Post: #51

(01-29-2012 05:08 PM)redneckpunk Wrote:  @Baldwin
"white Republicans don't have to step out of the white world"

"The white Republican fears the black man on account of no experience with black people"

please explain the vast experience white democrats in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Seattle, Portland, etc. have with blacks?

and if blacks poured into their neighborhood would they be welcomed with open arms?

Redneckpunk,

1. There's no vast experience to explain because these white dems you mention don't have much real world experience with black folks either.

2. If blacks poured into their neighborhood they would move away...

The white liberal utilizes the different means to achieve the same end of "keeping them in their place." Taken as a whole I think the white liberal is even more insidious towards black people because they say all the politically correct bs but, as mentioned above, when blacks move into their neighborhood the white liberal (so long as he has the means) will move out.

As we both know, the liberal is viewed as the good guy politically because he says the right things.

Post: #52

(01-30-2012 08:33 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Exactly. If you have a black man who believes in free market principles and actually has the experience to back it up, he will find a shitload of supporters within the Republican party. The reason why many conservatives hate Obama is that, although he's intelligent, he's never had a real job. Community organizer? Con Law professor? Senator?

Not sure I buy that.

If so, why didn't they hate Bush with the same passion?

Quote:Here's a guy who's running the world's biggest free market enterprise and yet he's never had a real private sector job. He's in over his head and has no idea how to actually bring jobs into the US.

Why didn't they hate Bush with the same passion?

Quote:I think Romney would be a better president in this time of the country's situation. I don't think being wealthy and successful should preclude him from getting the job. If anything, him being president will rally the markets and start seeing some movement of all that cash that the corporate sector is sitting on.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. If Romney does win, I think you are setting yourself up for some tear filled days and nights.

Quote:Fundamentally, the US is a country of go-getters, type A's, and alphas. It's a highly competitive rat race here. You should be about getting yours regardless of who's president and you should support a president who's going to make sure that the principles that allow us to realize our dreams are being committed to. For me, Obama is NOT that guy.

Really, Obama isn't a "go-getter"?

As in he is a lazy guy that can't get up off the couch?

No drive, to say, get an important job, like, I don't know, maybe The President of the United States?

Post: #53

(01-30-2012 10:30 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 08:33 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Exactly. If you have a black man who believes in free market principles and actually has the experience to back it up, he will find a shitload of supporters within the Republican party. The reason why many conservatives hate Obama is that, although he's intelligent, he's never had a real job. Community organizer? Con Law professor? Senator?

Not sure I buy that.

If so, why didn't they hate Bush with the same passion?

Quote:Here's a guy who's running the world's biggest free market enterprise and yet he's never had a real private sector job. He's in over his head and has no idea how to actually bring jobs into the US.

Why didn't they hate Bush with the same passion?

Quote:I think Romney would be a better president in this time of the country's situation. I don't think being wealthy and successful should preclude him from getting the job. If anything, him being president will rally the markets and start seeing some movement of all that cash that the corporate sector is sitting on.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. If Romney does win, I think you are setting yourself up for some tear filled days and nights.

Quote:Fundamentally, the US is a country of go-getters, type A's, and alphas. It's a highly competitive rat race here. You should be about getting yours regardless of who's president and you should support a president who's going to make sure that the principles that allow us to realize our dreams are being committed to. For me, Obama is NOT that guy.

Really, Obama isn't a "go-getter"?

As in he is a lazy guy that can't get up off the couch?

No drive, to say, get an important job, like, I don't know, maybe The President of the United States?

Bush actually did have business experience, it's just he wasn't very good at it. Also, there are many conservatives that were angered and disappointed by Bush. Many of them feel he was a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He expanded government bureaucracy by creating new agencies like the Department of Homeland Security. He squandered billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on misguided military adventures.

Also, he arguably lost the 2000 election, as there was all kinds of voting irregularities, and Al Gore captured the majority of the popular vote.

