2012 USA Presidential Election - Who's The "Best" Choice?

Other than the obvious "Fox" is just another cog in the right wing media wheel, I'd like to know why their viewers are passive about this: http://gawker.com/5831167/.

twday wrote:

Other than the obvious "Fox" is just another cog in the right wing media wheel, I'd like to know why their viewers are passive about this: http://gawker.com/5831167/.

Wow! John Stewart, incisive impartial political commentary at it's finest. The guy who squawks "It's only comedy" when he gets cornered on his hypocrisy and bullshit.

Well, John Stewart being John Stewart, I can understand why Ron Paul's desire to legalize crack cocaine would appeal to him and his fans. Boy, it sure hurts me that conservatives can't claim a brain trust like John Stewart as one of ours.

But speaking of the media I wonder why you were claiming in your blog (media, right?) as late as a few weeks ago that Fox, the right wing, and the tea party inspired the Gifford shooting?

Were you just being a left wing Marxist media cog when you posted that libel? Trying to keep up with John Stewart?

motokid wrote:

Bigoted twat.........

Scintillating, thoughtful analysis up to the usual standard.

Here's the transcript of what she said when this question was put to ALL the Republican candidates at the candidate's debate:
I would, after, again, following much what the speaker just said, I would want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and with — also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I’d want to know how it was being implemented and if it has — had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.

BTW, her comments when asked if she would repeal state laws legalizing same-sex marriage she said: "it's not the role of a President to go into states and interfere with their state laws."

We might start by noting that every single Republican candidate was opposed to varying degrees on gays in the military. Ron Paul - who John Stewart and his fans are bugling about today - said: "We shouldn’t have gay rights." Most made reference to the fact that military commanders have consistently expressed opposition to having gays openly serving in the military - no reference to the bible (much to the disappointment of those here who make their religion hating the religious, no doubt).

But let's explore the "bigoted twat" aspect for a moment.

We have a serving president who urged "people of color" (am I being politically correct enough for our resident lefties?) to "attack your enemies". I guess that would make him a "bigoted twat" (he ain't much of a man).

But no "bigoted twat" comments from our resident socialists and statists who just foam at the mouth hoping for an opportunity to call conservatives and Republicans bigots. No, they're quite comfortable with that commentary.

We have a serving president who nominated - and defended - a Latina woman who said a Latina woman could make better decisions than a white male. I guess that makes the serving president - and her - "bigoted twats".

Again, no "bigoted twat" comments from our resident socialists and statists. Can you imagine if Bachmann said a Christian could make better decisions than an athiest or agnostic? They'd still be having convulsions.

We have a serving president who befriended an unrepentent terrorist - and in fact got his political start in his home. Bill Ayers didn't pick Obama - Obama picked Bill Ayers. Which is why Obama and Osama had at least one thing in common - both had friends who attacked the Pentagon. Does that makes Obama a "terrorist loving twat"?

Not sure - but our resident socialists and statists don't have any commentary on our president hanging around with an unrepentent terrorist who attacked the US. They're down with that, apparently, because they certainly haven't had anything to say about that with Obama as a candidate.

We have a serving president who went to be preached to and guided by a racist preacher for over two decades. He sat, listened, and accepted Jeremiah Wright as his "spiritual advisor" for two decades while Wright spewed hatred about white people and Jews. It seems to me that makes the serving president a "bigoted twat". Or at least, so morally bankrupt that he'd sit and listen to that racist drivel without leaving, comment, or even complaint for so many years.

Yes, you guessed it sports fans. Not one word about our "bigoted twat" president from our resident socialists and statists on that kind of behavior, as he prepares to try for four more years.

Nope. They'll ignore the blatant bigotry, hate mongering, and utter lack of morals from their Anointed One, and in their hypocrisy scramble around looking for an opportunity to label any Republican they get a chance to a "bigoted twat".

And sometimes they'll even try and pass it off as merely attempting to have an unbiased discussion on the candidates.

IndigoWolf wrote:

I also don't think she will bolster enough support to get to the White House either, let alone have a house and senate attempt to put the tooth paste issue back into the tube once it's out.

If you're planning on voting Republican, you might want to go look at the transcript on that question before assuming Bachmann was alone on that. None seemed particularly eager to deal with the issue of reinserting the toothpaste.

