FeltonandAmare wrote:Did you check out the stock market the last two days. That is what you did to the country by re-electing Obama. The fact that the stock market has done better under Democrats is a factor of the Great Depression. So spin that all you want but this presidency is on a path to bankrupt the country. He created the fiscal cliff! Oh yea I forget that 95% of the idiots that voted for Obama don't own stocks!

Our country had a choice of putting intelligent, seasoned, experienced, thoughtful, results-oriented candidates in office this election - passionate Americans who know how to bring down the debt and create jobs. Mitt Romney has never failed at anything he's ever tried to do and his goal was to help America. The U.S. has just re-elected a hard-core ideologue with a terrible record who is taking our country down the road to Greece.

This isn't "hatred" - these are the facts!

please explain to me how Obama created the fiscal cliff. He wanted a clean debt ceiling increase.

OldFan wrote:

FeltonandAmare wrote:Did you check out the stock market the last two days. That is what you did to the country by re-electing Obama. The fact that the stock market has done better under Democrats is a factor of the Great Depression. So spin that all you want but this presidency is on a path to bankrupt the country. He created the fiscal cliff! Oh yea I forget that 95% of the idiots that voted for Obama don't own stocks!

Our country had a choice of putting intelligent, seasoned, experienced, thoughtful, results-oriented candidates in office this election - passionate Americans who know how to bring down the debt and create jobs. Mitt Romney has never failed at anything he's ever tried to do and his goal was to help America. The U.S. has just re-elected a hard-core ideologue with a terrible record who is taking our country down the road to Greece.

This isn't "hatred" - these are the facts!

Did you check where the indexes were when Obama took office?

Romney ran for the Senate and governor in Ma. supporting abortion, carbon credits, universal health care - even for a politician this guy is almost unbelievably inconsistent in his stated opinions. Do you know why he was a one term Governor here? It wasn't because he was a republican (Ma had republican governors from 1991-2007).

I honestly believe Romney is intelligent and a good family guy. But he's not seasoned and experienced in public office - his experience is in business. If history is any indication businessman do not make great presidents (see Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter, Bush I and Bush II) His experience in public office is one term as Governor where the state he governed ranked 47th in job creation.

As far as the 'terrible' job Obama has done. As I recall the talk was of a depression when Obama took office. In my view and apparently in the view of more then half the voters he was dealt a terrible hand and played it passably well.

I think you're probably a smart guy but that doesn't mean people that disagree are 'idiots' - they just disagree.

Bonn1997 wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

martin wrote:Here is one thing that should scare conservatives in general, especially if they don't change the way their party embraces certain issues: California got a super-majority in both houses. CA has typically set the direction that the country as a whole is headed with respect to political issues, albeit they are about 20 years ahead of everyone else. I want to say that this may have been the influence of tons of minority voters but am not totally sure. Obviously CA goes much further to the left that most all states would venture, but it's a sign of things to come.

Also, I think there is a wildly popular Hispanic political figure in Texas who has his sights on the governors seat, if that comes to fruition over the next 10 years and that state turns blue, every Republican presidential candidate can practically kiss their chances goodbye unless they embrace immigration is a very different way.

I think if you watched the electoral college map (and I am sure you did) you can see the Republicans are already in serious trouble. Some traditionally red corridors have turned blue and I think the embracing of hard lines on immigration, abortion, and other social issues will be the death of the party.

Like everything politics is a cycle, the Republicans had 8 years while the Democrats were kind of in shambles (Kerry was the equivalent of the Romney nomination IMO). The major difference between the Democrats of 2004 and the Republicans of 2012 was the Democrats were not as radical on social issues and just needed to get their act together. The Republicans on the other hand are a total disaster, they need to change their stances on social issues and move away from the Christian right base. They have managed to alienate the Hispanic vote and women and have not been able to draw in young people or minorities. With the changing landscape of America I just don't understand their positions in 2012 - and a lot of faithful Republicans are considering leaving the party unless major changes are made.

A guy like Rubio may bring the Hispanic vote back (and a different position on immigration). Like you said, major changes are needed if they want to remain relevant.

Which social issues would they change their views on though? If they pick just one or two, it would be arbitrary. If they pick every social issue, then suddenly they're simply the Democratic party. There isn't a simple solution for them.

