills was bad, but he did say some of the revisions make sense. I happen to agree with him on that -- and the fact that he is willing to look at this bill and keep what's good should be applauded -- he shouldn't be slandered a liar because he's changing positions.

By that measure, Barack Obama is the biggest liar to sit in the Oval office.

Finally, I find it troubling that many on the left aren't engaging in arguments, but rather name calling. I also find it precious that the excuse makers come out of the woodwork here when their paragon is shown to be weak. Oh, well, it must have been the altitude. Or he’s too professorial, too decorous, too contemplative….too COOL.

Sorry, if you want to be in a position of executive power, you have to marshal arguments and defend them with passion. Maybe that suggests being president isn’t the right job for Obama. Moreover in the political realm you have to defend them against OPPONENTs. Of course, the problem is that in many instances Obama hasn’t had real opponents. From his senate campaign against the nutjob Alan Keyes to his campaign against the wooden John McCain, he’s never really faced a true executive who makes a case. He’s facing one now. Consequently, he is in trouble.

Post: #128

(10-05-2012 01:02 PM)Capitán Peligroso Wrote:  @Athlone:

Quote:Romney had a millionaire senator father to help pay for his education and get him connected.

Romney's father was governor of Michigan from 1963-1969, but never senator. He was also Nixon's HUD secretary after he was governor of Michigan. Romney's mother did run for U.S. Senate in 1970, but lost.

You are correct, my mistake.

(10-05-2012 12:56 PM)painter Wrote:  Smitty, you'd be snarky too if you had to spend all day making excuses and defending the politician you hero worship from any and all criticism.

And I'll clarify this one last time before I end this: Obama is not my hero.
My hatred of Mitt Romney and general distrust of the right does not stem from hero worship.

I called you a troll because you falsely claimed that Obama never introduced a single bill as a Senator, and in about 30 seconds with google I found that he had in fact sponsored over 130. This leads me to believe that you are either too stupid to read into such easily confirmed facts, or too troll-like to give a fuck. Regardless, you clearly do not know what you are talking about, and your arguments display all the intellectual acumen and insight of a 12 year old.

But if you'd like to to believe that you are in fact an insightful, accurate user and that your opponents are no more than hero-worshiping morons with a penchant for the ad-hominem, then you're welcome to do so.
I have no more fucks left to give.

(10-05-2012 01:07 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Ali, you're right, I'm done.

As am I.

Post: #129

(10-05-2012 09:40 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:32 AM)Global Baller Wrote:  The election is over -- Nitwit Mitt is done.

This is all that matters:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-5...8-percent/

Obama 2012: Once You Go Black...You Never Go Back!

Take into account those who have become discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, those who are working part-time but wish to work full-time and the broader unemployment rate remain unchanged at 14.7%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

So this unemployment rate of 7.8% isn't really all that important and doesn't mean much? Why doesn't the GOP just say that? Instead they are in full blown conspiracy mode today, claiming that Obama messed with the numbers to make himself look good. They are going nuts over this meaningless number.

Post: #130

(10-05-2012 02:38 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  So this unemployment rate of 7.8% isn't really all that important and doesn't mean much? Why doesn't the GOP just say that? Instead they are in full blown conspiracy mode today, claiming that Obama messed with the numbers to make himself look good. They are going nuts over this meaningless number.

First of all, do you blame them for going nuts? It's a complete statistical anomaly that just HAPPENS to put the rate BELOW 8% one MONTH before the election.

Second, while you may know it's a meaningless number and I may know it's a meaningless number, it's going to be trumpeted by Obama and his supporters to the four corners of the United States. In other words, it's not meaningless to his election prospects.

Post: #131

Yeah, I don't get that either. Jack Welch is a serious guy though, so I'd interested to hear how he substantiates that one.

Hey wait!

I have a novel idea. Why don't we just look at the damn report!

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

As for the next debate, I am not in fact so sure Obama will do well.

He'll be better prepared, perhaps - if he can find the time.

I think romney is come at him even harder than before. The Middle East these past months has been a disaster for Obama's foreign policy esteem. He's shunned Israel and groveled to the Arabs. That pisses a lot of red-blooded Americans off. I am predicting a more even debate, but still a Romney win simply because he' will appeal to people's disdain of the President's appeasement to those who mock us.

On the other hand, Prez is going to do a better job defending himself and hitting back at Romney for his mistakes during his abroad-tour. So it won't be a total rout like Wednesday. More like a marginal victory.

Post: #132

(10-05-2012 09:32 AM)Global Baller Wrote:  The election is over -- Nitwit Mitt is done.

This is all that matters:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-5...8-percent/

Obama 2012: Once You Go Black...You Never Go Back!