I'm not saying Romney will be a great president or will even be the guy to turn around the economy, but I think he has a better shot at doing so than Obama. He also has an extensive track record in both business and government. He was a very competent and moderate governor in Massachusetts. He also successfully brought the winter olympics to Salt Lake City. He's also extremely intelligent and hard working. He even speaks French fluently.

Had Colin Powell ran for President, he would have no problem capturing the Republican nomination (assuming there's no damaging skeletons in his closet). Polls after polls have made that abundantly clear.

I'm not saying Obama isn't a go-getter, I'm just saying I don't think he's the kind of president who respects the free market fundamentals and principles that make the US what it was.

He's also a Democrat, who Republicans will hate regardless of race. Remember how they tried to take down Clinton. Newt Gingrich led a government operation to have Clinton impeached for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Talk about hypocrisy. There were several government shut downs, and Clinton was never able to get his goal of universal health care passed through the Congress.

I actually think Obama has it relatively easier. Unlike Clinton, he's not a guy who naturally enjoys political gamesmanship. Clinton had no problem reaching out across the aisle and even inviting his enemies on board Air Force One. Clinton was a masterful politician who regularly used the social power of the presidency. Obama does not do this.

I think Obama's strength is that he is a very eloquent speaker. His speech game is second to none in modern presidential history. He's also been extremely lucky, and I think he knows that. Had John Kerry not put him on by giving him the primetime slot at the DNC convention in 2004 where he made that consequential speech, he would not have been in a position to run for President. His popularity accelerated rapidly after that night, and his memoir, which had already been out for years on the low, instantly became a NYT bestseller.

However, soaring speeches can only get you so far. I think Americans now want a competent technocrat who understands the economy to be running the show. Romney is that guy more than anyone.

Post: #54

If Romney wins and you have Romney vs Obama you basically have a situation where you have two candidates vying for a job to run a large, financially floundering organization. One candidate has been incredibly successfully running a business buying and investing in floundering/undervalued companies, turning those companies around, and selling them. He was also a Governor and successfully managed an Olympics that was having problems until he stepped in and got everything on the right track. The other candidate has never had a private sector job, and in his first job as a leader of anything he is failing miserably. Other then being a fabulous speaker no one can really figure out what exactly he is good at, and he has failed miserably on most of his campaign promises. One candidate is so much more qualified its comical.

Post: #55

(01-30-2012 12:16 PM)Brian Wrote:  If Romney wins and you have Romney vs Obama you basically have a situation where you have two candidates vying for a job to run a large, financially floundering organization. One candidate has been incredibly successfully running a business buying and investing in floundering/undervalued companies, turning those companies around, and selling them. He was also a Governor and successfully managed an Olympics that was having problems until he stepped in and got everything on the right track. The other candidate has never had a private sector job, and in his first job as a leader of anything he is failing miserably. Other then being a fabulous speaker no one can really figure out what exactly he is good at, and he has failed miserably on most of his campaign promises. One candidate is so much more qualified its comical.

LOL...rigggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhtttttttttttt

He's failing bc the global fucking economy collapsed and I thought the right bellow's nightly that it's not the government job to grow the economy and create jobs but private industry? So how can he be accountable for something you say is not possible in the first place?

Seriousily, ppl crack me up with "he's never had" as if any one person has the ability or capacity to understand everything...is that not why they have cabinets? Is that not why they hire and consult with intelligent ppl/agencies who can make a calculated group decision?

Post: #56

(01-30-2012 12:16 PM)Brian Wrote:  If Romney wins and you have Romney vs Obama you basically have a situation where you have two candidates vying for a job to run a large, financially floundering organization. One candidate has been incredibly successfully running a business buying and investing in floundering/undervalued companies, turning those companies around, and selling them. He was also a Governor and successfully managed an Olympics that was having problems until he stepped in and got everything on the right track. The other candidate has never had a private sector job, and in his first job as a leader of anything he is failing miserably. Other then being a fabulous speaker no one can really figure out what exactly he is good at, and he has failed miserably on most of his campaign promises. One candidate is so much more qualified its comical.