I think they differentiate themselves through fiscal policy. Its possible to approve of gay marriage, immigration, abortion, etc and still be opposed to reliance on government handouts and increased taxes to protect legacy programs that need to be overhauled.

I don't think it's that simple. Every candidate runs on decreasing spending and then spends a ton. They have special interest groups to satisfy. In addition, the Democrats have run on tax cuts for the lower 98% of the population. What you're basically saying is that the Republicans will be arguing "We're clones of the Democrats on every issue except that we disagree on the tax rate for 2% of the population." The only way that would work is if Democrats completely screw things up - to the point that George Bush did.

Like I said, politics goes in cycles. If you think the dems are unbeatable and will remain in power without messing things up just check the end of the Clinton 2nd term - Internet bubbly burst and recession. That's all it takes. It's very possibly we see something similar with Obama and then the republicans will capitalize.

I don't think it's as hard for them to change as you make it out to be - the democrats are still the party of big government. Softening on some social issues hardly makes the republicans clones. As far as spending goes I totally agree - everyone runs on spending less, but things like government mandated healthcare are a democrat item and there are a lot who don't support it.

"Republican Aides taking cabs home late (election) night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked. This from the same campaign that routinely overpaid for TV ads by more than 500 percent." - NBC News

The Romney campaign believed FOX NEWS, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Karl Rove.... The stupid Romney campaign believed FOX.... It's high time America understands FOX NEWS is simply a public relations studio.

$400 million can buy a lot of bad political advice. There are a few billionaires looking for rebates on their petty cash.. or at least a pound of Karl Rove's flesh.

$400 million does not buy what it used to.

OasisBU wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

martin wrote:Here is one thing that should scare conservatives in general, especially if they don't change the way their party embraces certain issues: California got a super-majority in both houses. CA has typically set the direction that the country as a whole is headed with respect to political issues, albeit they are about 20 years ahead of everyone else. I want to say that this may have been the influence of tons of minority voters but am not totally sure. Obviously CA goes much further to the left that most all states would venture, but it's a sign of things to come.

Also, I think there is a wildly popular Hispanic political figure in Texas who has his sights on the governors seat, if that comes to fruition over the next 10 years and that state turns blue, every Republican presidential candidate can practically kiss their chances goodbye unless they embrace immigration is a very different way.

I think if you watched the electoral college map (and I am sure you did) you can see the Republicans are already in serious trouble. Some traditionally red corridors have turned blue and I think the embracing of hard lines on immigration, abortion, and other social issues will be the death of the party.

Like everything politics is a cycle, the Republicans had 8 years while the Democrats were kind of in shambles (Kerry was the equivalent of the Romney nomination IMO). The major difference between the Democrats of 2004 and the Republicans of 2012 was the Democrats were not as radical on social issues and just needed to get their act together. The Republicans on the other hand are a total disaster, they need to change their stances on social issues and move away from the Christian right base. They have managed to alienate the Hispanic vote and women and have not been able to draw in young people or minorities. With the changing landscape of America I just don't understand their positions in 2012 - and a lot of faithful Republicans are considering leaving the party unless major changes are made.

A guy like Rubio may bring the Hispanic vote back (and a different position on immigration). Like you said, major changes are needed if they want to remain relevant.

Which social issues would they change their views on though? If they pick just one or two, it would be arbitrary. If they pick every social issue, then suddenly they're simply the Democratic party. There isn't a simple solution for them.

I think they differentiate themselves through fiscal policy. Its possible to approve of gay marriage, immigration, abortion, etc and still be opposed to reliance on government handouts and increased taxes to protect legacy programs that need to be overhauled.

I don't think it's that simple. Every candidate runs on decreasing spending and then spends a ton. They have special interest groups to satisfy. In addition, the Democrats have run on tax cuts for the lower 98% of the population. What you're basically saying is that the Republicans will be arguing "We're clones of the Democrats on every issue except that we disagree on the tax rate for 2% of the population." The only way that would work is if Democrats completely screw things up - to the point that George Bush did.

Like I said, politics goes in cycles. If you think the dems are unbeatable and will remain in power without messing things up just check the end of the Clinton 2nd term - Internet bubbly burst and recession. That's all it takes. It's very possibly we see something similar with Obama and then the republicans will capitalize.

