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

motokid wrote:

As if on cue, to once again restate my "theory" of needing more than "just anyone" to beat Obama,
this appears in the news today:

Quote :

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama said on Wednesday it raised $86 million from April to June, exceeding its $60 million quarterly target and eclipsing Republican White House contenders.

Obama's 2012 campaign said it received donations from more than 552,000 people, with what it called "more grassroots support at this point in the process than any campaign in political history."

Well, I suppose one could say this is coming from the camp who assured us there were all those "shovel ready" jobs if Obama was but given his trillion dollar porkulous package.

The same guy who said he'd provide five days for public comment before signing any bill into law.

The same guy who said his parents met at the Selma civil rights march - five years after he was born.

The same guy trying to scare the hell out of seniors right now by saying there might not be enough money for their Social Security cheques if the Republicans won't cave to him - despite the fact Treasury is saying their is AMPLE money to cover all those social programs and the only way those Social Security cheques won't go out is if Obama orders that the money go elsewhere.

So of course, The Serial Liar would NEVER lie about fundraising.

But let's accept Obama and his Chicago political machine are having a rare moment of telling the truth. He's raised more money at this point than any campaign before. I can actually believe that. Why wouldn't I? All you have to do is look at how much time Obama has spent jetting around the country on Air Force One doing fundraisers on the taxpayer dime, compared to previous presidents. When he wasn't playing golf, of course. What previous president has ever devoted so much of his time to fundraising (forget the "I shall not rest" statements and what he isn't doing despite the current state of the country)? Isn't that his main job? Fundraising? Sure seems like it.

After all, where's Obama's budget proposal? Where is his list of cuts that he would find acceptable? Couldn't even sketch one out on the back of a golf scorecard while jetting between fundraisers? Has he demanded Harry Reid provide a budget proposal as he has of the Republican House - after all, it's only been two and a half years since the Senate produced one.

Quote :

The "silent majority" concept often has a hint of reality with it.

Yeah. Remember the last election?

Remember the poll here about whether people would rather have more Bush or more Obama?

Quote :

The numbers don't lie.

Indeed? Then you'll just LOVE this stuff (how you missed this while reading about Obama's fundraising is beyond me):

Thursday, July 14, 2011

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12.

Consumer confidence has fallen to the lowest level in two years. Most Americans (52%) believe their own personal finances are getting worse.



And for those who post polls about whether people would prefer Bush to Obama and laugh at the idea of "even a turnip instead of Obama" - this, from two days ago:

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

A generic Republican candidate earns the highest level of support yet against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds that the generic Republican picks 48% of the vote, while the president gets 43% support. Three percent (3%) favor some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Republicans hold a six-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, July 10. Republicans have led on the ballot for every week since June 2009, with leads ranging from two to 12 points.

In every matchup tested so far this year against named GOP challengers, the president’s support has stayed between 42% and 49%. An incumbent who earns support below 50% is generally considered politically vulnerable. The president’s total job approval ratings are a good indicator of what percentage of the vote he may earn in the 2012 presidential race. Aside from a brief bounce in support following the killing of Osama bin Laden in early May, Obama’s approval ratings have hovered in the high 40s for the past 18 months.

The full-month Rasmussen Reports Presidential Approval Index rating for June is down four points from May to 15. With a few exceptions, the president’s approval index rating has stayed between -14 and -17 since the beginning of 2010.

Eighty-six percent (86%) of GOP voters support a generic candidate from their party, while 82% of Democrats back the president. Voters not affiliated with either political party favor the Republican 46% to 38%.

Let's have Motokid lead more cheers for "The numbers don't lie"!

TBird1 wrote:

It seems that President Obama has not cornered the market on hate.

I cheerfully respond in the manner I'm addressed TBird1. That may or may not work out for you or any other recipient.

