Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2014, 02:29:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83020 Posts in 2257 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 135472 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1300 on: February 07, 2012, 10:22:04 PM »

the fact that they are openly coming after civil liberties means a lot of people can't vote for them. Gay people.

What? Exactly what civil liberties are you talking about?
Immigrants.

You mean illegal aliens? Criminals who have violated our laws and are taking jobs and funds from Americans?

And now they have this lame, "Hospitals are Churches," view of the workplace designed to make it sound like they are reasonably standing up for religious freedom; unfortunately it seems transparent and stupid to every non-Christian I've talked about it to.

Oh, so the federal gov't can use it's power to make religious organizations buy things they don't want? Can we make mosques buy pork roasts too? Is that constitutional?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 10:29:31 PM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1301 on: February 07, 2012, 10:26:20 PM »

CW:

"No matter how much they may be right, the fact that they are openly coming after civil liberties means a lot of people can't vote for them."

As many posts on this forum attest, our freedoms are a matter of great importance around here.  Lets take a look at your examples however.

"Gay people." The only issue is whether marriage is by definition between a man and a woman or something else.  Thinking it is between a man and a woman is hardly "going after" gay people is , , ,  forgive me, vapid tripe.

"Women who use birth control. Men with women who use birth control." No one is "going after" birth control.  The issue is whether people get to make other people pay for it (a.k.a. legalized stealing) or make people opposed to it provide it (a.k.a. liberal fascism)  Again, vapid tripe.

"Immigrants."  C'mon CW, the issue is ILLEGAL immigrants, not all immigrants.  The distinction is not a difficult one and you accusation a vapid waste of time.

"And now they have this lame, "Hospitals are Churches," view of the workplace designed to make it sound like they are reasonably standing up for religious freedom; unfortunately it seems transparent and stupid to every non-Christian I've talked about it to."  Then you need to expand the range of people to whom you talk.  Furthermore, the issue is not Churches, it is the free exercise of religion.  The Catholic Church opposes birth control.  The state seeks to force Catholic organizations to violate their religion in how they do business.  The arrogance of Team Obama et al is staggering.   

CW, sometimes you have something worth saying.  This wasn't one of those times.
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #1302 on: February 07, 2012, 10:37:51 PM »

Sorry, I write a lot of posts and then delete them. I thought I got it before anyone read it. It was up for like 5 minutes. Sometimes I vent ideas and then decide there isn't anything worth posting here.

Of course you two didn't like my posts (; I didn't link to a pundit that agrees with me.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 10:41:00 PM by Cranewings » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1303 on: February 08, 2012, 07:39:06 AM »

"Sometimes I vent ideas and then decide there isn't anything worth posting here."

Then the three of us (GM, you, and me) are in agreement! cheesy evil

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1304 on: February 08, 2012, 08:41:20 AM »

OK Gents, big day yesterday by Santorum.

Assessments?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1305 on: February 08, 2012, 08:44:33 AM »

OK Gents, big day yesterday by Santorum.

Assessments?


Mittens will still be the nominee. Probably the high water mark for Santorum.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6007


« Reply #1306 on: February 08, 2012, 09:10:46 AM »

Santorum swept MN Colo and Missouri caucuses last night.  Big setback for Ron Paul IMO who thought that was his ticket to be a factor in the race and the convention.  Big setback for Newt too who on paper should have been able to sweep these grass roots events.  It is a small setback for Romney who could and should use this as a teachable moment.  The people he needs first are still not sold.  If he enters the general election like McCain did still needing to reach to the right instead of focusing on winning the center of the nation, he will lose.

Very quick update from the caucus I convened last night in MN.  Our group followed closer to the discussions here I thought.  One guy my age spoke passionately for Ron Paul, very strong on anti-tax and anti-big spending.  He conceded that he didn't agree with Paul's foreign policy and that he was unelectable.  He said he would vote Libertarian rather than for one of the others in the election.Two first time voters to be also came out to support Ron Paul.  I tried to talk afterward with one of them to find out how Paul is reaching these people.  One lady spoke passionately for Newt, but conceded the same problems with him that we have seen that accompany his brilliance and his unique accomplishments.  Santorum only had one vote, considered unelectable, uncharismatic but probably the most conservative of the bunch.  Romney won our vote based on a perception he can win; beating the incumbent and changing course was the top concern.  Guest speakers from State officials.  R's won the state house and senate but lost the governorship in 2010.  A very fluid situation here with the thin majority in the Republican state senate particularly vulnerable, but a better situation than usual for one of the nation's bluest states - the only state Reagan never won.  I was reelected co-chairman with all but one vote - mine.  I liked the other candidates better for doing the work of the next 2 years.