I don't think it's as hard for them to change as you make it out to be - the democrats are still the party of big government. Softening on some social issues hardly makes the republicans clones. As far as spending goes I totally agree - everyone runs on spending less, but things like government mandated healthcare are a democrat item and there are a lot who don't support it.

Both parties are equally financially irresponsible. The only difference is that constituents want the money spent on themselves. The economic collapse wasn't Bush's fault, but the Bush Tax Cuts combined with 2 unfounded wars and I funded prescription drug coverage for seniors are major contributors to the current deficit. Obama's no saint when it comes to this issue either. People vote on social issues and ther short-term wallet issues. Nothing else.

Ironically, a major reason Gore lost his election was because he wanted to hang onto the Clinton surplus to pay future debt but W ran on cutting taxes and giving that Money back to the people.

Osiris wrote:

FeltonandAmare wrote:Oh yea I forget that 95% of the idiots that voted for Obama don't own stocks!

This isn't "hatred" - these are the facts!

Sooooo the people that voted Obama are idiots? Hmmmmmmm ........93% of the people that voted for Obama are black......that proves you think basically all black people are idiots.No wonder conservatives are seen as racists. LOL

You have that backwards, 93% of black people voted for Obama. If 93% of the people who voted for Obama were black he would have lost. If my math is correct I believe Obama's coalition broken down by race was 56% white, 24% black, 14% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 2% other.

arkrud wrote:Obamas program is to increase entitlements by taxing the rich.
Taxing the rich meaning increase taxes on profits and estate because rich pay no income tax.
This means they will not invest in economy and jobs.
So we will need more money for pure unemployed people.
This how this country will eat itself.
Last 2 administrations get away with snatching money from middle class to the extent that nobody want to work.
Because it makes no sense to work just to support oversized government and bunch of losers who have no skills and no desire to produce anything for the society.
All they need is "bread and entertainment". So The Rome to be Damned!!!

why not ? Is this from the same opera as that guy saying " I fired 22 employees because Obama won? " I f is is then it defies logic, as any business owner will do what he must to grow his business. In order for the business to grow America needs to be able to spend $ in order to create demand. And to spend $ an average American needs to have some $ for the spending. Not just those that suck on the entitlement teat, but the middle class as well. So giving the average American the ability to have more $ for the spending is a win-win, no matter how you try to spin it.

Bonn1997 wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:Obamas program is to increase entitlements by taxing the rich.
Taxing the rich meaning increase taxes on profits and estate because rich pay no income tax.
This means they will not invest in economy and jobs.
So we will need more money for pure unemployed people.
This how this country will eat itself.
Last 2 administrations get away with snatching money from middle class to the extent that nobody want to work.
Because it makes no sense to work just to support oversized government and bunch of losers who have no skills and no desire to produce anything for the society.
All they need is "bread and entertainment". So The Rome to be Damned!!!

why not ? Is this from the same opera as that guy saying " I fired 22 employees because Obama won? " I f is is then it defies logic, as any business owner will do what he must to grow his business. In order for the business to grow America needs to be able to spend $ in order to create demand. And to spend $ an average American needs to have some $ for the spending. Not just those that suck on the entitlement teat, but the middle class as well. So giving the average American the ability to have more $ for the spending is a win-win, no matter how you try to spin it.

Plus America has much lower taxes than countries doing better than we are have. Arkrud's basically got the standard Republican talking points down.

I agree that if people will have more money to spend they will buy more stuff and generate demand. This is cool.
But this is only cool if the money they get are earned for productive work.
If the money are given to take them out of the streets or to roll around in government or corporate spin machines while producing nothing this system cannot last long. US cannot leave forever on money printed from thin air or wealth produced and sucked out from other countries.
At some point we have to produce goods and services of real value.
Sure we do some but less and less. The only 2 known ways to make people to do something is greed and fear.
We opted to use first and we are much more successful that Soviets/Nazi/Mullah who opted to use second.
Not sure why some want to dump the system which succeeded just because it forces people to compete to survive and excel.
Competition made humans out of monkeys. If we will not be forced to compete we will be back on the trees in no time.

arkrud wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:Obamas program is to increase entitlements by taxing the rich.
Taxing the rich meaning increase taxes on profits and estate because rich pay no income tax.
This means they will not invest in economy and jobs.
So we will need more money for pure unemployed people.
This how this country will eat itself.
Last 2 administrations get away with snatching money from middle class to the extent that nobody want to work.
Because it makes no sense to work just to support oversized government and bunch of losers who have no skills and no desire to produce anything for the society.
All they need is "bread and entertainment". So The Rome to be Damned!!!

why not ? Is this from the same opera as that guy saying " I fired 22 employees because Obama won? " I f is is then it defies logic, as any business owner will do what he must to grow his business. In order for the business to grow America needs to be able to spend $ in order to create demand. And to spend $ an average American needs to have some $ for the spending. Not just those that suck on the entitlement teat, but the middle class as well. So giving the average American the ability to have more $ for the spending is a win-win, no matter how you try to spin it.

