TBD

killsaly wrote:
OK, November right after the election.

I was giving it a few weeks after so that the losing side will chill out a little bit.

Election talk and "my party is so good, yours sucks" talk gets really old.

agreed

Watching Spin Magazine rag on about last night's VMA is quite amusing… Pot meet Kettle

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:

What people should be voting for is action and results, and this President has failed miserably so it's time to give someone else a try. Like him or not, at least Romney has created jobs.

Come on Frank! You're better than parroting talking points peddled by the Republicans.

You say he created jobs? How? He refuses to talk about his time at Bain. Bain was a COMPANY which is not the same thing as a COUNTRY. A COMPANY investing money in other COMPANIES that already existed is not really comparable to how the largest economy in the world operates. As President what is he going to do, invest in companies to create jobs, load them with debt, and walk away  with the money? I mean be serious please.

The only real evidence of Romney's ability to create jobs leading the Executive branch of government is his time as Governor of Massachusetts and we know the state ranked 47th in job creation during his tenure. Of course he won't talk about that either. Myth Romney indeed.

Bottom line: we have not heard one word about HOW he will create jobs.

Think of the case of Spain. They had left wing govt. the economy tanked.. they lost millions of jobs.. they threw the left out and brought in the right. They keep losing jobs just the same.

I guess your argument boils down to: President Obama has failed so give this other guy a chance regardless. The only problem with this is that President Obama hasn't failed as much as he hasn't succeeded to the degree we wish. It will be up to the American people to determine how it feels about the President's track record vs the challenger's promises.

I can assure you any parrotting of the republican is purely coincidental, because I've not listened to a single word of their drivvel either.

Romney has created jobs, met a payroll and more importantly, operated within a budget. Operating within a budget is the biggest difference between running a country and a multi national company. As Barry has shown us, if you're a government and you need more capital just print more moolah!!!

Don't be mistaken, I have never voted Republican before, and a registered Independent who voted Democrat. That is until the Democrats desserted ME! History will show Obama to the worst President in modern history, although Carter may want to hold on to that honor.

I suppose if you only care about yourself and only into the future 5+- years, then Obama isn't a bad option. If you have kids and want what all parents want, to leave the world a better place than you found it for your kids sake, then Obama has got to go…..(that was not a personal dig, just how I see it)

November spawned a monster - btw……

*edit* a better choice of words would've been 'if you only have yourself to worry about' not 'if you only care about yourself'…..

Frank wrote:

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:

What people should be voting for is action and results, and this President has failed miserably so it's time to give someone else a try. Like him or not, at least Romney has created jobs.

Come on Frank! You're better than parroting talking points peddled by the Republicans.

You say he created jobs? How? He refuses to talk about his time at Bain. Bain was a COMPANY which is not the same thing as a COUNTRY. A COMPANY investing money in other COMPANIES that already existed is not really comparable to how the largest economy in the world operates. As President what is he going to do, invest in companies to create jobs, load them with debt, and walk away  with the money? I mean be serious please.

The only real evidence of Romney's ability to create jobs leading the Executive branch of government is his time as Governor of Massachusetts and we know the state ranked 47th in job creation during his tenure. Of course he won't talk about that either. Myth Romney indeed.

Bottom line: we have not heard one word about HOW he will create jobs.

Think of the case of Spain. They had left wing govt. the economy tanked.. they lost millions of jobs.. they threw the left out and brought in the right. They keep losing jobs just the same.

I guess your argument boils down to: President Obama has failed so give this other guy a chance regardless. The only problem with this is that President Obama hasn't failed as much as he hasn't succeeded to the degree we wish. It will be up to the American people to determine how it feels about the President's track record vs the challenger's promises.

I can assure you any parrotting of the republican is purely coincidental, because I've not listened to a single word of their drivvel either.

Romney has created jobs, met a payroll and more importantly, operated within a budget. Operating within a budget is the biggest difference between running a country and a multi national company. As Barry has shown us, if you're a government and you need more capital just print more moolah!!!