Couldn't have said it better.

Post: #57

(01-30-2012 12:45 PM)Caramel Communist Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 12:16 PM)Brian Wrote:  If Romney wins and you have Romney vs Obama you basically have a situation where you have two candidates vying for a job to run a large, financially floundering organization. One candidate has been incredibly successfully running a business buying and investing in floundering/undervalued companies, turning those companies around, and selling them. He was also a Governor and successfully managed an Olympics that was having problems until he stepped in and got everything on the right track. The other candidate has never had a private sector job, and in his first job as a leader of anything he is failing miserably. Other then being a fabulous speaker no one can really figure out what exactly he is good at, and he has failed miserably on most of his campaign promises. One candidate is so much more qualified its comical.

LOL...rigggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhtttttttttttt

He's failing bc the global fucking economy collapsed and I thought the right bellow's nightly that it's not the government job to grow the economy and create jobs but private industry? So how can he be accountable for something you say is not possible in the first place?

Seriousily, ppl crack me up with "he's never had" as if any one person has the ability or capacity to understand everything...is that not why they have cabinets? Is that not why they hire and consult with intelligent ppl/agencies who can make a calculated group decision?

Sure, he can appoint whoever he wants in his cabinet, but many of those people aren't exactly the kind of folks that get Wall Street leaders excited.

Also, Obama is the commander of the ship. Many people on The Street simply don't like the guy. They don't believe he's ever had a real job or understands the needs and concerns of business leaders. Obama has had meetings with numerous Fortune 500 execs over the years and they all say the same thing: this guy doesn't know how to talk to us.

This "dialogue" will change drastically under a Romney administration. This election comes to down to one issue: the economy. Americans are at a point where we don't even care that Bin Laden is dead. We don't care about the Libya adventure or most of the problems in the Middle East. Besides, Americans naturally see Republicans as being more capable on the national security/foreign policy front anyway (thanks to Reagan).

With the economy being the name of the game, what record does Obama have to run on?

He doesn't have a record to promote. So, what's his campaign going to do instead? They are going to make this election one about race. They are going to convince millions of white liberals that if they don't vote for Obama they must be racist. They are going to do everything to paint Romney as being inconsiderate to the concerns of minorities so that they can get that vote too. Don't doubt for a second the cutthroat, clever campaign advisors that Obama has working for him. They all come from the Chicago school of political machines and will do anything and everything to make this election one that's NOT about the real issues.

Post: #58

(01-30-2012 12:45 PM)Caramel Communist Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 12:16 PM)Brian Wrote:  If Romney wins and you have Romney vs Obama you basically have a situation where you have two candidates vying for a job to run a large, financially floundering organization. One candidate has been incredibly successfully running a business buying and investing in floundering/undervalued companies, turning those companies around, and selling them. He was also a Governor and successfully managed an Olympics that was having problems until he stepped in and got everything on the right track. The other candidate has never had a private sector job, and in his first job as a leader of anything he is failing miserably. Other then being a fabulous speaker no one can really figure out what exactly he is good at, and he has failed miserably on most of his campaign promises. One candidate is so much more qualified its comical.

LOL...rigggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhtttttttttttt

He's failing bc the global fucking economy collapsed and I thought the right bellow's nightly that it's not the government job to grow the economy and create jobs but private industry? So how can he be accountable for something you say is not possible in the first place?

Seriousily, ppl crack me up with "he's never had" as if any one person has the ability or capacity to understand everything...is that not why they have cabinets? Is that not why they hire and consult with intelligent ppl/agencies who can make a calculated group decision?

The global economy collapsed in 2007/8. Its been 4 years. Its not the governments job to grow the economy, thats the problem. Obama is a huge pro-government president and consistently makes life more difficult for private business when he's not whining about fairness.