I'd sure like to see that same question put to every Democrat who will be running in the next election - strictly out of fairness, of course. Not just to Republicans who dare to openly admit they have religious faith. There's a fair amount of Democrats who won't be caught by their constituents voting in favour of gays in the military, and to assume this is a Republican-only issue would be just as blind as assuming same sex marriage is strictly a Republican issue.

Quote :

The "DADT" policy has worked very well? ... for who? Oh, lets put blinders on, that will help so we don't recognize the obvious.

No idea. But the JCOS have been pretty adamant over the years that gays openly serving in the military is a bad idea.

Jim Robinette and I discussed this as a sidebar to discussions on his ride, and neither of us can figure it out. Neither of us is kidding ourselves that we've served with gays, and neither of us is particularly bothered by the idea. My take is if you so lack self discipline that you can't do your job when serving next to a homosexual (or a woman) in the field or in combat, then you don't have the necessary self discipline to serve in the military in the first place. Resign and go get one of those "shovel ready jobs".

On the other hand, I've had some meathead friends in the military tell me about stuff that I wouldn't have believed (female sailors on one warship running their own little prostitution ring, for example), and I'd want to give the JCOS a listen to what evidence they feel they have before blindly presuming one way or the other. The last thing the military can afford to be used as is a social experiment or symbol of political correctness. We defend rights and freedom - we don't necessarily practice them. The military is not a union job, nor a place for special "rights" of any kind. I've seen standards dropped before to make it possible for minorities to "pass". Eventually, at the least that just gets people killed, and at the worst it diminishes the effectiveness of national defense.

Doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about Herman Cain. I would like to know more about him.

We're all aware that this thread was supposed to only be used to trash conservative Republican candidates, not to acknowledge that there's also a Democrat in this race and the question of "best choice" should also include them. But nevertheless, Obama deserves at least some scrutiny when talking about the next presidential election. I'm sure this may seem unfair to some, but he IS the incumbent president. So...

Obama's March (not to be confused with Sherman's March, although the results are similar) leading the statists and socialists as he works at "Fundamentally transforming America" seems to be bogging down. The American people are increasingly getting a good look at the man behind the curtain and not liking what they see - he ain't no wizard.

And the theory that "Obama got Osama", taking credit for years of work primarily set up and carried out under the previous president, would jack up his popularity seems to have fallen flat on its face - as predicted by yours truly.

Obama drops to 39% Aug. 11-13, lowest three-day average to date
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Obama's job approval rating dropped to 40% during the week spanning Aug. 8-14, the lowest weekly average of his administration. During this period, Obama's three-day rolling average also hit a new low of 39% for Aug. 11-13, the first such average below 40% since he took office, though it recovered to 41% for Aug. 12-14.



Obama's weekly average was 42% for the two weeks prior to last week, which at that time also marked new lows for his administration. His lowest three-day average prior to Aug. 11-13 had been 40%.

Implications

Although the new lows in Obama's job approval rating represent only a slight drop from his previous low readings, they symbolically underscore the weaker position the president is in as he begins a "listening tour" of the Midwest this week.

Ten incumbent presidents have sought re-election since World War II, and none has won a second term with final pre-election job approval ratings below 48%. The last two presidents who lost their re-election bids -- George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter -- had job approval ratings in the 30% range in the fall of the election year. Thus, Obama's challenge is not only to move his rating back above 40%, but also to push it close to or above 50%.

Barring some momentous event, the next presidential election remains the Republican's to lose. Given the concerted efforts of the RINOs and GOP establishment, who act as though they would prefer to be in opposition throwing stones at Obama than see a conservative Republican in the Oval Office, they just might pull it off. Reagan had to fight RINOS and the GOP establishment all the way and initially failed to do that. Whether the conservative candidates today can beat back the RINOS and GOP establishment remains to be seen.

I see that Candidate Obama - the man who has said yet again today for about the dozenth time "I shall not rest until every American who wants a job has one" - is resting. Yet again.

No, not to to try to run the number of golf games he has played during his presidency past 100 in his first term in office (is a day off to golf, travel to and from the links, etc, part of "shall not rest"?).

No, not a brief rest for yet another game of B-ball.

No, not a working retreat at Camp David, provided for him by the American taxpayer, complete with its own golf course and first run movies on request.

No, Candidate "Shall Not Rest" Obama is taking the family to Martha's Vineyard for 10 days, courtesy of the American public - including those who can't find a job, never mind afford a simple weekend camping out. Camp David just ain't chique enough for Barry and Michelle. So not only does the taxpayer stay on the hook for Camp David, they get to shell out for another Obamavation at high priced Martha's Vineyard. Where Barry will no doubt hang out with the poor and the blue collar folks he is working so hard for.