Don't be mistaken, I have never voted Republican before, and a registered Independent who voted Democrat. That is until the Democrats desserted ME! History will show Obama to the worst President in modern history, although Carter may want to hold on to that honor.

I suppose if you only care about yourself and only into the future 5+- years, then Obama isn't a bad option. If you have kids and want what all parents want, to leave the world a better place than you found it for your kids sake, then Obama has got to go…..(that was not a personal dig, just how I see it)

November spawned a monster - btw……

*edit* a better choice of words would've been 'if you only have yourself to worry about' not 'if you only care about yourself'…..

I just don't see your business analogy. Government is not business. In down times government borrows and receipts decline (people make less money and pay fewer taxes). I suppose you don't believe that in a great recession, looking like heading to a depression, government needs to offset weakness in aggregate demand. As far as meeting payroll etc. I believe the government by definition always does. You may not agree with borrowing to do so but that is what they do and they do it to meet payroll and it is part of the government's budget.

As far as having only myself to worry about that is not applicable. I have two very young boys but I don't see how the Republicans lowering taxes for millionaires and  increasing defense spending even beyond what the military requests is going to create any additional opportunity for them! The party that does not believe we are all in together is the Republican Party. They are essentially social darwinists which I think is a very outdated theory.

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:

What people should be voting for is action and results, and this President has failed miserably so it's time to give someone else a try. Like him or not, at least Romney has created jobs.

Come on Frank! You're better than parroting talking points peddled by the Republicans.

You say he created jobs? How? He refuses to talk about his time at Bain. Bain was a COMPANY which is not the same thing as a COUNTRY. A COMPANY investing money in other COMPANIES that already existed is not really comparable to how the largest economy in the world operates. As President what is he going to do, invest in companies to create jobs, load them with debt, and walk away  with the money? I mean be serious please.

The only real evidence of Romney's ability to create jobs leading the Executive branch of government is his time as Governor of Massachusetts and we know the state ranked 47th in job creation during his tenure. Of course he won't talk about that either. Myth Romney indeed.

Bottom line: we have not heard one word about HOW he will create jobs.

Think of the case of Spain. They had left wing govt. the economy tanked.. they lost millions of jobs.. they threw the left out and brought in the right. They keep losing jobs just the same.

I guess your argument boils down to: President Obama has failed so give this other guy a chance regardless. The only problem with this is that President Obama hasn't failed as much as he hasn't succeeded to the degree we wish. It will be up to the American people to determine how it feels about the President's track record vs the challenger's promises.

Most of this. And I will add this question.  Are we sure Romney's net job creation number is in the green? Outsourced jobs count as negatives. I would guess that if anything, Romney's tenure at Bain resulted in more job losses than creation.
My beef with Obama is still that he has capitulated on way too many issues and shows no sign of stopping. And whenever I try to see passed this, (really, I want to vote for him and be comfortable in doing so) something new to complain about bubbles up. If only all these capitulations appeased the idiots that he bends over backwards to please.
I mean people are going to call him a socialist regardless of what he does; might as well actually be a socialist. People are going to accuse him of throwing Israel under the bus even if he doubles the aid to Israel tomorrow. Might as well at least pretend to be an honest broker between them and the Palestinians. People are going to say that he cares too much about the environment. Might as well mention the ills of fracking and try to get a ban passed. Guess what I am saying is that all these supposed compromises are for nothing. If anything, they make him look weak.

Also Frank, you seem to be really concerned with the deficit so let me ask you and please answer this question instead of avoiding it like you have most of my points (sorry friend but its true):

Are you aware that most of the deficit accruing -even today- is due to the Bush tax cuts which Republicans refuse to repeal?

Don't get me started on the military.

As dangerous rogue nations like China, N. Korea, Syria, Russia and Iran are building up their military firepower, America is basically castrating theirs. These nations only see weakness, so America can only negotiate with them from a position of strength. I wish we didn't have to throw billions at weapons we never intend to use, but that's the world we live in today. It's all about national security. To put it in crass terms….'ya mess with me, I'm gunna mess you wichyoo" America can't even defeat a bunch of peasants living in tents and caves right now. Russia had a submarine happily sailing under the Gulf of Mexico, and what did our government do? They stuck their finger in their ears and sang 'la la la la la'.