I tried to tell the young people supporting Ron Paul that there are differences and their final vote will matter.  Supreme Court picks is the most obvious one, just look at the latest two appointees.  What I didn't get said:  The Supreme Court is kind of a buzz word for social conservatives (and liberals) because abortion etc. but the Court is also where the power for the big government they so strongly oppose got authorized or validated.  Look at the case for and against Obamacare right now for example.  The decision of whether that is a federal power will come down to who is on the Court more than the merits of the arguments (IMO).  There is no clause that says congress shall set healthcare rules and standards.  Standing on principle to not let a Republican lesser of two evils win and getting 4 more years of Obama will move you backwards for generations, maybe forever, from ever limiting the size and scope of government.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1307 on: February 08, 2012, 09:15:15 AM »

"And now they have this lame, "Hospitals are Churches," view of the workplace designed to make it sound like they are reasonably standing up for religious freedom; unfortunately it seems transparent and stupid to every non-Christian I've talked about it to."  Then you need to expand the range of people to whom you talk.  Furthermore, the issue is not Churches, it is the free exercise of religion.  The Catholic Church opposes birth control.  The state seeks to force Catholic organizations to violate their religion in how they do business.  The arrogance of Team Obama et al is staggering.  "

Hogwash.   The State is not asking the Catholic organizations to violate their religion; a hospital is not a church; it's a business as you point out.  As a business I can't opt out of the plan for my employees because I personally don't believe in birth control.  7th Day Adventists don't believe in blood transfusions, however their numerous and excellent hospitals do offer blood transfusions to those who want it. 

Further, the Hospital/Business are/will be taking state funds for research and care/treatment reimbursement.  You take my money, I get to set the rules....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1308 on: February 08, 2012, 09:21:28 AM »

So, is it constitutional for the US gov't to force muslims to buy pork? A mandate for muslim owned restaurants to sell pork products? Commerce clause, right?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1309 on: February 08, 2012, 09:30:43 AM »

A pithy question there from GM.

"The State is not asking the Catholic organizations to violate their religion".   You're right.  It is not asking them, it is TELLING them.

"Further, the Hospital/Business are/will be taking state funds for research and care/treatment reimbursement.  You take my money, I get to set the rules...."

So, in order to do, for example, cancer research using govt money in part, a Catholic organization must violate its religious beliefs?  A non-sequitor for me, but I will grant that the commonness of the argument makes a powerful case for repealing Obamacare in particular and limiting the govt to its' the originally intended functions in general.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #1310 on: February 08, 2012, 10:33:48 AM »

It is still very early but I am getting nervous looking at Mitt not being able to overcome the MSM slant about him.

It was never a big problem that Kerry was the richest man in the Senate when he ran.

All of a sudden we hear the MSM tagging Mitt with the he is the 1%  guy and suddenly that is a reason that disqualifies him for President.   

I am not sure that the Republicans are at this point doing themselves a favor by having Santorum running and Gingrich, well I am not sure wht he is accomplishing.

Mark Levin who I really like is WRONG if he thinks having someone who can take a stand - and probably LOSE - is better than a "moderate" like Mitt who can have a much better chance of winning - is the right course.  That is exactly the wrong course.

The prospect of another Sharon Angle who unbelievably lost to Reid in Nevada - occuring in the Presidential race -

this makes me lose sleep a lot more than wringing my hands about the world's poor.  There were always poor people, there always will be and the poor in this country have it far better than most if not all places in the world.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #1311 on: February 11, 2012, 10:54:17 AM »

This is so Clinton.  At the last minute just before the election announce a NEW stand on an issue as though he was for it all along and take credit for it and also take away a wedge issue from his opponent.  JDN will of course scream with delight the brilliance of his politics, the independents won't have a clue and it will possibly work to help save his behind next November:

****Obama to pitch lower corporate tax
He'll likely propose a rate closer to an average seen in peer nations
Below:

+-WASHINGTON  — President Barack Obama will call for cutting the top 35 percent corporate tax rate as early as this month, according to two sources close to the administration.

The president is likely to propose a rate closer to an average of that seen in peer nations, the sources said.

This would jibe with remarks made last year by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who suggested the United States should be moving to a rate more in line with its major trading partners in the high 20-percent range.

Obama outlined tax measures - including closing tax loopholes for companies that move facilities and jobs overseas - in his State of the Union speech in January, and will lay out principles for revamping corporate taxes by the end of February, a senior administration official said.

"We will talk more before the end of the month on what corporate tax reform would look like," the official said on Friday, confirming that it would include a call for "lower rates."