Well, perhaps we should be thankful that Candidate "Shall Not Rest" Obama is taking another rest and going on vacation. Until the next election, perhaps that's the least expensive option for Americans - to have him on vacation instead of busily "Fundamentally transforming America". The economy can't take much more of that:

New Low of 26% Approve of Obama on the Economy
Ratings on Afghanistan and foreign affairs have also declined
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new low of 26% of Americans approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, down 11 percentage points since Gallup last measured it in mid-May and well below his previous low of 35% in November 2010.



Obama earns similarly low approval for his handling of the federal budget deficit (24%) and creating jobs (29%).

It seems, increasingly, that the Emperor Has No Clothes.

Wooo hoooo! We need four more years of this.

Candidate Obama - the unmentioned candidate in the "Who's the "best" choice" discussion here - has done nothing to secure America's borders.

Instead, we have him preventing Arizona from enforcing existing immigration laws that HE refuses to enforce.

And, making a formal complaint to the UN Human Rights Council, accusing Arizona of human rights violations.

And, inviting Mexico's president as his guest to add his criticism of Arizona to the voices of the rest of the barking mad socialists (apparently untroubled that Mexico's immigration laws make US laws and Arizona's law to enforce US laws a joke).

But, The Unmentioned Candidate The Left Shall Not Name, The Anointed/Oily One, has finally acted in illegal immigration today:

Obama Administration Pledges to Reduce Deportations
Thursday, August 18, 2011, 3:25 PM EDT

The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it will individually review the 300,000 cases of illegal aliens currently holding deportation orders in an effort to appease his pro-amnesty critics and last year's record number of deportations.

The Administration deported 400,000 illegal aliens last year -- less than half had been convicted for other crimes. Pres. Obama is pledging to halt deportations of non-criminal illegal aliens.

Okay, the law says undocumented workers illegal immigrants shall be deported. It also says that entering the country by any means other than presenting yourself at the border for proper and truthful entry is a criminal offence. So, they're ALL criminals to begin with - that's why we called them "illegal immigrants" before the currently politically correct "undocumented immigrants" started.

Immigration law says that illegal immigration shall be deported. It doesn't say that doesn't apply unless they have been detected while committing OTHER criminal offences, tried, and convicted. But that's the test Obama has decided he will direct Immigration to use. And I doubt that bar won't quickly be dropped even lower.

Obama has claimed Arizona is setting Immigration policy by enforcing existing Immigration law - but apparently "sanctuary" cities and states who refuse to enforce immigration law are not setting Immigration policy. This now makes perfect sense now that Obama has stated that he isn't going to enforce existing Immigration law either. So "sanctuary" cities and states are now following the same Immigration policy as the federal government.

Well, if the New Black Panthers threatening voters won't do the trick, if his former co-workers and buddies at ACORN resurrecting the dead and plucking names from the phone book to create tens of thousands of fictional Democrat voters won't do the trick, I guess he just found a new way to produce hundreds of thousands of grateful new Democratic voters!

The good news is that the White House spokesman didn't even once mention religion - it's all good!

And we're supposed to find Bachmann scary...

Perhaps Candidate Obama can do a bit better in other areas if we ignore his economic and immigration record?

How about crime - what could possibly go wrong there?

"Fast and Furious" guns at more crime scenes
By Sharyl Attkisson, CBS NEWS



There are new details on the scope of violence surrounding thousands of weapons federal agents allegedly allowed to fall into the hands of criminals. The Justice Department reports "Fast and Furious" guns have been recovered at 11 violent crime scenes in the United States. Those crime scenes, in addition to the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Dec. 2010, puts the total number of U.S. crime scenes connected to "Fast and Furious" at 12.

The number is provided for the first time in a written response to Republicans investigating the gunwalker scandal. In the case, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) say they were ordered to allow thousands of weapons into the hands of suspected gun traffickers for Mexican drug cartels. In its letter, the Justice Department indicates it doesn't have enough information to know how many weapons have been used in violent crimes south of the border in Mexico.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) are leading the Congressional probe. Today, they issued a sharp letter accusing the Department of Justice (DOJ) of playing "word games," and reneging on its agreement. The agreement provided that Congress would allow the nomination of the Justice Department's choice for Deputy Attorney General, James Cole, to move forward in June. In return, the Justice Department would give detailed answers to specific questions about the ATF gunwalker scandal. The Justice Department did provide some answers but, according to the Republicans, fell short of providing the full and complete responses promised. For example, the DOJ allegedly failed to provide all available details of the 11 violent crimes. The Justice Department says it's reviewing the letter.