It's not only America. Britain has also removed the testicles from it's navy….We're an Island. A nation of sailors, and we don't even have a friggin aircraft carrier in our fleet.

Here is a graph that has been widely reproduced. If you are so concerned about the deficit the last person you should want to win this election is Mitt Romney. They have already stated they are going to double down on tax cuts.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/06/cbpp_bush_tax_cuts_deficit_1cef5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/boehner-lies-about-bush-tax-cuts-and-deficits&h=287&w=447&sz=56&tbnid=IJ_eHvick2uUdM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=114&zoom=1&usg=__QNzZ3asik6ToFBI7wFqHXScGR7s=&docid=o7CA0djxuLlCKM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OktKULn6A-Tk0QHHooHIDA&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ9QEwBA&dur=338

Honestly i'm more concerned about who is going to be able to nominate future supreme court justices, that last thing this country needs is an even more conservative minded court who will likely over turn much of the progress made since the 50s.  All we need is the ilk of the Koch Brothers challenging all the way the Supreme Court anything they don't like, so it can be overturned,etc.

azaghal1981 wrote:

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:

What people should be voting for is action and results, and this President has failed miserably so it's time to give someone else a try. Like him or not, at least Romney has created jobs.

Come on Frank! You're better than parroting talking points peddled by the Republicans.

You say he created jobs? How? He refuses to talk about his time at Bain. Bain was a COMPANY which is not the same thing as a COUNTRY. A COMPANY investing money in other COMPANIES that already existed is not really comparable to how the largest economy in the world operates. As President what is he going to do, invest in companies to create jobs, load them with debt, and walk away  with the money? I mean be serious please.

The only real evidence of Romney's ability to create jobs leading the Executive branch of government is his time as Governor of Massachusetts and we know the state ranked 47th in job creation during his tenure. Of course he won't talk about that either. Myth Romney indeed.

Bottom line: we have not heard one word about HOW he will create jobs.

Think of the case of Spain. They had left wing govt. the economy tanked.. they lost millions of jobs.. they threw the left out and brought in the right. They keep losing jobs just the same.

I guess your argument boils down to: President Obama has failed so give this other guy a chance regardless. The only problem with this is that President Obama hasn't failed as much as he hasn't succeeded to the degree we wish. It will be up to the American people to determine how it feels about the President's track record vs the challenger's promises.

Most of this. And I will add this question.  Are we sure Romney's net job creation number is in the green? Outsourced jobs count as negatives. I would guess that if anything, Romney's tenure at Bain resulted in more job losses than creation.
My beef with Obama is still that he has capitulated on way too many issues and shows no sign of stopping. And whenever I try to see passed this, (really, I want to vote for him and be comfortable in doing so) something new to complain about bubbles up. If only all these capitulations appeased the idiots that he bends over backwards to please.
I mean people are going to call him a socialist regardless of what he does; might as well actually be a socialist. People are going to accuse him of throwing Israel under the bus even if he doubles the aid to Israel tomorrow. Might as well at least pretend to be an honest broker between them and the Palestinians. People are going to say that he cares too much about the environment. Might as well mention the ills of fracking and try to get a ban passed. Guess what I am saying is that all these supposed compromises are for nothing. If anything, they make him look weak.

He IS a socialist.
He HAS thrown Israel under the bus.
You CAN'T negotiate with the Palestinians. They want the extintion of Israel and they're not budging.
Nothing wrong with caring for the environment, but he can't see the trees for the forest in that regard.
He ONLY compromises after he's lost the debate.

There, straightforward enough replies for you?