As far as his cabinet - thats where he's made some huge mistakes. He's packed it full of other like minded government beaucrats w/minimal private experience, and what little private experience they had was being a Wall St bank whore. Names like Larry Summers, Cristine Romer, Geithner, and Bernanke our mostly career government beaucrats or shill academics.

Post: #59

Quote:Sure, he can appoint whoever he wants in his cabinet, but many of those people aren't exactly the kind of folks that get Wall Street leaders excited.

Also, Obama is the commander of the ship. Many people on The Street simply don't like the guy.

His cabinet is pretty Wall Street friendly.

And since early "09, the S&P is up over 50%.

(01-30-2012 01:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  The global economy collapsed in 2007/8. Its been 4 years. Its not the governments job to grow the economy, thats the problem. Obama is a huge pro-government president and consistently makes life more difficult for private business when he's not whining about fairness.

You do know he hasn't raised taxes right?

Except some small taxes on things like cigarettes. (Which of course has to get passed by Congress).

He has extended tax cuts.

Look, I don't like Obama, but not for the reasons you guys are giving.

Post: #60

(01-30-2012 01:12 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote:Sure, he can appoint whoever he wants in his cabinet, but many of those people aren't exactly the kind of folks that get Wall Street leaders excited.

Also, Obama is the commander of the ship. Many people on The Street simply don't like the guy.

His cabinet is pretty Wall Street friendly.

And since early "09, the S&P is up over 50%.

(01-30-2012 01:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  The global economy collapsed in 2007/8. Its been 4 years. Its not the governments job to grow the economy, thats the problem. Obama is a huge pro-government president and consistently makes life more difficult for private business when he's not whining about fairness.

You do know he hasn't raised taxes right?

Except some small taxes on things like cigarettes. (Which of course has to get passed by Congress).

He has extended tax cuts.

Look, I don't like Obama, but not for the reasons you guys are giving.

Michael Brush: Corporate CEOs unhappy with Obama
Company Focus9/21/2010 7:17 PM ET
Why CEOs can't stand Obama

Corporate leaders are slamming the president over taxes and the uncertain effects of his policies, and the executives' siege mentality is holding back the economy.
[Related content: Barack Obama, Intel, Michael Brush, politics, stocks]
By Michael Brush
MSN Money

Is fear of President Barack Obama one reason we're stuck with sluggish economic growth?

That's the message the CEOs of several major companies are sending out.

In unusually vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, including references to communist Russia and Adolf Hitler, CEOs have complained they can't predict what Obama will do next -- and how his new regulations and taxes might hit their companies.

The result is a bunker mentality that has CEOs holding back -- and the economy growing more slowly as a result.

"We don't know what the latest great idea from Obama will be. Therefore, we are hunkering down," Cypress Semiconductor (CY, news, msgs) CEO T.J. Rodgers told me last week, echoing public comments over summer from CEOs at companies such as Intel (INTC, news, msgs) and Verizon (VZ, news, msgs).

He said that because of Obama, CEOs are focusing on their core businesses and hiring less, to control costs and risks. "CEOs are uncertain, so they don't want to have the liability of adding a lot of employees," Rodgers said.

Post: #61

Wanna see a badass motherfucker who makes Floyd Meriwether look like a pussy?





Oh, I forgot. He's a Republican.

Quote:"The other sides sees the safety net as a hammock....The don't believe in equality of opportunity. They believe in equality of achievement. The believe they are the arbiters of fairness. They believe, when they look upon a young Alan West, born in 1961 in the inner city of Atlanta..."son, that's where you'll stay. . .

. . .Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America."

Post: #62

if Allen West got elected POTUS you would see all those so called racist Tea Party and Republicans happier then Money Mayweather at a Strip Club lighting 100's and making it rain on the strippers.

Post: #63

(01-30-2012 01:51 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:12 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote:Sure, he can appoint whoever he wants in his cabinet, but many of those people aren't exactly the kind of folks that get Wall Street leaders excited.

Also, Obama is the commander of the ship. Many people on The Street simply don't like the guy.