In their letter, Grassley and Issa also say DOJ violated its agreement not to immediately seek possession of interview transcripts of those cooperating with Congress. That was intended to guard the independence of the investigations, and foster candid communications with witnesses. But DOJ has asked Congress to provide that agency and the Inspector General with a transcript of a Congressional staff interview with Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson.

"Since the [Inspector General] is supposed to be conducting an independent inquiry, it seems odd the [Justice] Department would make a document request on behalf of that office," said the Republican's letter. Grassley has, in the past, questioned the ability of the Justice Department's Inspector General to be fully independent in investigating the Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder requested the IG investigation after CBS News first broke news on the gunwalker case last February.

President Obama has said that neither he nor Holder knew about or approved of the controversial gunwalking operation that spanned 14 months. The idea behind the strategy was apparently to allow guns into the hands of criminals in hopes that seeing where they ended up would help officials take down a major drug cartel.

motokid wrote:

Bigoted twat.........

Well... I did say I wanted to hear more about Herman Cain as a Republican candidate.

But I didn't want to hear this.

I thought I'd give it some time to see if our politically-minded resident socialists and statists who are so keen to out "bigoted twats" would show a little semblance of impartiality and consistency after this hit the news. But, no surprise at all, not a comment on it to be found. For your reading pleasure, liberal political activist and commentator Janeane Garofalo on Herman Cain:
“He's in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherit in the Republican party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party certainly. But, Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go like ‘I love that, that can’t be racist. He’s a black guy, a black guy asking for Obama being impeached.‘ Or ’it’s a black guy whose anti-Muslim. It’s a black guy who is a Tea Party guy.’”

Yep, ol' Herman... a regular Uncle Tom. Can't think for himself. Needs his white masters to give him his instructions so he can make his way through life.

Of course Janeane wants to be clear on conservatives and their supporters:
"Let's be very honest about what this is about... It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

Hey! The exact same language as some of our resident lefty hatemongers use!

By the way, this wasn't on that terrible, evil FOX network. No, she called out Herman Cain as an Uncle Tom on "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann (you know, the impartial guy who feels "a thrill go up my leg" each time Candidate Obama speaks) on impartial MSNBC.

So where are our resident statists and leftists with their "bigoted twat" comments now (we can include Olbermann in that description as well, as he's not much of a man either)? Can we safely presume they share Garofalo's views, and thus their silent approval rather than running out their "bigoted twat" fury? Is every person of color who is a conservative politician an Uncle Tom like Cain in their minds? Not a comment on how dumb FOX MSNBC and its viewers are? Can you imagine their reaction if a FOX political commentator had said Obama was just an Uncle Tom when he was running for the Democrat nomination? We'd still be doing CPR on them to get their hearts started again.

Well, it's not surprising is it? The people who can repeatedly post here, foaming at the mouth about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Beck, FOX, whoever (although they have yet to provide a specific example of what so outrages them), didn't have one single word to say when liberal leftist and statist talk show host Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut". They would still be in quivering convulsions, gasping for air, if any of those conservative commentators had referred to a liberal as a "left wing slut".

But no, not a word was posted here with any comments identifying Shultz as a "racist prick". Just a big loud silence.

Funny how that works with socialists and statists, eh?

I'd still like to see some reviews and analysis of Herman Cain as a Republican candidate for president. But not from "bigoted twats" like Janeane Garofalo and her silent supporters.

Jäger wrote:

motokid wrote:

Bigoted twat.........

I thought I'd give it some time to see if our politically-minded resident socialists and statists who are so keen to out "bigoted twats" would show a little semblance of impartiality and consistency after this hit the news. But, no surprise at all, not a comment on it to be found. For your reading pleasure, liberal political activist and commentator Janeane Garofalo on Herman Cain:
.

Let say that the lips foaming and dripping if not drooling has been shown enough. I don't know if it is from all th e"ists" that you are so pleased to point or if it's just you. I can say that as a statist you are hard to beat since you're the winner on the game of using polls ans stats.

I'm pleased to know people that have conservative values without being brain wash. With these we are able to find ways to have team work instead of dictature.

Keep on big child. Some day you'll notice that evolution took place somewhere.

Dancamp wrote:

Keep on big child. Some day you'll notice that evolution took place somewhere.