Plus America has much lower taxes than countries doing better than we are have. Arkrud's basically got the standard Republican talking points down.

I agree that if people will have more money to spend they will buy more stuff and generate demand. This is cool.
But this is only cool if the money they get are earned for productive work.
If the money are given to take them out of the streets or to roll around in government or corporate spin machines while producing nothing this system cannot last long. US cannot leave forever on money printed from thin air or wealth produced and sucked out from other countries.
At some point we have to produce goods and services of real value.
Sure we do some but less and less. The only 2 known ways to make people to do something is greed and fear.
We opted to use first and we are much more successful that Soviets/Nazi/Mullah who opted to use second.
Not sure why some want to dump the system which succeeded just because it forces people to compete to survive and excel.
Competition made humans out of monkeys. If we will not be forced to compete we will be back on the trees in no time.

America is a land of opportunity. This is what we "produce". If some part of the social program goes to people who abuse it that is a part of reality. The social programs help every kind of folk tho. No discrimination. Sometimes sh!t happens to people who are otherwise productive members of the society. Social programs help them to get back on their feet. When this happens the country is able to move forward.

arkrud wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:Obamas program is to increase entitlements by taxing the rich.
Taxing the rich meaning increase taxes on profits and estate because rich pay no income tax.
This means they will not invest in economy and jobs.
So we will need more money for pure unemployed people.
This how this country will eat itself.
Last 2 administrations get away with snatching money from middle class to the extent that nobody want to work.
Because it makes no sense to work just to support oversized government and bunch of losers who have no skills and no desire to produce anything for the society.
All they need is "bread and entertainment". So The Rome to be Damned!!!

why not ? Is this from the same opera as that guy saying " I fired 22 employees because Obama won? " I f is is then it defies logic, as any business owner will do what he must to grow his business. In order for the business to grow America needs to be able to spend $ in order to create demand. And to spend $ an average American needs to have some $ for the spending. Not just those that suck on the entitlement teat, but the middle class as well. So giving the average American the ability to have more $ for the spending is a win-win, no matter how you try to spin it.

Plus America has much lower taxes than countries doing better than we are have. Arkrud's basically got the standard Republican talking points down.

I agree that if people will have more money to spend they will buy more stuff and generate demand. This is cool.
But this is only cool if the money they get are earned for productive work.
If the money are given to take them out of the streets or to roll around in government or corporate spin machines while producing nothing this system cannot last long. US cannot leave forever on money printed from thin air or wealth produced and sucked out from other countries.
At some point we have to produce goods and services of real value.
Sure we do some but less and less. The only 2 known ways to make people to do something is greed and fear.
We opted to use first and we are much more successful that Soviets/Nazi/Mullah who opted to use second.
Not sure why some want to dump the system which succeeded just because it forces people to compete to survive and excel.
Competition made humans out of monkeys. If we will not be forced to compete we will be back on the trees in no time.

America is a land of opportunity. This is what we "produce". If some part of the social program goes to people who abuse it that is a part of reality. The social programs help every kind of folk tho. No discrimination. Sometimes sh!t happens to people who are otherwise productive members of the society. Social programs help them to get back on their feet. When this happens the country is able to move forward.

Social help should be given to those in need - elderly, orphans, handicapped. All the rest of the people which have sh!t happened to them should be given some work to do and they should be paid for it. Same should go to criminals - give them the tools and let them work for their lunch and cigarettes. Of course it is a lot of trouble to organize... but what we have all this social workers for? To comfort people in sh!ty situations... I guess..

Those groups get different type of help already. I was talking about unemployment benefits, welfare, universal healthcare, or as they are known by the republicans as the evil horsemen of the apocalypse. Those programs not only prevent unnecessary bankruptcies but also help the economy