But I do have a special antipathy to hypocrites and those who can't come up with anything better than "everybody knows that".

taoshum wrote:

President B. Obama is YOUR Commander-in-Chief and you're talking about your boss. As a military man such insubordination would be grounds for a court martial or dishonorable discharge.... huh?

What! Did The Anointed And Oily One suspend the First Amendment as well? Did that happen while I was out riding? Are military personnel being insubordinate when they fail to vote for the Commander-In-Chief?

No, he's not my boss - he's just a corrupt politician who will say and do just about anything to remodel the US into a Saul Alinsky "utopia". I think he's a Marxist idealogue that needs to be voted out of office before he destroys the US for everyone, Democrat, Republican, Independent, indifferent, religious, atheist, and agnostic alike.

Seeing as you seem to think you have some knowledge on how the military functions (making that statement the joke of the day), who my boss is, and what I can and can't say in approval/disapproval of The Serial Liar, please feel free to exercise your patriotic duty and report me. Contact info happily provided upon request.

SheWolf wrote:

What about the buddy-buddy relationship between Bush Sr. & Jr. and the Bin Laden family? Nice group of wholesome, apple-pie kinda people eh?

Last time I looked, there are no Bush's running as candidates in the upcoming election. Aside from the fact Osama had become the black sheep of the family long before 9/11. The Bin Ladin Group is one of the largest companies in Saudi Arabia - have you checked out how many Canadian companies, politicians, etc have a relationship with the Bin Ladin's? Start with Power Corp and the Prime Ministers who have worked for Power Corp, including Trudeau, Chretien, Martin, and Mulroney (no, Harper hasn't). So, does that mean Canada and the Bush's have an unholy alliance with the Bin Laden's?

Meanwhile, you forgot to add the other side for context; the side which is relevant to the candidates for 2012.

The current President got his political start with the sponsorship of convicted, unapologetic terrorists: Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn. He lies about barely knowing him, despite working for and with Ayers for five years on the CAC, despite his political sponsorship. Can you name any other 2012 candidate who CHOSE to associate with terrorists who attacked their government and their country?

Obama chose Ayers - Ayers did not choose him.

Obama chose Jeremiah Wright - Wright did not choose him. Name one other candidate who has sat listening to that kind of racist, anti-Semitic language for any time, much less as long as Obama has, 20 years.

Obama chose Mark Lloyd - Mark Lloyd did not choose him.

And so it goes. Just a little context...

taoshum wrote:

[quote President B. Obama is YOUR Commander-in-Chief and you're talking about your boss. As a military man such insubordination would be grounds for a court martial or dishonorable discharge.... huh?

I would speculate that those Canadian Jump Wings in the avatar should be a clue for you.

Akasy wrote:

I would speculate that those Canadian Jump Wings in the avatar should be a clue for you.

Nah... far too subtle. Maybe confusing because they're white operational jump wings instead of maple leaf red six jump chump wings?

Perhaps an avatar of a Resident Alien visa?

Not that it would matter anyways - as long as a service member didn't offer their opinion while in uniform, using their rank and service to amplify their message for or against a politician. In either country. You don't lose your civil rights when you put your hand up to swear the oath.

Quote :

Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.

Supporters of Obama's re-election will no doubt view the number as a good sign for the president's bid for a second term. But they shouldn't get excited yet.

Polls over the last year have consistently found that voters continue to blame Bush more than Obama for the struggling economy. Yet Obama and Democrats have consistently struggled to translate that displeasure with Bush into a vote against GOP candidates.

But that could be changing. While Obama's approval rating on the economy is nothing short of dismal—just 38 percent approve—the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.

Those aren't great numbers for Republicans who are likely to face just as much political peril as Obama in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve over the next year.