Well it ain't taking place in Quebec, that's for sure.

After all, that highly evolved society you live in is the only jurisdiction in North America which has deliberately, openly, and unapologetically passed legislation that specifically removes freedom of speech and freedom of expression rights from an identifiable group. Knuckledraggers like you, part of a society of prejudiced bigots like that, and you want to discuss "evolution"? Too funny. If the Tea Party proposed anything like that, the howls of outrage would be heard in Mongolia.

So you've got lots of whining - but not one sentence claiming that anything I posted was false. Pretty much says it all. Of course, it's hard to argue with what Garofalo said, what Obama's spokesmen said, and what Obama's administration has done, isn't it? These aren't opinions - they're simply facts that reflect rather poorly on your socialist heroes.

With that in mind, what's the matter Danny... a little snivelling that the socialist world isn't unwrapping quite as you hoped?

That "bigoted twat" Janeane Garofalo somebody you admire and respect?

The Republican candidates not willing to drop the soap in the showers for Candidate Obama? Has that got you down?

Did somebody say something uncomplimentary about your heroes?



Or maybe what really irks you is the posts about " bigoted twats" and "teabaggers" just had their hypocrisy put on display.

Maybe what has you in full auto retard is the hypocrisy and whining about FOX, and racists, etc, is being underscored for what it is - hate mongering hypocrisy.

On the other hand, more likely, perhaps you're just another one of those deep thinkers who believes Herman Cain is an Uncle Tom. After all, if you want to talk about prejudice and bigotry, Quebecers are pretty much the North American champions of official prejudice and bigotry - written right into law.

So, do I want to bend my morals and beliefs to "work as a team" with people like you? Of course not; that's like trying to find compromise with a child molester - our morals and beliefs are simply too far apart.

Funny thing about your wailing and rending your hair... I don't start these threads. I'm not the one who starts with using polls and stats. I'm not from the bunch who starts with the "bigoted twats" and "teabagger" comments. And when a union activist shoots a business owner who has already been repeatedly attacked over the years, I don't post it as news and go on a rant about how typical that is of left wingers.

No, that all starts with your fellow statists and socialists. And not one single word of complaint posted by you about it. You're absolutely fine with all of that. Not one peep out of that cakehole of yours. No complaints at all about that - it's so... evolved.

Until it gets shoved back in your face, of course. Then you're pissed. Your pure white robes have been unjustly soiled. Oh, poor you!

So yes, my petulant, snivelling, socialist brat, when you go down that road, I'll happily respond. And hypocritical, self important people like you make it so very easy. Not just by your actions - but your inactions as well. You're what we call "low hanging fruit".

If I send you a bottle of Midol and a Hurt Feelings Report to fill out, will it make the pain go away?

Now, to get back on topic, you can start your weekend with the today's news on Candidate Obama while we ask ourselves if he is indeed the "best choice":

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20

I guess the first time around with forcing banks to make risky and sub-prime loans wasn't enough. Candidate Obama/2012 is bringing back the old Carter/Clinton CRA philosophy. Doesn't say whether Barney Frank will get to run this one like he did Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac

Obama appointees force banks to make risky loans
Hans Bader
The Examiner

The Wall Street Journal yesterday chronicled how the Obama Administration is repeating the “mistakes of the past by intimidating banks into lending to minority borrowers at below-market rates in the name of combating discrimination.” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez has argued that bankers who don’t make as many loans to blacks as whites (because they make lending decisions based on traditional lending criteria like credit scores, which tend to be higher among white applicants than black applicants) are engaged in a “form of discrimination and bigotry” as serious as “cross-burning.” Perez has compared bankers to “Klansmen,” and extracted settlements from banks “setting aside prime-rate mortgages for low-income blacks and Hispanics with blemished credit,” treating welfare “as valid income in mortgage applications” and providing “favorable interest rates and down-payment assistance for minority borrowers with weak credit,” notes Investors Business Daily.

Under the Justice Department's “disparate impact” theory, banks are guilty of racial discrimination even if they harbor no discriminatory intent, and use facially-neutral lending criteria, as long as these criteria weed out more black than white applicants. The Supreme Court has blessed a more limited version of this theory in the workplace, but has rejected this “disparate impact” theory in most other contexts, such as discrimination claims brought under the Constitution’s equal protection clause; discrimination claims alleging racial discrimination in the making of contracts; and discrimination claims brought under Title VI, the civil-rights statute governing racial discrimination in education and federally-funded programs. Despite court rulings casting doubt on this “disparate impact” theory outside the workplace, the Obama administration has paid liberal trial lawyers countless millions of dollars to settle baseless “disparate impact” lawsuits brought against government agencies by minority plaintiffs, even after federal judges have expressed skepticism about those very lawsuits, suggesting that they were meritless.