His cabinet is pretty Wall Street friendly.

And since early "09, the S&P is up over 50%.

(01-30-2012 01:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  The global economy collapsed in 2007/8. Its been 4 years. Its not the governments job to grow the economy, thats the problem. Obama is a huge pro-government president and consistently makes life more difficult for private business when he's not whining about fairness.

You do know he hasn't raised taxes right?

Except some small taxes on things like cigarettes. (Which of course has to get passed by Congress).

He has extended tax cuts.

Look, I don't like Obama, but not for the reasons you guys are giving.

Michael Brush: Corporate CEOs unhappy with Obama
Company Focus9/21/2010 7:17 PM ET
Why CEOs can't stand Obama

Corporate leaders are slamming the president over taxes and the uncertain effects of his policies, and the executives' siege mentality is holding back the economy.
[Related content: Barack Obama, Intel, Michael Brush, politics, stocks]
By Michael Brush
MSN Money

Is fear of President Barack Obama one reason we're stuck with sluggish economic growth?

That's the message the CEOs of several major companies are sending out.

In unusually vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, including references to communist Russia and Adolf Hitler, CEOs have complained they can't predict what Obama will do next -- and how his new regulations and taxes might hit their companies.

The result is a bunker mentality that has CEOs holding back -- and the economy growing more slowly as a result.

"We don't know what the latest great idea from Obama will be. Therefore, we are hunkering down," Cypress Semiconductor (CY, news, msgs) CEO T.J. Rodgers told me last week, echoing public comments over summer from CEOs at companies such as Intel (INTC, news, msgs) and Verizon (VZ, news, msgs).

He said that because of Obama, CEOs are focusing on their core businesses and hiring less, to control costs and risks. "CEOs are uncertain, so they don't want to have the liability of adding a lot of employees," Rodgers said.

T.J. Rodgers is a smart cat, and I agree with a lot of what he has to say (of what I have read).

Keep, in mind though, his companies stock has doubled during the Obama administration.

Post: #64

(01-30-2012 01:12 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote:Sure, he can appoint whoever he wants in his cabinet, but many of those people aren't exactly the kind of folks that get Wall Street leaders excited.

Also, Obama is the commander of the ship. Many people on The Street simply don't like the guy.

His cabinet is pretty Wall Street friendly.

And since early "09, the S&P is up over 50%.

(01-30-2012 01:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  The global economy collapsed in 2007/8. Its been 4 years. Its not the governments job to grow the economy, thats the problem. Obama is a huge pro-government president and consistently makes life more difficult for private business when he's not whining about fairness.

You do know he hasn't raised taxes right?

Except some small taxes on things like cigarettes. (Which of course has to get passed by Congress).

He has extended tax cuts.

Look, I don't like Obama, but not for the reasons you guys are giving.

I can see where you're coming from, G. For those who really wanted someone new, fresh, and innovative to change the scene in Washington, they must be truly disappointed--if they're being honest--with Obama. One has to wonder, is Obama even a Democrat?

A strong case can be made that he's actually a moderate Republican or some variation of Republican-lite.

Consider the points G has raised. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, engaged in new military adventures, gave huge breaks to both Wall Street and the automotive industry, and has done virtually nothing to save ailing homeowners, appease Wall Street "Occupiers," or improve the economic prospects of the middle class. Further, he is the first president in American history to order the killing of a US citizen without a shred of due process (in direct violation of the US Constitution). He even expanded, not just maintained, many of the borderline fascist, if not outright totalitarian, "national security" policies of his predecessor.

This actually drives my point further. If we're going to have a Republican in the White House, why not get a "real one" in there?

Post: #65

(01-30-2012 02:18 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:12 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote:Sure, he can appoint whoever he wants in his cabinet, but many of those people aren't exactly the kind of folks that get Wall Street leaders excited.

Also, Obama is the commander of the ship. Many people on The Street simply don't like the guy.

His cabinet is pretty Wall Street friendly.