The Quinnipiac poll also finds major support for one of the concessions Obama has called for in the debt deal: 67 percent say any deal on the deficit should also include tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, in addition to spending cuts.

source

Looks like Obama might be on to something if he were running against Bush in the next election - which The Man of Excuses certainly sounds like when he's giving his little "this is not my fault", "we didn't know it was this bad", etc speeches. Apparently, he was one of the Democrats who actually weren't in Washington from 2007 on when the Democrats held the Senate and the House both - the power of the purse. Not only do their budgets and involvement in TARP get a pass, but it seems Barney Frank, Pelosi, and all the ones involved in keeping Fanny and Freddy doling out those subprime mortgages despite Bush's warnings and Republican attempts to reform them get a pass as well.

That's pretty impressive, I have to admit.

But, Obama won't be running against Bush. He'll be running against another Republican candidate, and of course the figures don't lie, as we have been told. So we know what Rassmussen found; how about Gallup?

Quote :

GALLUP
July 14, 2011
"Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%.

Quote :

GALLUP
July 12, 2011
U.S. Debt Ceiling Increase Remains Unpopular With Americans
More are concerned about higher level of spending than risk of economic crisis
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure.

Of course, if the Republicans cave to Obama on these budget talks instead of just passing their House budget and putting it before Harry Reid and The Serial Liar to vote on - and thereby force them to come out of the closet and provide a budget of their own instead of just allowing them to focus all attention on the House - they can manage to lose a lot of the voters who sent them to Washington in the last election to STOP excessive spending, STOP the crazy growth in government, and STOP the cancerous growth of taxation. I for one would like to see Obama provide HIS budget proposal, not to mention Dirty Harry, who hasn't provided a budget from the Senate in... what... over two years?

A lot of those votes in the last election came from conservatives who thought Bush was fiscally irresponsible and were tired of RINOs representing the Republican party, and if the new House behave as gutless RINOs, much of that support may well disappear, possibly into third party votes that will pretty much guarantee a Democrat victory. If House and Senate Republicans cave or can't find where they misplaced their balls, don't follow through on what they promised and voters sent them to Washington to do, it probably won't matter who the Republicans choose.

Or...suppose the reps do this:

Rather than think of it as caving in....why not think of it as putting Obama to the test.

"Give in" to his proposal and then see what happens. If the economy tanks the Reps walk into the White House in 2012.

motokid wrote:

Or...suppose the reps do this:

Rather than think of it as caving in....why not think of it as putting Obama to the test.

Obama has already been put to the test.

FAIL

No shovel ready jobs as promised, no halt in the increase of unemployment as promised, massive increase of government debt, a porkulous package which included a lot of the spending that became annual instead of a one time event.

We know he's a tax and spend Marxist whose promises are empty who has produced no results.

The Republican leadership is now being put to the test. They promised to stand firm on this: will they or won't they do what they promised?

Want to test Obama again? Put a House budget in front of him that provides funding for Social Security and all the other programs he's scaring people about - and significant cuts in spending and government programs. Let him approve or veto that, and then see if he'll then punish Social Security recipients by diverting the money that is available for those payments to his pet projects. Let him put HIS budget proposal forward, with his proposals on taxes and tax cuts. Put Dirty Harry and the Senate to the test - let them put THEIR budget forward and what they would tax and what they would cut.

Quote :

"Give in" to his proposal and then see what happens.

What specific proposal are you talking about? I haven't seen one with any specifics, so if the White House has put forward a proposal, I'd sure like to see one.

What I have seen is he wants to "tax the rich" - you know, those people like small motorcycle shops who make $250,001 in adjusted gross income. Accompanied by vague promises of cutbacks, much of them apparently backloaded well into the future beyond the next election, and some well beyond the next presidential term in office where he'll be long gone in either case.

Quote :

If the economy tanks the Reps walk into the White House in 2012.

I don't think so.

I think he'll then continue with "Well, I'm doing what I can but it's The Other Guy's Fault"

And... "This isn't what I wanted, but Congress struck me with this".

And... "I couldn't get it fixed in four years with them damned Republicans obstructing me every step of the way".

Which is what a lot of people are buying into, all three of those excuses, right now.