Facing a potentially tough presidential re-election challenge this November, Obama will propose cutting the rate following the release of his 2013 budget plan on Monday, February 13, according to the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.

While he spent a big part of his January speech to Congress criticizing businesses for moving jobs overseas, Obama said that "companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world."

Only Japan has a steeper corporate tax rate than the United States among industrialized countries, though other countries make up the revenue with a value-added tax, he said. The United States does not have a VAT.

An overhaul of the corporate tax system is extremely unlikely in an election year, but the president's proposal could be an olive branch to the business community to show that he agrees with them on one key aspect of tax reform.

"I think what he will end up doing is saying, 'For years folks have been asking for a lower corporate rate, and here it is - what do you think?,'" said Jared Bernstein, a former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden.

Advertise | AdChoicesObama's Treasury Department was close to releasing a revamp of corporate taxes last year, but pulled back after business opposition, according to a former official.

Republican Rep. Dave Camp, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' tax-law writing Ways and Means committee, has set a goal of trimming the top 35 percent corporate rate to 25 percent.

Gene Sperling, director of Obama's National Economic Council, has told reporters that the president will be laying out "principles" for corporate tax reform close to the budget release.

Obama's corporate plan will also include a new minimum tax on foreign profits earned in low tax countries - an unpopular idea in the corporate community.****

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1312 on: February 11, 2012, 10:58:52 AM »

After pushing class warfare, this reeks of desperation, not Machiavellian triangulation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1313 on: February 11, 2012, 11:11:30 AM »

Fear and greed are what rule the stock market, why should it be any different in politics.

BTW, in a similar vein to what we see here with the change on the corporate tax rate, I think the "accord" signed with the 5 big banks the other days over mortgages, will play very well politically.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1314 on: February 11, 2012, 11:19:28 AM »

Fear and greed are what rule the stock market, why should it be any different in politics.

BTW, in a similar vein to what we see here with the change on the corporate tax rate, I think the "accord" signed with the 5 big banks the other days over mortgages, will play very well politically.

I don't. Like many initiatives from this administration it sounds good in theory but is filled with unintended consequences that will go very wrong. Almost like the president had no real world experience and was an affirmative action empty suit.

What you will see is the banks become more aggressive in forclosures and a system still filled with fraud and uncertanty with the expected negative consequences.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6007


« Reply #1315 on: February 11, 2012, 01:34:12 PM »

There are parts of this speech that show me that he gets it, looks like a President and sounds Reagan-like themes.  I like the part where he seems to know where the greatness in this country came from and where it will need to come from again.  There are also times I think where conservatives sense inauthenticity.  All he can do now about that is move forward everyday with clarity and consistency.  These positions are now on tape.  He doesn't need to shift away from conservatism or move to the center, he needs to sell conservatism, make the hard choices of governing within old fashioned constitutional limits.

One point about his background as largely an outsider, just a one term governor, is that he does lack some experience in the  political game, for better and worse. He makes political mis-steps, but so does the President.  Also note that his Republican competitors lack executive experience.  He makes a good point about how as chief executive in success you share and spread out the credit, and in failure you take responsibility.  Obama had no executive experience and sees it differently; governing is a game of always trying to gain personal political advantage.  The speech:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/10/mitt_romney_i_am_severely_conservative.html

Also his running mate Sen. Marco Rubio at CPAC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEdyViVg1i4&feature=related

He starts a little off the cuff and speaks without a teleprompter, but when he gets going he is clear and passionate. WATCH IT ALL!  He said he did not want to be Pres or Vice Pres, not ready yet.  By summer he will get it that he cannot save the country in time as 1 of a hundred in the senate waiting until his seniority builds up.  If asked, I think he will serve.  He is not afraid of debating taking on the President and he is not not likely afraid of debating Joe Biden over the direction of the country, lol.  This painful process could actually have a happy ending if these two people could step forward and simply do what they are saying.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 05:48:52 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1316 on: February 11, 2012, 02:47:57 PM »

The URL for Romney gives me John Lennon doing Imagine   huh
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6007


« Reply #1317 on: February 11, 2012, 05:50:05 PM »

Post updated, sorry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/10/mitt_romney_i_am_severely_conservative.html
There are other URLs in my computer that could have been worse...
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1318 on: February 12, 2012, 06:06:03 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099957/Video-proof-Libyas-freedom-fighters-turned-brutal-torturers.html

Caught on video: The horrifying proof that Libya's freedom fighters have turned into brutal torturers

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099957/Video-proof-Libyas-freedom-fighters-turned-brutal-torturers.html

Arab Spring and Recovery Summer!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1319 on: February 13, 2012, 12:41:02 AM »

Ummm , , , GM , , , luv ya man, but please work on your thread selection skills a bit  grin  The general prinicple is to choose the thread that is most specific.  What you posted clearly belongs in the Libya thread.  Thank you.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #1320 on: February 13, 2012, 08:14:39 AM »



Colbert keeps it real.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1321 on: February 13, 2012, 08:49:05 AM »

Ummm , , , GM , , , luv ya man, but please work on your thread selection skills a bit  grin  The general prinicple is to choose the thread that is most specific.  What you posted clearly belongs in the Libya thread.  Thank you.