Fearing bad publicity from being accused of “racism”, banks have paid out millions in settlements after being sued by the Justice Department, even though they would probably prevail before most judges if they aggressively fought such charges (although doing so would probably cost them millions in legal fees). A Michigan judge called one proposed settlement “extortion.” These settlements provide cash for “politically favored ‘community groups’ ” allied with the Obama Administration, and the Journal’s Mary Kissel predicts that “many” of the loans mandated by these settlements “will eventually go bad.”

The banks accused of “racism” by the Obama administration include banks that were previously praised by non-political government agencies for their success in minority outreach and lending to minorities in regions in which they did business. For example, the Obama administration is suing Cardinal Financial Corp., even though “the FDIC in the past gave kudos to Cardinal for its lending practices. Justice is now accusing Cardinal of failing to open branches and achieve racial loan quotas in counties that its federal regulator never before contended should be the focus of its lending,” arguing that it was not enough for the bank to make loans to minority applicants who applied for loans, and that it had an affirmative duty to open new branches in heavily-black areas it had never done business in before.

The Obama Administration seems to have learned nothing from the financial crisis, which was caused partly by “diversity” mandates and affordable housing mandates that encouraged lending to people with bad credit scores who later defaulted on their loans. Banks were under great pressure from liberal lawmakers to make loans to low-income and minority borrowers. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers,” The New York Times noted. As The Washington Examiner noted, the government also “encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low ‘teasers.’” The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity. “Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments.”

Financial analysts have recently recognized that these government mandates played a bigger role in the financial crisis than previously thought. Former financial executive Ed Pinto has chronicled how the government promoted the risky non-traditional mortgages that defaulted in huge numbers. A recent book co-authored by The New York Times’ Gretchen Morgenson chronicles how federally-promoted lower lending standards spawned the financial crisis, and put minority borrowers into homes they could not afford.

Obama Administration officials are also considering a massive new bailout that would increase the cost to taxpayers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) whose bailout has already cost taxpayers more than $160 billion that will never be repaid (and will probably wind up costing at least $400 billion)

Dude - this isn't a trash Obama thread. It's a who's the best choice for 2012 thread.

It's not a tear down who's currently in, it's a who should be the replacement.

There's not one person here who doesn't know you HATE Obama.

That's not the question.

Who do you favor. Not who do you hate.

Who won last nights debate? Who lost?
Who took a beating? Who gained ground?

Who should the REPS nominate for November 2012?

That's the point of this thread. Feel free to start a separate Obama-haters thread if you'd like.

But let's keep this one on-topic.

Who's the "Best" Choice for 2012 President?

motokid wrote:

Dude - this isn't a trash Obama thread. It's a who's the best choice for 2012 thread.

It's not a tear down who's currently in, it's a who should be the replacement.

There's not one person here who doesn't know you HATE Obama.

That's not the question.

Who do you favor. Not who do you hate.

Who won last nights debate? Who lost?
Who took a beating? Who gained ground?

Who should the REPS nominate for November 2012?

That's the point of this thread. Feel free to start a separate Obama-haters thread if you'd like.

But let's keep this one on-topic.

Who's the "Best" Choice for 2012 President?

Come on think about it. There are some that want to make something with the others and thare are the others that only want to have it their way.

The one that want it their way site the tribunal when it fits them bit as soon as the same tribunal make decisions not fitted to their rhetoric, they rise the aggresivness and divert the subject. Apes with intelligence that serves their reptile brain. Didn't you see "Planet of the apes". It is as clear a picture as what is going on.

Dancamp wrote:

There are some that want to make something with the others and thare are the others that only want to have it their way.

Unfortunately for the kid, this isn't going to go only this way. The candidates for 2012 include Democrats, not just the "twats" he thought he'd have a forum to bash. Which means ALL candidates are open for discussion. Not just the Republicans he wants to call "twats", "shit", and "bigots".

Quote :

The one that want it their way site the tribunal when it fits them bit as soon as the same tribunal make decisions not fitted to their rhetoric, they rise the aggresivness and divert the subject. Apes with intelligence that serves their reptile brain. Didn't you see "Planet of the apes". It is as clear a picture as what is going on.