And since early "09, the S&P is up over 50%.

(01-30-2012 01:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  The global economy collapsed in 2007/8. Its been 4 years. Its not the governments job to grow the economy, thats the problem. Obama is a huge pro-government president and consistently makes life more difficult for private business when he's not whining about fairness.

You do know he hasn't raised taxes right?

Except some small taxes on things like cigarettes. (Which of course has to get passed by Congress).

He has extended tax cuts.

Look, I don't like Obama, but not for the reasons you guys are giving.

I can see where you're coming from, G. For those who really wanted someone new, fresh, and innovative to change the scene in Washington, they must be truly disappointed--if they're being honest--with Obama. One has to wonder, is Obama even a Democrat?

A strong case can be made that he's actually a moderate Republican or some variation of Republican-lite.

Consider the points G has raised. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, engaged in new military adventures, gave huge breaks to both Wall Street and the automotive industry, and has done virtually nothing to save ailing homeowners, appease Wall Street "Occupiers," or improve the economic prospects of the middle class. Further, he is the first president in American history to order the killing of a US citizen without a shred of due process (in direct violation of the US Constitution). He even expanded, not just maintained, many of the borderline fascist, if not outright totalitarian, "national security" policies of his predecessor.

This actually drives my point further. If we're going to have a Republican in the White House, why not get a "real one" in there?

Because Romney will extend the Bush tax cuts, engage in new military adventures, continue to give huge breaks to both Wall Street and the automotive industry. Further, he will be the second president in American history to order the killing of a US citizen without a shred of due process (in direct violation of the US Constitution).

And come up with stronger National Defense Authorization Acts.

Obama and Romney are basically the same guy.

Post: #66

(01-30-2012 02:33 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 02:18 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:12 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote:Sure, he can appoint whoever he wants in his cabinet, but many of those people aren't exactly the kind of folks that get Wall Street leaders excited.

Also, Obama is the commander of the ship. Many people on The Street simply don't like the guy.

His cabinet is pretty Wall Street friendly.

And since early "09, the S&P is up over 50%.

(01-30-2012 01:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  The global economy collapsed in 2007/8. Its been 4 years. Its not the governments job to grow the economy, thats the problem. Obama is a huge pro-government president and consistently makes life more difficult for private business when he's not whining about fairness.

You do know he hasn't raised taxes right?

Except some small taxes on things like cigarettes. (Which of course has to get passed by Congress).

He has extended tax cuts.

Look, I don't like Obama, but not for the reasons you guys are giving.

I can see where you're coming from, G. For those who really wanted someone new, fresh, and innovative to change the scene in Washington, they must be truly disappointed--if they're being honest--with Obama. One has to wonder, is Obama even a Democrat?

A strong case can be made that he's actually a moderate Republican or some variation of Republican-lite.

Consider the points G has raised. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, engaged in new military adventures, gave huge breaks to both Wall Street and the automotive industry, and has done virtually nothing to save ailing homeowners, appease Wall Street "Occupiers," or improve the economic prospects of the middle class. Further, he is the first president in American history to order the killing of a US citizen without a shred of due process (in direct violation of the US Constitution). He even expanded, not just maintained, many of the borderline fascist, if not outright totalitarian, "national security" policies of his predecessor.

This actually drives my point further. If we're going to have a Republican in the White House, why not get a "real one" in there?

Because Romney will extend the Bush tax cuts, engaged in new military adventures, gave huge breaks to both Wall Street and the automotive industry. Further, he will be the second president in American history to order the killing of a US citizen without a shred of due process (in direct violation of the US Constitution).

And come up with stronger National Defense Authorization Acts.

I think if it comes down to Obama just being the lesser of the "two evils," then Obama doesn't deserve a reelection vote. Fear should never drive your decision to vote for someone. We'll learn more about the nuances between the two candidates and their proposals once the Republicans wrap up their nomination battle, which should accelerate after tomorrow's primary in Florida. I think Romney will push out some serious economic policy proposals. He's also a moderate guy, so I don't expect him to mirror the actions of his predecessors in the event he gets to climb into the Oval Office.