Well, I'd point out that some have been trying to push Obozo as the "foreign policy president". Just wait until his epic failures in that area really begin to bear poison fruit....
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1322 on: February 13, 2012, 09:05:34 AM »

Actually, from the capture of of bin laden. to the closing of the wars, our good relations with Europe, the overall success of the Arab Spring to promote democracy, etc. Obama is and rightfully so "The Foreign Policy President".  He has done a surprisingly good job without any experience.   Backed up by I might point out his brilliant Secretary of State.   smiley

Besides, do you expect him to run on his fantastic domestic economic policy?   wink

And if Romney keeps shooting himself in the foot (or other Republicans keep shooting it), I expect to see Obama for 4 more years!   smiley
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1323 on: February 13, 2012, 09:08:46 AM »

Actually, from the capture of of bin laden. to the closing of the wars, our good relations with Europe, the overall success of the Arab Spring to promote democracy, etc. Obama is and rightfully so "The Foreign Policy President".  He has done a surprisingly good job without any experience.   Backed up by I might point out his brilliant Secretary of State.   smiley

Besides, do you expect him to run on his fantastic domestic economic policy?   wink

And if Romney keeps shooting himself in the foot (or other Republicans keep shooting it), I expect to see Obama for 4 more years!   smiley


Are you high? Or even dumber than usual?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1324 on: February 13, 2012, 09:32:25 AM »

 grin

GM; I like you but gotta lighten up.    smiley   And maybe open your mind a little......

While you may not agree, most Americans (see polls) are grateful and support Obama's foreign policy success.  It's not perfect by any means, but overall he get's a B+ A-

And, most are very surprised, on both sides, but agree, regardless of your view of the Clinton's that Hillary has done an excellent job as Secretary of State.

As for Obama running on his "fantastic economic policy" did you see my wink?  Obviously that is Obama's weakness.  However, 

Romney is NOT impressive.  Sorry.   If you wanted a moderate with class, my boy Huntsman was far better.  Or if you want a smart fire breathing conservative who often made good sense, then Gingrich is your man.  And the Republicans are dragging out out this dirty fight; the only one who wins is Obama on the sidelines. 

Recent polls (as Doug has pointed out, I admit they are not worth much at this point) has Obama beating Romney. 

So yeah, maybe you will see Obama for four more years.   smiley



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1325 on: February 13, 2012, 09:33:35 AM »

"Actually, from the capture of of bin laden"

It appears you don't know what the word "capture" means.

'Cheney's assassination squad' just killed bin Laden


Mark Hemingway

It's been reported that bin Laden was killed by SEAL Team Six, officially known as Naval Special Warfare Development Group or DevGru. Marc Ambinder has a good report that fills in some of the particulars:
 


DevGru belongs to the Joint Special Operations Command, an extraordinary and unusual collection of classified standing task forces and special-missions units. They report to the president and operate worldwide based on the legal (or extra-legal) premises of classified presidential directives. Though the general public knows about the special SEALs and their brothers in Delta Force, most JSOC missions never leak. We only hear about JSOC when something goes bad (a British aid worker is accidentally killed) or when something really big happens (a merchant marine captain is rescued at sea), and even then, the military remains especially sensitive about their existence. Several dozen JSOC operatives have died in Pakistan over the past several years. Their names are released by the Defense Department in the usual manner, but with a cover story -- generally, they were killed in training accidents in eastern Afghanistan. That?s the code.
 
Under Bush, JSOC was routinely smeared by the left and placed at the center of many Bush/Cheney conspiracy theories. Specifically, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh alleged it was Dick Cheney's personal assassination squad:
 

"After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet."

Hersh then went on to describe a second area of extra-legal operations: the Joint Special Operations Command. "It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," he explained. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. ... Congress has no oversight of it."

"It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on," Hersh stated. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."
 