????

I think they call that "speaking in tongues". Generally associated with lower levels of neurological function.

I have a favour to ask. Would you please get somebody to run a pencil tip along the sole of your foot, Danny???

Obviously jager can't comprehend - so I'll repeat the VERY FIRST POST of this thread that defined what I was looking for.

As a moderator one would think some basic reading comprehension and basic forum etiquette would be part of the job description.

motokid wrote:

It’s easy to point fingers at what’s happened, and what’s happening now, and talk about how screwed up things are.

It’s much more difficult to offer up real, and reasonable solutions to those problems.

I’d like to hear what the alternative plans are that some potential 2012 candidates might have up their sleeves to “fix” our country. "Anybody but Obama!" isn't a sufficient answer. Surely somebody out there has a plan that makes sense.

What’s the “fix” for the current unemployment troubles we face? How do we get manufacturing to return to USA? How do we bring lost jobs back, or create new jobs that don’t require advanced education?

What’s the “fix” for the housing situation? How can the market be stabilized and have property values return to something marginally more reasonable than where they are now? Not to inflated values of previous years, but to some point where so many people are not under water with their mortgages and facing foreclosure.

What’s the fix for the debt we face? Obviously cuts in spending are in order, but what exactly should be cut? What programs? What slice of the spending pie should be cut?

What about taxes? Should they be increased? Should only a certain segment of the population face tax increases? Corporate taxes?

Forget how those in the past have screwed things up, and fill us in on who has the answers for the future.

Don’t just say we need to cut spending. Be specific. Who is actually stating what they will cut? Who will say that defense spending should be cut? Or Social Security should be cut? Who is saying raise taxes on the top 1%, or raise taxes on the middle class?

Who has actual answers for “fixing” the country, rather than just a loud voice making accusations and not offering any solutions?

Which potential 2012 candidate for president appears to have the “best” answers for fixing what’s currently broke?

Obviously as new candidates announce they're running, people's opinions can change.

OK, alternate plans. But there are not any voices in the Democratic party that dare open their mouths to oppose the big O. They have rolled the dice with their bet all on one candidate. And their ship captain is going down with their ship. There has to be one person some where that will pull the ring on the life raft and bail out or they won't have a party to speak of. They are going down and all they can think of is piling on more pork and increasing our tax burden leaving our kids in the lurch. The freedoms for the poor are being raped as they become more and more dependent on the government. But they (the poor) are waking up to the fact that real change is due and it isn't the kind that Mr Socialist Obama is bringing.

Are there really any other choices?

IndigoWolf wrote:

Are there really any other choices?

That's what I'm asking. Who is the "best" choice?

As I see it today the state of politics in USofA has become so hateful and derisive that the very idea of compromise is laughable. Both sides seem to have fallen into the ideology of "block and resist anything and everything the other party is doing at all costs". Create a stalemate, then at election time scream as loud as possible that the other side has accomplished nothing and therefore deserves to be booted from Washington.

The fringe elements of both parties tend to define the path forward and most of us in the center tend to hate both fringes.

So who are the other choices? Where are the other choices?

Who can we look to in 2012 to help dig us out of this hole?

Get some of Hitler's DNA and re-clone him! Long live the 4th Reich! Moammar Khadaffy is looking for another job I hear...

Jäger wrote:

Dancamp wrote:

There are some that want to make something with the others and thare are the others that only want to have it their way.

Unfortunately for the kid, this isn't going to go only this way. The candidates for 2012 include Democrats, not just the "twats" he thought he'd have a forum to bash. Which means ALL candidates are open for discussion. Not just the Republicans he wants to call "twats", "shit", and "bigots".

Quote :

The one that want it their way site the tribunal when it fits them bit as soon as the same tribunal make decisions not fitted to their rhetoric, they rise the aggresivness and divert the subject. Apes with intelligence that serves their reptile brain. Didn't you see "Planet of the apes". It is as clear a picture as what is going on.

????

I think they call that "speaking in tongues". Generally associated with lower levels of neurological function.

I have a favour to ask. Would you please get somebody to run a pencil tip along the sole of your foot, Danny???

Yes your specialisation, low level. evolution took place after you were born, that's why you're still living a century or two back.

As head of a country someone has to be ready for team work . Guys like you disqualify almost all of those they support. After all your reptilian brain is leading so no surprises.