Post: #67

(01-30-2012 01:51 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:12 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote:Sure, he can appoint whoever he wants in his cabinet, but many of those people aren't exactly the kind of folks that get Wall Street leaders excited.

Also, Obama is the commander of the ship. Many people on The Street simply don't like the guy.

His cabinet is pretty Wall Street friendly.

And since early "09, the S&P is up over 50%.

(01-30-2012 01:00 PM)Brian Wrote:  The global economy collapsed in 2007/8. Its been 4 years. Its not the governments job to grow the economy, thats the problem. Obama is a huge pro-government president and consistently makes life more difficult for private business when he's not whining about fairness.

You do know he hasn't raised taxes right?

Except some small taxes on things like cigarettes. (Which of course has to get passed by Congress).

He has extended tax cuts.

Look, I don't like Obama, but not for the reasons you guys are giving.

Michael Brush: Corporate CEOs unhappy with Obama
Company Focus9/21/2010 7:17 PM ET
Why CEOs can't stand Obama

Corporate leaders are slamming the president over taxes and the uncertain effects of his policies, and the executives' siege mentality is holding back the economy.
[Related content: Barack Obama, Intel, Michael Brush, politics, stocks]
By Michael Brush
MSN Money

Is fear of President Barack Obama one reason we're stuck with sluggish economic growth?

That's the message the CEOs of several major companies are sending out.

In unusually vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, including references to communist Russia and Adolf Hitler, CEOs have complained they can't predict what Obama will do next -- and how his new regulations and taxes might hit their companies.

The result is a bunker mentality that has CEOs holding back -- and the economy growing more slowly as a result.

"We don't know what the latest great idea from Obama will be. Therefore, we are hunkering down," Cypress Semiconductor (CY, news, msgs) CEO T.J. Rodgers told me last week, echoing public comments over summer from CEOs at companies such as Intel (INTC, news, msgs) and Verizon (VZ, news, msgs).

He said that because of Obama, CEOs are focusing on their core businesses and hiring less, to control costs and risks. "CEOs are uncertain, so they don't want to have the liability of adding a lot of employees," Rodgers said.

That quote is out of date.
This is from today: Dow 12,642.45
But oh yeah, he "hates stocks!", "he's a commie!", "he's a socialist"
Whatever...

Post: #68

(01-30-2012 02:33 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Because Romney will extend the Bush tax cuts, engage in new military adventures, continue to give huge breaks to both Wall Street and the automotive industry. Further, he will be the second president in American history to order the killing of a US citizen without a shred of due process (in direct violation of the US Constitution).

And come up with stronger National Defense Authorization Acts.

Obama and Romney are basically the same guy.

That's what I think a lot of idealists (all over the political spectrum) fail to understand. The president has been rendered basically a figure, a symbol. He doesn't represent his beliefs. He just pushes the buttons he's told to push. People that indict Obama for this and that don't realize that the real forces pulling the strings are the corporations that own his ass. The only way to win an election in this country is to sell yourself lock, stock, and barrel to the Exxon-Mobiles and Goldman-Sachs of the world. Obama might have real beliefs behind his corporate facade, but you'll never see them. He's controlled by the corporations that own this country. Romney would be the same. Hilary Clinton would have been the same. Bush was the same.

Congress is the exact same too, with very few notable exceptions. You guys pointing the finger are right to do so, but you're pointing it at the wrong people. It's an oversimplified look at a complex problem.

"I just want a guy in the Oval Office who will lower the debt and shrink government." That kind of sentiment is incredibly naive and one-dimensional.

Post: #69

I think Romney is going to win and surprise a lot of people. He may not be the fantastic speechgiver and campaigner Obama is but look at his past record of success. Throw out all the BS thats spewed on the campaign trail, most of it is just nonsense. Obama promised everything and has failed to deliver on alot of stuff. When Romney gets in charge he's going to run the government more like a business, and be more proactive in encouraging private business and eliminating wasteful spending and cutting back on entitlements. Thats what the US needs more then anything at this point and based on their previous performances I think Romney is going to rise to the occasion.