Now that a Democratic President has employed JSOC to take out Osama bin Laden, will the fever swamps of the Left continue to assert that it's just a Bush/Cheney plot to run around unjustifiably killing people?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1326 on: February 13, 2012, 09:39:50 AM »

"to the closing losing of the wars"

Fixed it for you.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1327 on: February 13, 2012, 09:47:16 AM »

"our good relations with Europe"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,788807,00.html

US President Obama has given the Europeans a harsh lecture on the dangers of their ongoing debt crisis. Offended by the unsolicited advice, Europeans have suggested the US get its own house in order first. Obama's remarks were "arrogant" and "absurd," German commentators say on Wednesday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/8004129/Carla-Brunis-rivalry-with-Michelle-Obama-has-damaged-US-relations-with-France.html

Carla Bruni's rivalry with Michelle Obama has damaged US relations with France

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni's alleged rivalry with Michelle Obama has strained relations between the French and US presidential couples.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100045186/even-london-cab-drivers-are-turning-on-barack-obama/
In a series of meetings with leading opinion formers in the UK, I barely heard a good word said about the president’s handling of relations with Britain or for that matter his presidency in general. In contrast, when he first entered the White House 17 months ago, impressions of Barack Obama across the Atlantic were overwhelmingly positive.
 
But the disillusionment with Obama extends far beyond the political and media elites. I was particularly taken aback on this trip by the level of animosity towards Obama’s leadership expressed by some London black cab drivers, who have also turned against the US president, especially over his handling of the BP issue. In numerous trips across central London I asked cabbies their opinion of the Obama presidency and in particular his handling of BP. Without fail, the views expressed of the president were overwhelmingly negative, and there was a strong belief among many drivers that Obama is anti-British.
 
I mention London cab drivers, not only because they are the best taxi drivers in the world by a mile, but also due to the fact they usually take a keen interest in politics and international affairs, and are often a good barometer of British public opinion. If Obama has lost the sympathies of the average London black cab driver, I would argue he has lost the support of the British people too.
 
Without a doubt, Barack Obama has a mounting image problem in the United Kingdom. Why does that matter? Because Britain is by far America’s most important ally, and the two nations are together leading a major war in Afghanistan. The president’s declining popularity across the Atlantic makes it significantly harder for Washington to advance US leadership on the world stage in conjunction with its allies.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1328 on: February 13, 2012, 09:49:13 AM »

"the overall success of the Arab Spring to promote democracy"

Oh, please do explain, this should be brilliant.....
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1329 on: February 13, 2012, 10:00:21 AM »

Sorry, mistype on my part.  bin Laden's dead not captured.  But you knew that.  Personally I'm happy he's dead; but I thought you would be too?
And guess who was President when he was killed?  Not Cheney (oh he was never President), not Bush, he failed, not Biden (like Cheney he's not President either)
so I guess the answer is Obama.  Who gets the credit? Obama.

As for Obama and the Topic; most Americans would give Obama a B+ or A- in foreign policy.  Check it out...

But I'm surprised you are worried about "French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni's alleged rivalry with Michelle Obama has strained relations between the French and US presidential couples."   smiley
That sounds pretty serious. 

And "If Obama has lost the sympathies of the average London black cab driver, I would argue he has lost the support of the British people too." 
That really sounds serious.   shocked

Back to subject, I think you are just worried that Obama might be re-elected to another four years!   grin


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1330 on: February 13, 2012, 10:14:12 AM »


Sorry, mistype on my part.  bin Laden's dead not captured.  But you knew that.  Personally I'm happy he's dead; but I thought you would be too?
And guess who was President when he was killed?  Not Cheney (oh he was never President), not Bush, he failed, not Biden (like Cheney he's not President either)
so I guess the answer is Obama.  Who gets the credit? Obama.

**Obama's only success was done by following Bush's lead, using the tools and intelligence Bush left him. Obama and Biden then desperate for good press leaked the SEAL info to the press, setting up SEALs for the revenge killings in A-stan by the ISI. 

As for Obama and the Topic; most Americans would give Obama a B+ or A- in foreign policy.  Check it out...

**Then they are as ignorant and stupid as you are.

But I'm surprised you are worried about "French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni's alleged rivalry with Michelle Obama has strained relations between the French and US presidential couples."   smiley

**I'm not worried, just pointing out how Obozo damaged relations after gliding in on glowing expectations.

That sounds pretty serious. 

And "If Obama has lost the sympathies of the average London black cab driver, I would argue he has lost the support of the British people too." 
That really sounds serious.   shocked

Back to subject, I think you are just worried that Obama might be re-elected to another four years!   grin


**I think you are even more worried how your worldview is being destroyed by the real world consequences of your policies being implimented.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1331 on: February 13, 2012, 10:32:11 AM »

Actually, I'm not worried about Obama's foreign policy.