Hey Dancamp,

If the election was tomorrow, and all the candidates were in the running for President, who would you vote for?


I'd go with Ron Paul out of the people who have currently put their name in the ring.

motokid wrote:

Hey Dancamp,

If the election was tomorrow, and all the candidates were in the running for President, who would you vote for?


I'd go with Ron Paul out of the people who have currently put their name in the ring.

+1 on Ron Paul

Of those who are in the running and serious or fer-real, the fakers haven't even been considered.

IndigoWolf wrote:

OK, alternate plans. But there are not any voices in the Democratic party that dare open their mouths to oppose the big O. They have rolled the dice with their bet all on one candidate.

Billary is a potential option.

But I think she believes she has a fair chance at a presidency in the future. But not right now - Obama and his legacy are going to be toxic. You don't even hear the mainstream media talking anymore about how they feel a thrill go up their leg when they hear him speak. They won't ask him what he did with the first $800 billion, or about Ayers, or the ATF giving guns to narco-terrorists to kill American officers with. They'll still focus on important subjects like asking Gingrich why most of his staff quite - a critical national issue. But he won't get the glassy eyed support from them he originally had.

I suspect Billary will probably bail on the administration after his first term, and stay the hell away from the wreckage. Distance herself as far as possible. Now is not the time to not only challenge the sitting president, but then to seek election in an economy brought to you by four years of Democrat Congress including the last two years of Obama. She is far too smart a campaigner for that. There are battles and there are wars. Battles you can lose, wars you cannot.

It is a pretty good bet she will be president one day, and possibly even a good one when she gets there. But not right now; it's not her time.

The only way Obama and the Democrats are going to survive is another attack or a major GOP gaff in the election.

He can't run on his record, nor can the Dems in Senate on theirs, so his only choice to run on is blaming his economy on the other guy. Oh, and fear mongering. You know, the usual "They'll throw Granny in the streets and outlaw abortion while mandating public prayer" crap. It almost certainly isn't going to fly.

Essentially, whoever the Republicans pick, the election is theirs to lose. Nothing in that class warfare "Save My Job" speech Obama gave last night is going to save his ass. He hopes to use it to buttress his "It ain't my fault, it's still the Republicans" campaign that he will run - because he can't run on his record - but it isn't going to produce jobs and it if he does get more money, it will get wasted just like the first $800 billion. He's gambling that when the Republicans reject his "more money" request, he can use that as the excuse for his abject, total failure as the worst president in American history.

And the candidate he faces almost certainly won't be Ron Paul.

Aside from his whacked out isolationist 1800's theories that don't work in the present day world, Ron Paul and anybody else who blames 9/11 on America getting payback isn't going to carry the day with my personal opinion or the GOP. If I half seriously considered him, I'd first want to know a little more about the recurring stuff about his association with white supremists and various other questionable organizations. I don't know that he did, but there's enough there that warrants a look. Especially when he's going to run against a black president whose support among blacks has barely dropped (i.e. anybody but the white guy) while plummeting with not just whites but Hispanics and other ethnic groups as well. A skeleton in that closet would hand Obama an easy win.

He's right on a lot of conservative things, but he isn't the package.

Dancamp wrote:

Yes your specialisation, low level. evolution took place after you were born, that's why you're still living a century or two back.

As head of a country someone has to be ready for team work . Guys like you disqualify almost all of those they support. After all your reptilian brain is leading so no surprises.

See, there's the difference Danny boy.

It's about having a moral compass and believing you don't compromise on some things. Something your apparently highly evolved brain either lacks or simply cannot understand. Probably both.

Guys like you would figure out a way to do "team work" with the neighborhood kiddy diddler. Compromises must be made. Guys like me absolutely reject them and what they stand for in any way, shape or form.

Guys like you don't have a problem with "team work" with a Marxist President,operating in an unconstitutional fashion, contravening his oath of office (the declaration not to pursue and deport criminals, remember?) who is on his way to accomplishing his stated goal of "fundamentally changing America", using class warfare and race baiting. Guys like me reject him, and his policies, and the way he operates as immoral, unconstitutional, and depraved. And so, like the kiddy diddler, we don't compromise what we believe in with him as well. But guys like you... well, what's a few rights here and there. No big deal.

Coming from a province which officially discriminates against English speaking people, I get it that rights and morality are merely relative to you, something to be compromised and set aside for the sake of convenience and songs of Kumbaya around the campfire. But I don't swing that low. Thank God.

Got anyone to scratch the sole of your foot yet?