So how are things in Sweden?

Post: #133

(10-05-2012 01:18 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 12:46 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  ^^^Why do you keep arguing with someone that doesn't even have any real life experience? Once these guys actually get a job, start paying taxes, and open their eyes they'll realize how things work. Right now you are wasting your time.

Do you still work for your father's company?

I pay more in taxes than you make in a year. And no, I spent my time in warzones. Feel free to PM me with your resume. I need a laugh.

Post: #134

(10-05-2012 02:38 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:40 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:32 AM)Global Baller Wrote:  The election is over -- Nitwit Mitt is done.

This is all that matters:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-5...8-percent/

Obama 2012: Once You Go Black...You Never Go Back!

Take into account those who have become discouraged and dropped out of the labor force, those who are working part-time but wish to work full-time and the broader unemployment rate remain unchanged at 14.7%.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

So this unemployment rate of 7.8% isn't really all that important and doesn't mean much? Why doesn't the GOP just say that? Instead they are in full blown conspiracy mode today, claiming that Obama messed with the numbers to make himself look good. They are going nuts over this meaningless number.

Obama doesn't have to demonstrate that the job situation is good, he only has to show that the trend is moving in the right direction. That's good enough to clinch the election.

Post: #135

I'm surprised a lot of the libertarians on here are defending Romney. A few Ron Paul supporters I know thought Romney was a shithead, so I figured that was a sentiment shared by other libertarians. Or is this simply a case of picking the lesser of the two evils?

Post: #136

(10-05-2012 02:58 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(10-05-2012 09:32 AM)Global Baller Wrote:  The election is over -- Nitwit Mitt is done.

This is all that matters:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-5...8-percent/

Obama 2012: Once You Go Black...You Never Go Back!

So how are things in Sweden?

Haven't you heard? His big, black cock has been given honorary citizenship to Sweden as a reward for it's service to the Swedish people.

Post: #137

All you need to know about the optics of Wednesday's debate

















These were just page one of a Big Bird Mitt Romney Google Image search. If I was a gambling man, I'd be glad to bet anyone on this forum $100 that Obama will win. The dude beat the Clintons, both of them, and that was before he had the institutional power of the presidency behind him. Anyone who bets against the guy is a fool. Downsizing Big Bird is Mitt Romney's Michael Dukakis in a tank moment

Post: #138

Here's Conan O'Brien's take on it...this is hilarious:





I know it's very easy to downplay the significance of what I'm saying, but consider this:

Quote:A 1996 survey found that 95% of all American preschoolers had watched the show by the time they were three years old. In 2008, it was estimated that 77 million Americans had watched the series as children.

So hordes of Americans grew up watching that shit for the last 42 years, and for a lot of them their kids are growing up watching that shit, in some cases even their grandkids. Many voters who are up to about age 55 now grew up watching that show and their kids grew up watching that show.

Mitt Romney's most important goal for the first debate should have been to make the American people not think he's an asshole, but 67 million people watched him say he wants to kill Big Bird, send the Cookie Monster's job to China, and downsize Oscar the Grouch... heaven knows what he'll do to Snuffleupagus <shudder> My point being these are really bad optics for a guy who is having serious popularity problems even within his own party because he's just not very likeable. We can have six pages of pseudo-intellectual discussion about why that debate was a game changer that shifted the momentum to Mitt Romney, but he's fucking with Elmo, and where I come from, you DON'T FUCK WITH ELMO!

@Athlone...if you want to use some Sesame Street videos for your furry, cute and cuddly animals thread, it's ok with me.

Post: #139

As much as I dont like the US, it is quite inconsequential who wins the presidential election, in terms of major changes. But I do wish the average American the best, as ignorant as they are, because most are decent people. With that in mind yes most intelligent forum members should vote for Barack Obama, just like good ole Bill Clinton will do. He was not the candidate of hope we all wished for, but he is a pragmatic intelligent president who will at least hand Hillary a decent slate. Giving it to Romney would be helping out the fat cats who dont need help. I AM SURE MOST FORUM MEMBERS EXCEPT G MANISFESTO DONT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.

Post: #140

Let me get this straight, Romney lost the debate because of... Big Bird? Really?Sesame Street generates hundreds of millions of dollars all by itself. Without government funding PBS will be just fine, it's not going anywhere. If you think it's going to disappear then you probably believe Obama "saved" the auto industry too.

Post: #141

@ Fisto

Just read this.

vs this:

http://www.barackobama.com/national-security

Hopeless.

Post: #142

(10-06-2012 12:44 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  As much as I dont like the US, it is quite inconsequential who wins the presidential election, in terms of major changes.