I really don't care a whole lot what happens in the middle east except for the fact that we need oil.  That said, in general I support freely elected democracies, whether they support us or not, versus dictatorships.

I'm glad bin Laden's dead.

I'm glad we are out of Iraq (it should have happened a long time ago) and i'm glad we are withdrawing from Afghanistan; we never should have gotten involved.  And frankly, as CCP said,
I really don't care what happens after we leave.  We gave them every chance, but they've been killing themselves for a long time.  We've given Libyan's and others a chance for democracy too; if they
don't run with it, then I have no guilt.

We need to reduce our military thereby saving money.  And stop being the world's policeman.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Frankly, if the issue was only Obama's foreign policy, he would be a shoo in for re-election.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1332 on: February 13, 2012, 10:35:33 AM »


"I really don't care a whole lot what happens in the middle east except for the fact that we need oil."

Good thing we are drilling for it here and getting it from Canada, right?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1333 on: February 13, 2012, 10:36:39 AM »

"i'm glad we are withdrawing from Afghanistan; we never should have gotten involved"

Perhaps a harshly worded letter after 9/11?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1334 on: February 13, 2012, 10:45:33 AM »

"We need to reduce our military thereby saving money.  And stop being the world's policeman."

Like defending Japan? Isolationism has it's own costs, and there is never a power vacuum. If the US isn't walking the global beat, you'll see the various thugs taking over their areas of influence, and the end result won't be pretty. Especially with unchecked global nuclear proliferation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1335 on: February 14, 2012, 10:53:33 AM »

Morris:  Obama seeks to replace pro-choice with pro-contraception

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/contraception-obamas-real-motivation-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #1336 on: February 14, 2012, 11:01:54 AM »

I like Morris but and have looked forward to his insights.  Unfortunately, I am learning he is just preaching to the Right's choir.
I don't think he has any real insight to independents who seem to bend with the wind.

Brock's team knows this.

That is why they are unleashing this total propaganda war.

Independents will believe whatever they hear @ the moment.

They think the economy is doing better - right or wrong - they vote for Brock.

The market goes up they vote for Brock.

I know, the Repubs are too busy fighting each other and will also get their media machine rolling once we get the nominee.




Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1337 on: February 15, 2012, 11:10:31 AM »



By ALICIA MUNDY and ALEXANDRA BERZON
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson, by far the biggest financial backer of Newt Gingrich's presidential bid, is preparing to open his wallet again. But this time, the casino magnate appears to have more than one agenda.
Sheldon Adelson, shown last year, is ready to use his cash to push Rick Santorum from his position atop the latest national polls.
In a bit of political chess, Mr. Adelson is ready to not only directly support the former House speaker in the Republican primary, but to use his cash to push Rick Santorum from his position atop the latest national polls, according to people who have discussed the matter with Mr. Adelson.
If Mr. Gingrich could afford to continue campaigning, one of those people said, he might be able to draw off conservative and evangelical voters from Mr. Santorum, improving the chances of Mitt Romney, who Mr. Adelson believes has a better chance to win November's general election.
"Sheldon says we all have to keep our eyes on the goal here—beating Obama," said a person who talked with Mr. Adelson.
According to the people who have discussed the matter, Mr. Adelson could give an additional $10 million or more to an independent group supporting Mr. Gingrich before Super Tuesday, March 6, a likely pivotal day when 10 states go to the polls. The Adelson family has already given $11 million to support Mr. Gingrich since December.
Mr. Adelson has repeatedly declined to comment on his donations. He "holds his cards tight to the chest because this has been such a seesaw primary you don't know where it's going to go," said Andy Abboud, vice president for government relations at Las Vegas Sands Corp., Mr. Adelson's company.
Mr. Adelson also isn't likely to announce his decision, Mr. Abboud said, because the casino executive "does not want his opinions to be part of that process…because it's a distraction."
The Santorum campaign didn't respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Adelson's money has kept Mr. Gingrich's cash-starved campaign afloat and allowed the candidate to continue his fight as a top alternative to Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. But after several losses in recent weeks and no fresh funding from Mr. Adelson, Mr. Gingrich has had to spend time seeking cash from donors.
•   
His spokesman said Tuesday that Mr. Gingrich's fund-raising efforts this week have been "excellent."
A Republican, Mr. Adelson is one of the 10 wealthiest Americans, according to Forbes magazine, with a net worth of $21 billion. He has long been a proponent of Israel and its current conservative government, a position that Mr. Gingrich shares. Mr. Adelson owns a conservative newspaper in Israel.
During the 2008 election, Mr. Adelson gave millions to conservative U.S. candidates and causes, much of it through a group he helped establish called Freedom's Watch, according to people affiliated with the effort. He has given more than $100 million to a charity that pays for young Jewish people to visit Israel.
New campaign-finance rules that are kicking in for the first time in this election have made it even easier for individuals to donate large sums to help candidates. That has given donors a new, powerful arena to argue for their political preferences.
Mr. Adelson doesn't oppose Mr. Santorum, but he doesn't share the former Pennsylvania senator's socially conservative positions, including his strong antiabortion views, associates said. Mr. Santorum was one of only two Republicans who didn't meet with Mr. Adelson in October around the time of a candidates' debate in Las Vegas, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Though he isn't yet switching allegiance, Mr. Adelson is thought to be comfortable with Mr. Romney as the ultimate nominee, friends said. The two men met before the Feb. 4 Nevada Republican caucuses, according to a person familiar with the matter. That person described the meeting as a "warm" one.
"They talked about the issues in the campaign and the importance of the campaign," this person said.
After Mr. Romney's victory in the Nevada caucuses, several Republicans called Mr. Adelson to ask him to stop funding Mr. Gingrich, according to friends.
Las Vegas Sands spokesman Ron Reese said Mr. Adelson declined to comment on "specific private conversations."