Unless Frank is one of those so concerned about the deficit but feels its necessary to spend far more than we do on the military and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Also, I can't see how President Obama will ever be remembered as the worst president. Just for taking out Osama Bin Laden alone- and as Commander in Chief he will get the credit in the history books like it or not- he would be placed above many others. A lot will have to do with whether he can win reelection but it is certainly possible he will (betting markets are betting he will defeat Romney), despite the economy, it is not hard to envision a scenario where the US economy strengthens and his legacy is burnished. Health Care Reform would be preserved and fully implemented and would go down in US history as a major accomplishment. In addition, he would have extricated the country out of two long wars, etc. etc. Supposing no terrorist attacks on US soil in the next four years, under this scenario, President Obama would be remembered as one of the greats.

Frank, I really am going to need some better reasons for why President Obama is the worst president in history. If you don't give me any I won't be able to help, and I know it can't be true, thinking you're one of those wackjobs on the right who just plain hate him because of, well you know….
This may well be wishful thinking at this point but it could happen.  ;D

Frank wrote:

azaghal1981 wrote:

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:

What people should be voting for is action and results, and this President has failed miserably so it's time to give someone else a try. Like him or not, at least Romney has created jobs.

Come on Frank! You're better than parroting talking points peddled by the Republicans.

You say he created jobs? How? He refuses to talk about his time at Bain. Bain was a COMPANY which is not the same thing as a COUNTRY. A COMPANY investing money in other COMPANIES that already existed is not really comparable to how the largest economy in the world operates. As President what is he going to do, invest in companies to create jobs, load them with debt, and walk away  with the money? I mean be serious please.

The only real evidence of Romney's ability to create jobs leading the Executive branch of government is his time as Governor of Massachusetts and we know the state ranked 47th in job creation during his tenure. Of course he won't talk about that either. Myth Romney indeed.

Bottom line: we have not heard one word about HOW he will create jobs.

Think of the case of Spain. They had left wing govt. the economy tanked.. they lost millions of jobs.. they threw the left out and brought in the right. They keep losing jobs just the same.

I guess your argument boils down to: President Obama has failed so give this other guy a chance regardless. The only problem with this is that President Obama hasn't failed as much as he hasn't succeeded to the degree we wish. It will be up to the American people to determine how it feels about the President's track record vs the challenger's promises.

Most of this. And I will add this question.  Are we sure Romney's net job creation number is in the green? Outsourced jobs count as negatives. I would guess that if anything, Romney's tenure at Bain resulted in more job losses than creation.
My beef with Obama is still that he has capitulated on way too many issues and shows no sign of stopping. And whenever I try to see passed this, (really, I want to vote for him and be comfortable in doing so) something new to complain about bubbles up. If only all these capitulations appeased the idiots that he bends over backwards to please.
I mean people are going to call him a socialist regardless of what he does; might as well actually be a socialist. People are going to accuse him of throwing Israel under the bus even if he doubles the aid to Israel tomorrow. Might as well at least pretend to be an honest broker between them and the Palestinians. People are going to say that he cares too much about the environment. Might as well mention the ills of fracking and try to get a ban passed. Guess what I am saying is that all these supposed compromises are for nothing. If anything, they make him look weak.

He IS a socialist.
He HAS thrown Israel under the bus.
You CAN'T negotiate with the Palestinians. They want the extintion of Israel and they're not budging.
Nothing wrong with caring for the environment, but he can't see the trees for the forest in that regard.
He ONLY compromises after he's lost the debate.

There, straightforward enough replies for you?

Sure. Too bad they are complete bullshit and unfounded. Nice job labeling an entire group of people as having the same opinion.
You are the perfect example of those who I was referring to above.

kosmo wrote:
Honestly i'm more concerned about who is going to be able to nominate future supreme court justices, that last thing this country needs is an even more conservative minded court who will likely over turn much of the progress made since the 50s.   All we need is the ilk of the Koch Brothers challenging all the way the Supreme Court anything they don't like, so it can be overturned,etc.

This is a great point nobody talks about but it is pretty clear that the next Justice to leave the court will almost surely be one of the members of the more liberal minority. I don't have to tell anyone what a 6-3 majority conservative court would mean.