And even if the Republican alternative does take the White House, the Republicans who got elected to Congress to STOP The Anointed One's taxation and spending will be punished, particularly the ones who were elected by the renewed conservative movement. Which means the House and Senate will probably be in Democrat hands, leaving a president like George Bush after 2007 - facing a Democrat Congress controlling the purse.

And allowing the US to continue crashing into debt just to "test" an already-failed president makes no sense whatsoever. After all.... think of the children.

So here's what will happen. IMHO

Both sides will dig in. Very little will change. Minor compromises will be given. No matter what happens to the economy
each side will blame the other for impeding growth, or each side will claim victory for having it improve.

There will be no clear winner for the majority of the regular people, and the status-quo will continue.

Therefore - Obama has even a better chance to keep his seat as President.


I think the best thing the Reps could do to dethrone Obama would be to allow the Dems to actually work their plan.

While you may scream "fail" - it's obvious that's not what many many others think or believe.

If a stalemate continues to exist - it will be more to the detriment of the Reps.

There's now a good chance that no single federal government can do much one way or the other to "fix" the economy. There's even a reasonable chance that no 5 federal governments, all working together, could do much. The global economy is so large and so fast that governments which are now a very small part of the global economy and move at a snail's pace are unable to do much. Of course, they think they have lots of power and lots of people think they have lots of power but in reality, they don't. Most are so far in debt, they cannot even pay their current bills on time. Your arguments may be academic at best... If you think the 500 largest companies are not talking to each other and running the planet, you are very myopic.

To taoshum:

Probably the most accurate and relevant post in this thread.

Thanks, i was getting worried for a moment.

motokid wrote:

I think the best thing the Reps could do to dethrone Obama would be to allow the Dems to actually work their plan.

I thought I already asked; perhaps not - I'll ask again:

Where are the details of "their plan"?

Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled senate haven't put out a budget in over two years.

I'm not aware that the White House has any plan - it certainly isn't at the White House website anywhere that I can see it.

Where can we read the specifics of Obama's "Plan" that you are referring to? Can you point us to where you read the details of this plan before suggesting Republicans should accept it?

Or are suggesting that we just buy a pig in a poke.

Quote :

While you may scream "fail" - it's obvious that's not what many many others think or believe.

I think you said something earlier about "figures don't lie"...

Quote :

GALLUP
July 12, 2011
U.S. Debt Ceiling Increase Remains Unpopular With Americans
More are concerned about higher level of spending than risk of economic crisis
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure.

Sounds like those who have an opinion, by a margin of about two to one, don't want anything to do with increasing debt any further.

Quote :

If a stalemate continues to exist - it will be more to the detriment of the Reps.

Right. Nothing to do with a President demanding more tax and spend, with any cuts backloaded.

Nothing to do with Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled senate who haven't made any proposals whatsoever.

Like 2007 to the end of the Bush presidency, once again we'll pretend there wasn't a Democrat in town.

taoshum wrote:

The global economy is so large and so fast that governments which are now a very small part of the global economy and move at a snail's pace are unable to do much.

Governments are never part of the economy - they are neither producer nor consumer. They interfere with it, regulate it, tax it, screw with monetary policy - and rarely actually leave it the hell alone. But they are not part of the engine of production.

Quote :

Your arguments may be academic at best... If you think the 500 largest companies are not talking to each other and running the planet, you are very myopic.

Right. This is where we segue to The New World Order and the Bilderberg conspiracy theories. Where people like Vladimir Putin, the oligarchy running China, Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Castro, etc, fought and clawed their way to the top to rule their people - and then turned around to take their marching orders and instructions from the 500 largest companies in the world. All of whom are united in a single purpose, of course. If your a John Bircher type on the far right, you believe the objective of the conspiracy is to impose a world government and a fully controlled economy. If your a radical socialist on the far left, then you believe the intent is to impose evil capitalist domination over the working peoples of the world.