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #1338 on: February 15, 2012, 03:32:30 PM »

Interesting post Crafty.

Readers know I have been disappointed to say the least over the years seeing so many fellow Jews supporting liberal political causes.

I had never heard of billionaire Adelson until I read about his several million donation to Newt.  I am glad the right appears to have an answer to Soros et al.  (and Jewish grin)

I am not sure why Shledon suddenly feels comfortable with Mitt when indeed he was not only weeks ago when he shelled out big money (not for him) for Newt.

FWIW (very little except to make conversation) I like Santorum.  I am not thrilled by Mitt.   Obviously many Republicans feel the same way.  Yet I still conclude Mitt is the stronger candidate for Obama.

Probably there is still time to give Santorum one more shot at why he is Presidential and should be the nominee.

Romney is like Campbell's chicken soup.  Basically adequate but just doesn't make my mouth water.  Hopefully with the right management and a real defined appealing campaign message this will be enough.

If not, to borrow Ross Perot's famous phrase, "we will be in [deeper] deep doodoo".

BTW, I wonder what happended to him.  Is he still alive?
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1339 on: February 15, 2012, 03:36:34 PM »

I'll note that Adelson hosts wounded warriors at his casinos, all out of his own pocket.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #1340 on: February 15, 2012, 04:06:54 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1341 on: February 15, 2012, 04:24:54 PM »

Newt Gingrich at least is the kind of conservative that conservatives can rely upon to settle their scores for them, especially when that means getting off a bon mot at the expense of the media. Rick Santorum is at least an anti-Mitt who is also an anti-Newt—walking the talk when it comes to family.

Yet what conservatives like least about Mitt Romney—aka Mr. Calculation—is exactly the quality paid off in his swift and effective response to the rise of Newt Gingrich in Florida. It's not just that Mitt stuck the knife in; he did it when necessary, coolly, and without malice. Yes, Mr. Romney still needs a big idea or two, but he'll always be the get-it-done candidate.

But get what done? Off to the side persists the debate about his business career and his taxes, and meanwhile President Obama just put taxes at the center of the 2012 election with his new campaign document, er, budget that fleshes out his premise that making the rich "pay their fair share" is the solution to all America's problems.

Why not pick up this gauntlet? Mr. Romney might give his candidacy some life with a straightforward promise: Tax reform will deliver prosperity, and I will deliver tax reform. His campaign would finally have a theme for its pudding. It would also have the inestimable additional benefit of challenging the central myth of Mr. Obama's political persona.

Let us quickly acknowledge that the phrase "dishonest political rhetoric" is often a case of using three words where two will do. Mr. Obama blazes no trails in this regard. You might even say he and Mr. Romney deserve each other in the fall, since both are—and we mean this in the most respectful way—utter political fakers. But nonetheless it's past time that somebody challenged Mr. Obama on the claim, so central to his presidential appeal four years ago, that he is a pure soul who transcends partisanship.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images
 
Rick Santorum (left), MItt Romney and Newt Gingrich at a Republican presidential debate in Tampa, Fla., Jan. 23
.Bipartisan is when the parties act on matters on which there is agreement. Bipartisan leadership is when a president challenges his opposition to vote for things it claims to support. There is no clearer case than tax reform, which was endorsed by Mr. Obama's fiscal commission, by Rep. Paul Ryan, by countless other Republicans in the Reagan mold, by economists of every complexion.