Post: #70

(01-30-2012 03:17 PM)Brian Wrote:  I think Romney is going to win and surprise a lot of people. He may not be the fantastic speechgiver and campaigner Obama is but look at his past record of success. Throw out all the BS thats spewed on the campaign trail, most of it is just nonsense. Obama promised everything and has failed to deliver on alot of stuff. When Romney gets in charge he's going to run the government more like a business, and be more proactive in encouraging private business and eliminating wasteful spending and cutting back on entitlements. Thats what the US needs more then anything at this point and based on their previous performances I think Romney is going to rise to the occasion.

The government is not a business.

Post: #71

(01-30-2012 03:17 PM)Brian Wrote:  I think Romney is going to win and surprise a lot of people.

Shouldn't your sentence read: I HOPE Romney is going to win and surprise a lot of people.

Quote:When Romney gets in charge he's going to run the government more like a business, and be more proactive in encouraging private business and eliminating wasteful spending and cutting back on entitlements.

Just like Bush?

I wouldn't hold my breath on Romney cutting jack sh*t.

Or you might die from lack of oxygen.

Post: #72

why do you keep bringing up Bush? thats era is over and done with.

Post: #73

(01-30-2012 04:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  why do you keep bringing up Bush? thats era is over and done with.

I forgot.

We can only use examples from history except for Bush.

Post: #74

(01-30-2012 03:16 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 02:33 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Because Romney will extend the Bush tax cuts, engage in new military adventures, continue to give huge breaks to both Wall Street and the automotive industry. Further, he will be the second president in American history to order the killing of a US citizen without a shred of due process (in direct violation of the US Constitution).

And come up with stronger National Defense Authorization Acts.

Obama and Romney are basically the same guy.

That's what I think a lot of idealists (all over the political spectrum) fail to understand. The president has been rendered basically a figure, a symbol. He doesn't represent his beliefs. He just pushes the buttons he's told to push. People that indict Obama for this and that don't realize that the real forces pulling the strings are the corporations that own his ass. The only way to win an election in this country is to sell yourself lock, stock, and barrel to the Exxon-Mobiles and Goldman-Sachs of the world. Obama might have real beliefs behind his corporate facade, but you'll never see them. He's controlled by the corporations that own this country. Romney would be the same. Hilary Clinton would have been the same. Bush was the same.

Congress is the exact same too, with very few notable exceptions. You guys pointing the finger are right to do so, but you're pointing it at the wrong people. It's an oversimplified look at a complex problem.

"I just want a guy in the Oval Office who will lower the debt and shrink government." That kind of sentiment is incredibly naive and one-dimensional.

+1

Post: #75

(01-30-2012 03:25 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 03:17 PM)Brian Wrote:  I think Romney is going to win and surprise a lot of people. He may not be the fantastic speechgiver and campaigner Obama is but look at his past record of success. Throw out all the BS thats spewed on the campaign trail, most of it is just nonsense. Obama promised everything and has failed to deliver on alot of stuff. When Romney gets in charge he's going to run the government more like a business, and be more proactive in encouraging private business and eliminating wasteful spending and cutting back on entitlements. Thats what the US needs more then anything at this point and based on their previous performances I think Romney is going to rise to the occasion.

The government is not a business.

The government is not a business.

Exactly, the gov't is not a business, and has no business in business. A guy that has rescued businesses understands this.

I like the other posters's comment. Who would you rather invest your money for you? A guy who's made a shit load of money making sound business decisions over an extended period of time. Or a guy that's a community organizer and consistently made boned headed investments like solyndra?

Honestly, how can you guys even defend these decisions and say "Give him four more years"?

He hasn't delivered on ANYTHING, in fact things seem a lot worse than they were to me.