What is even more impressive about this achievement is that of the hundreds of top executives over the years, working in those 500 largest companies, not even one over the years has turned on them out of spite, anger, disappointment, to save their ass after being charged for a crime, etc... not a single one has ever ratted out this conspiracy. Never released a tape. Photocopies. Emails. Other documents. An absolutely perfect record of loyalty and secrecy, over dozens of years involving thousands of people both inside those companies and inside government.

And what's most impressive is that Wikileaks can release government documents from governments all over the world. And yet, they do so without a single one of those documents even once referring to these 500 companies involved in running their respective countries and their decision making process. All those related documents perfectly concealed from ending up in the hands of Wikileaks over all these years.

Impressive.

Right, so if the dems/obama have "no plan" and the reps say:

"Okay, for the next year we'll back off and allow you (the dems) to work your magical plan, and we'll see what happens."


By election time the entire country, as well as the entire world will see how effective, or ineffective the dems ideologies really are.
And the dems won't be able to say that their plans never had a chance to work because of the reps.

It's the "give them enough rope to either hang themselves or make a nice strong relaxing hammock" idea.


As for the "figures not lying". I love how you pick and chose your "figures".

Did you not see the link I posted that showed how much money Obama has been getting donated his way?
His overall approval rating is still slanted in his favor even with the horrid unemployment, deficit, and economic situation.

Don't forget that the approval ratings of Congress are still at their most horrible in decades as well. Like 73% disapprove.
And the Congress is slightly slanted republican.

For so so so many people over the last decade or two the presidential voting cycle always turns into a voting for the least of two evils.
Not a vote for the best person, but a vote to keep the worst person out.

It appears Romney is currently the hands-down front runner for the reps. Currently. A lot can change.
How many times had Romney thrown his hat into the ring only to have it stepped on and thrown back out?
Romney, the guy with some "social medicine program" in Massachusetts???????

Is that the "best" the reps can do?

Then throw a tea party candidate in the mix and split the "conservative" votes down into smaller factions and see what happens?

It's really going to be interesting to see what happens over the next year and few months.

There's rumors floating around that Obama will ditch Biden and select a different VP choice for the ticket. That would be really interesting.

motokid wrote:

Right, so if the dems/obama have "no plan" and the reps say:

"Okay, for the next year we'll back off and allow you (the dems) to work your magical plan, and we'll see what happens."

By election time the entire country, as well as the entire world will see how effective, or ineffective the dems ideologies really are.
And the dems won't be able to say that their plans never had a chance to work because of the reps.

Five years of Democrat ideologies and spending and we haven't figured out how ineffective that is yet?

However, if you're an Obama cheerleader, secretly or openly, or just prefer socialism to conservatism on general principles, you have to love that suggestion.

After all, what will happen to all those Republicans who got voted in during the midterms, booting out Democrats, on their promise that they would represent their constituents in standing against more tax hikes and cutting government spending? How will they answer those voters in 2012 who say to them "You lied, you're no better than Obama, and in fact you let him continue doing what he was doing"? What do they say? "We let him continue to drive the country further into ruin despite our promise because it was our plan that would see a Republican president in 2016!"

Many of them will end up being one term Republican representatives - which is exactly why those who favour Democrats like to suggest that Republicans give Obama "one more chance". Even if Obama would actually admit failure instead of continuing to blame it on The Other Guy (hah - fat chance), chances are Congress would be back in tax and spend Democrat hands again. Even if the Republicans then could win the White House, how is that going to address a tax and spend Democrat Congress.

The Democrats have controlled Congress - and thus the budget and economic direction of the country - since they took control of Congress in 2007, along with now also owning the Presidency for over two years. Since Obama and his policies took power, debt has skyrocketed, unemployment has increased to from 7.7% to 9.2% despite a $900 billion dollar porkulous plan that Obama said would keep unemployment below 8%... Which begs the question:

... how long should this be allowed to continue before we accept that socialism and tax and spend government do not work for this country?