I agree. People get caught up in this campaign trail bullshit and think their candidate is "the one" to fix everything. lol

If both sides don't agree to work together, it doesn't matter who you stick in that office.

Post: #143

(10-06-2012 12:44 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  As much as I dont like the US, it is quite inconsequential who wins the presidential election, in terms of major changes.

Most elections I'd agree, but there are enough distinct differences this year where there would be major changes. If Mitt Romney's elected, there's essentially no Obamacare, which has changed the entire complexion of the American healthcare industry. That's a major change, and just one of them.

Post: #144

(10-06-2012 09:54 AM)IQVX Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 12:44 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  As much as I dont like the US, it is quite inconsequential who wins the presidential election, in terms of major changes.

Most elections I'd agree, but there are enough distinct differences this year where there would be major changes. If Mitt Romney's elected, there's essentially no Obamacare, which has changed the entire complexion of the American healthcare industry. That's a major change, and just one of them.

LOL Do you think Romney alone can just make the decision to repeal Obamacare? Do you think he can implement his agenda exactly the way he is laying out to you?

This is what I mean. Caught up in the campaign trail.

Post: #145

(10-06-2012 08:52 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  @ Fisto

Just read this.

vs this:

http://www.barackobama.com/national-security

Hopeless.

It always surprises me at how Obama supports can like his shallow rhetoric, his meaningless cliches - all of which Obama used, word for word, to win in 2008.


How anyone can think Obama is a good president is beyond me. He's the epitome of mediocre.

Post: #146

(10-06-2012 10:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 08:52 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  @ Fisto

Just read this.

vs this:

http://www.barackobama.com/national-security

Hopeless.

It always surprises me at how Obama supports can like his shallow rhetoric, his meaningless cliches - all of which Obama used, word for word, to win in 2008.


How anyone can think Obama is a good president is beyond me. He's the epitome of mediocre.

I mean, nuclear-free world? Has history taught this dupe ANYTHING?

I was at worst indifferent, at most understanding and appreciative of Obama's positions before I started reading his campaign site.

All his campaign has got now is negativity, a loser mentality and as far as foreign policy goes, a mindless naitivity. If this is what he REALLY thinks, and I hope not, Romney is going to butcher him at the next debate as well. Just reading Romney's principles is a reading vision of plain common sense.

Post: #147

(10-06-2012 10:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 08:52 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  @ Fisto

Just read this.

vs this:

http://www.barackobama.com/national-security

Hopeless.

It always surprises me at how Obama supports can like his shallow rhetoric, his meaningless cliches - all of which Obama used, word for word, to win in 2008.


How anyone can think Obama is a good president is beyond me. He's the epitome of mediocre.

Yeah, how could anyone thing that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be6tunbRc...re=related

Post: #148

(10-06-2012 10:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 08:52 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  @ Fisto

Just read this.

vs this:

http://www.barackobama.com/national-security

Hopeless.

It always surprises me at how Obama supports can like his shallow rhetoric, his meaningless cliches - all of which Obama used, word for word, to win in 2008.

How anyone can think Obama is a good president is beyond me. He's the epitome of mediocre.

But Samseau, Obama supporters would say that they don't see how people can trust Romney to do what he says when he has repeatedly changed his positions.

The bottom line is...

Romney supporters can find facts and figures to argue that things haven't improved the last few years.

Obama supporters can provide facts and figures that support the opposite.

What I have realized now more than ever is that very, very few people are able to see things in their totality.

Most people are only able to see the evidence that supports their own beliefs, and they refuse to see anything that doesn't.

Post: #149

What does Romney stand for? In MA he was a moderate, in the primaries he was a conservative, at the debates he was back to being a moderate. He stood by Romneycare, conservatives slapped him around, then he was against it. He stood by his 47% remark, he saw his polls plummet, now he says it was a big mistake. He was for outsourcing before he was against it. He was for China before he was against it. You get whip lash trying to follow his policies.

I bet even his supporters don't know his position on Obamacare, because well, it changes pretty much ever day. One day, he supports preexisting conditions coverage, the next day, no, it's not that simple. And on and on and on.

Is he going to cut taxes or isn't he? How is he going to pay for it? He just spews out a bunch of gibberish and hopes that people will get taken in.

He is an empty suit, a sophisticated used car salesman who tells you what you want to hear, just to make the sale.

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

Post: #150

(10-06-2012 12:44 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  As much as I dont like the US, it is quite inconsequential who wins the presidential election, in terms of major changes.

Wrong. For example, the Iraq war would never have happened if Al Gore had been elected.

Obama pushed through health care reform, it would never have happened if there had been a President McCain.