Now it is probably possible that if the Republicans win the more liberal judges will hold on hoping for 2016 democratic victory but Ginsburg has had health issues…

Chilling actually to think about…

Frank wrote:

azaghal1981 wrote:

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:

What people should be voting for is action and results, and this President has failed miserably so it's time to give someone else a try. Like him or not, at least Romney has created jobs.

Come on Frank! You're better than parroting talking points peddled by the Republicans.

You say he created jobs? How? He refuses to talk about his time at Bain. Bain was a COMPANY which is not the same thing as a COUNTRY. A COMPANY investing money in other COMPANIES that already existed is not really comparable to how the largest economy in the world operates. As President what is he going to do, invest in companies to create jobs, load them with debt, and walk away  with the money? I mean be serious please.

The only real evidence of Romney's ability to create jobs leading the Executive branch of government is his time as Governor of Massachusetts and we know the state ranked 47th in job creation during his tenure. Of course he won't talk about that either. Myth Romney indeed.

Bottom line: we have not heard one word about HOW he will create jobs.

Think of the case of Spain. They had left wing govt. the economy tanked.. they lost millions of jobs.. they threw the left out and brought in the right. They keep losing jobs just the same.

I guess your argument boils down to: President Obama has failed so give this other guy a chance regardless. The only problem with this is that President Obama hasn't failed as much as he hasn't succeeded to the degree we wish. It will be up to the American people to determine how it feels about the President's track record vs the challenger's promises.

Most of this. And I will add this question.  Are we sure Romney's net job creation number is in the green? Outsourced jobs count as negatives. I would guess that if anything, Romney's tenure at Bain resulted in more job losses than creation.
My beef with Obama is still that he has capitulated on way too many issues and shows no sign of stopping. And whenever I try to see passed this, (really, I want to vote for him and be comfortable in doing so) something new to complain about bubbles up. If only all these capitulations appeased the idiots that he bends over backwards to please.
I mean people are going to call him a socialist regardless of what he does; might as well actually be a socialist. People are going to accuse him of throwing Israel under the bus even if he doubles the aid to Israel tomorrow. Might as well at least pretend to be an honest broker between them and the Palestinians. People are going to say that he cares too much about the environment. Might as well mention the ills of fracking and try to get a ban passed. Guess what I am saying is that all these supposed compromises are for nothing. If anything, they make him look weak.

He IS a socialist.
He HAS thrown Israel under the bus.
You CAN'T negotiate with the Palestinians. They want the extintion of Israel and they're not budging.
Nothing wrong with caring for the environment, but he can't see the trees for the forest in that regard.
He ONLY compromises after he's lost the debate.

There, straightforward enough replies for you?

No Frank, I hate to jump in here as I know this is a friendly tete a tete you and Az are having but please provide specific examples. It would help for example if you would tell us what you mean by socialism? It can mean so many different things to different people. Tell us how he threw Israel under the "bus" etc.

Hey folks…  Sorry I have been absent from the conversation for the last several days.  The doc has me on so many meds right now that I am about as close to lost in space as one can get and still be alive.  Right now I have eight different little brown bottles that I pick form several times a day.  I'm not even taking the oxycontin for pain.  That really sets me off.  I'd rather deal with the reduced level of pain form the other meds.  Anyway the date is set for my MVD surgery.  I'll be heading into the hospital (St Mary's in Richmond) on Wednesday and they will drill the hole in my head, open up the dura, and go poking around my brian to get to the nerves and blood vessels that are causing the problem.  I have no idea how long I'll be away, but hopefully I'll be back here soon enjoying the ongoing debates.  I do have to tell y'all that I am scared shitless about this.  It will be the second time I have had someone's hands inside my skull, and spinning that wheel twice is something I would much rather not do.  But hey, maybe if I am lucky this time they will get ALL of the evil spirits out! :)

Wow. That is not an enviable position. Very best to you Rat and hope all goes well and you come out a whole new healthier man.

good luck, RB.  while they're in there, tell them to take out the voices too ;D

sweetcell wrote:
good luck, RB.  while they're in there, tell them to take out the voices too ;D

Does the noise in my head bother you? :P

yeah good luck RB! get well soon