... how much more debt should we saddle our children with to experiment further with "redistribute the wealth"?

And it certainly explains why Obama and his supporters want to campaign on the next election on George Bush (who isn't running) and how scary the Republicans are. Because the VERY LAST THING Obama wants to run on is...

... his record. Anything but that.

Better to find people who will try and divert attention to ridiculing Republican candidates in hopes that voters won't look at the Democrat/Obama economic record. The last thing they want is Clinton's words coming back to haunt them: "It's the economy, stupid."

Quote :

As for the "figures not lying". I love how you pick and chose your "figures".

Whereas you, of course, are well noted here for not having any biases whatsoever in the figures you choose. Right?

You don't like Rasmussen and Gallup's findings that Obama has very much a negative approval rating? You think those are cherrypicked? Then then show us another pollster of similar reputation whose polling shows Obama has a positive approval rating and leads a Republican nominee at this point.

Quote :

Did you not see the link I posted that showed how much money Obama has been getting donated his way?

Yes. I also noted that his main activity in office these days seems to be using Taxpayer One to fly around doing fundraisers - when he isn't playing golf or scaring people telling them the Republicans are going to take Grandma's Social Security away when in fact there is more than enough money to pay Social Security. Tell us, which previous president did anywhere near the amount of fundraising as Obama has done this far in advance of the next election? Any of them? No, not even close. And yet, people rave about how much money he's raised for himself instead of wondering why he isn't behind his desk putting time into doing his job instead of raising money for himself.

Quote :

His overall approval rating is still slanted in his favor even with the horrid unemployment, deficit, and economic situation.

Which pollster says that? It certainly isn't Rasmussen or Gallup. Shall we try CNN?

(CNN) – President Barack Obama's overall approval rating has dropped below 50 percent as a growing number of Americans worry that the U.S. is likely to slip into another Great Depression within the next 12 months, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday also indicate that the economy overall remains issue number one to voters, with other economic issues - unemployment, gas prices and the federal deficit - taking three of the remaining four spots in the top five.

And when the polling pits Obama against an unnamed Republican candidate, he doesn't have a simple majority of approval there either.

Quote :

For so so so many people over the last decade or two the presidential voting cycle always turns into a voting for the least of two evils.
Not a vote for the best person, but a vote to keep the worst person out.

Which is why a vote for an old dented garbage can would still be better than a vote for Obama and more Democrat budgets. We've watched them since 2007. We've watched Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Republicans in the midterms were not elected in droves to sit back and let a Marxist president and a bunch of tax and spend liberal Democrats continue to give them more of the same. They weren't elected to go to Washington and operate as RINOs. Republicans functioning as tax and spend Democrats is no different than just voting Democrat and at least getting the real deal.

Quote :

How many times had Romney thrown his hat into the ring only to have it stepped on and thrown back out?
Romney, the guy with some "social medicine program" in Massachusetts???????

Romney is anything but a conservative; he's a RINO. And while I don't agree with socialized medicine, unlike the Federal government, that is a matter that a state can properly deal with if its citizens choose to go that route.

But if it comes down to it, he's still better than four more years of a Marxist president with decades of hanging out with convicted terrorists, radicals, and racist clergyman behind him. They didn't choose him - he chose them. That's the kind of guy he is, and that's why his presidency has been all about race baiting and class warfare. Obama doesn't want you to look at his and the Democrats policies and record since 2007. He wants you to get mad at banks. At corporations. At health care companies. At "the rich" (who are anything but rich). If you're a Hispanic, you're supposed to go out and punish your enemies - other Americans who aren't Hispanics. If he had a decent record, he'd run on it. But he doesn't, so instead we're served up Saul Alinsky and Chicago politics.

rydnseek wrote:

Ok, i'll bite on this one, too.. Politicians calling to the feelings of people? Only religious ones do this?


Sorry, Dan, if i addressed points you weren't even making.. just some of my 'pet 'peeves'.

No problem with what you wrote. the point I wanted to make is how the religion is used. The basis of the religions are good. The way it is used to give power to do things aside from the spiritual is the part I disagree with.

Muslims, Jewishs, Catholics have all the same roots and yet have been twisted to believe that a different path is a wrong path. But the subject of religions is another subject. It just shouldn't be used in politic.

Jäger wrote:

But if it comes down to it, he's still better than four more years of a Marxist president with decades of hanging out with convicted terrorists, radicals, and racist clergyman behind him. They didn't choose him - he chose them. That's the kind of guy he is, and that's why his presidency has been all about race baiting and class warfare. Obama doesn't want you to look at his and the Democrats policies and record since 2007. He wants you to get mad at banks. At corporations. At health care companies. At "the rich" (who are anything but rich). If you're a Hispanic, you're supposed to go out and punish your enemies - other Americans who aren't Hispanics. If he had a decent record, he'd run on it. But he doesn't, so instead we're served up Saul Alinsky and Chicago politics.

Is he your COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF? POTUS? Would a "military person" such as you say this to his CIC's face? What would be the consequences? Would you salute and say "YES SIR"?

taoshum wrote:

Is he your COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF? POTUS? Would a "military person" such as you say this to his CIC's face? What would be the consequences? Would you salute and say "YES SIR"?

No, I do not recognize him as my commander. No, I wouldn't salute that Marxist sack of excrement. Yes, I would say anything I said here to his face.

And there would be no consequences.

Which you would have figured out by now, if you weren't so hopelessly dense.

But... I gather that is your unique way of saying you're cheering for Obama as the best choice for 2012 in this thread about who's the best candidate?

Another poll! From the Dem friendly folks at PPP:

Obama's approval rating this month is 46% with 48% of voters disapproving of him. There are 2 things particularly troubling in his numbers: independents split against him by a 44/49 margin, and 16% of Democrats are unhappy with the job he's doing while only 10% of Republicans give him good marks. Republicans dislike him at this point to a greater extent than Democrats like him and that will be a problem for him moving forward if it persists.

Romney takes advantage of those 2 points of weakness for Obama. He leads the President by 9 points with independents at 46-37. And he earns more crossover support, getting 13% of the Democratic vote while only 8% of Republicans are behind Obama.

Republicans in Congress need to pause a moment before they act and ask themselves WHY Obama's approval rates are what they are (or more accurately, aren't).

Rick Perry?

click me <-- clicky

Holy shit??? (pun intended)

click me <-- yep - clicky

What is it with Texas, evangelical christians, and electing them to political power?????

Seriously....really?

This is a serious choice as an alternative?

Could Obama's strongest competition be from within his own party?

Many are chanting Hillary 2012??? <-- clicky

Quote :

Among Clinton fans, particularly older women, the language was frequently far more caustic. “Obama has no spine and no balls,” said a 67-year-old New Yorker.

Jäger wrote:

taoshum wrote:

Is he your COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF? POTUS? Would a "military person" such as you say this to his CIC's face? What would be the consequences? Would you salute and say "YES SIR"?

No, I do not recognize him as my commander. No, I wouldn't salute that Marxist sack of excrement. Yes, I would say anything I said here to his face.

And there would be no consequences.

Which you would have figured out by now, if you weren't so hopelessly dense.

But... I gather that is your unique way of saying you're cheering for Obama as the best choice for 2012 in this thread about who's the best candidate?

Sounds like treason to me? Go for it.


You and President Hoover, Hoorah! Did we learn anything from the last Depression. Where is Woody Guthurie when we need him?

motokid wrote:

This is a serious choice as an alternative?

For closet socialists, it obviously doesn't look like much of a choice.

But then, nothing will please closet socialists but a RINO: a Democrat with a bit of a makeover.