Mr. Obama himself, when exhibiting his post-partisan reasonableness for the press, pays lip service to a flatter, less-distorting tax code. He did so again this week, even as he proposed to festoon the tax code with more distortions.

A pro-growth tax reform enacted a year or two ago, we're convinced, would have given employers and investors a badly needed jolt of confidence and voters the pleasure of seeing that their country can govern itself successfully. It would have helped repair the nation's strained finances. It would have coaxed Americans to begin the necessary job of saving and budgeting for their own retirement and health care. It would have done nothing to prejudice Mr. Obama's expansionist social welfare agenda—unless, that is, Mr. Obama believes recovery itself would have been prejudicial to his agenda (perhaps a subject for Tim Geithner's memoirs).

Mr. Obama's insincerity on tax reform has been a giant missed opportunity. Mr. Romney is the get-it-done candidate. He could not only point to Mr. Obama's failure to act, but explain why—because it would conflict with the campaign of class resentment that he and his surrogates are so busy denying they intend to run on in the fall.

Mr. Romney needs to do something. Mr. Santorum's rise is a telling rebuke—a "conservative" who hails from a blue state and yet who succeeded because he found a natural way to bridge the gap, thanks to his affiliation with unions and hard-hat workers. Yes, his resulting tax and subsidy prescriptions may be unwise, but at least he's made his way without repeatedly flipping positions on fundamental issues.

Mr. Romney has been as mealy-mouthed, in his own way, as Mr. Obama on taxes, favoring a pro-growth tax code for everybody but "the rich." Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney could both do themselves a favor, talking honestly for a change about what they believe, if they turned the campaign into a debate about whether we want a tax code geared toward redistribution or toward growth.

For that matter, all Republicans in the race, including Mr. Santorum, could learn from Ronald Reagan, whose name they constantly invoke. In a parting address to his White House staff on Dec. 13, 1988, Reagan touched all the conservative hot buttons but placed instructively narrow brackets on his own administration's contributions, saying: "As a first step, we said that the way to restore vitality to the economy was to cut marginal tax rates and cut needless regulations."

This is wisdom. Americans know the right way to live and don't need either party's social engineering (to borrow a phrase from Newt Gingrich). What they need is more prosperity, to enable them to live the lives they aspire to.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1342 on: February 16, 2012, 12:38:04 PM »

Ryan would make a GREAT VP candidate.  His ability to wonk the numbers in an easy to understand way is outstanding and the need for this ability a sine qua non to defeating Obama.
==============
By Damian Paletta
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) isn’t ruling out joining the eventual Republican presidential candidate’s ticket as vice president.


House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) on Feb. 7, 2012, after a Republican strategy meeting on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) “I have no clue,” he said Thursday during a wide ranging breakfast meeting with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.  “I mean…that’s somebody else’s decision. That’s a long time from now. It’s kind of like a bolt of lightning striking you. So what’s the point in thinking about that? I’ve got a lot to do right now, I’m really busy. …I’d cross that bridge when I got to it if it ever came.”

Here are some other excerpts from the breakfast:

On President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget proposal:

“It’s just extremely disappointing, I would simply say. Very frustrating as well, because the biggest challenge facing this country is a fiscal challenge which affects our economy. This is the president’s fourth budget, and the fourth time he has decided to just duck the issues, the big issues of the day…To me it’s just a moral failing. It’s an obligation that needs to be met.”

On the House GOP’s plan last year to overhaul Medicare:

“We put out our plan, very specific, and you know, some people would say we led with our chin, we led with ideas to fix this problem… Medicare is the issue. this is the big budget issue… We have a lot of new people (among House Republicans), but they now have year under their belts, doing townhall meetings, going to senior centers, talking about this issue.

He said Republicans would be playing offense on Medicare this year:

“If you just play defense or ignore this, they are going to define this, they [Democrats] are going to demagogue you. And they’ll get away with it. And they’ll scare seniors.”

On the November election:

“We owe the country a very clear choice. The gridlock is as bad as it’s ever been. We need the American people to break it and what we owe them is if we don’t like the direction the president has gone, which we don’t, we owe them an alternative. We owe them an articulate vision…We just can’t have an ordinary election where it’s a personality contest and then you win by default and you don’t have a mandate. We need to have an election with a mandate so we can actually fix these problems.”

On the government safety net:

“This system we have of freedom and free enterprise and limited government has done more to help the poor than any other system has ever done. It needs patching, it needs improving. Just to give you a sense of my mindset here… I don’t think of people in classes. We left class-based societies to create this country. You know, when I was flipping burgers at McDonalds when I was 16, or as a parks runner or waiting tables, I never thought of myself in some class, I just thought of myself in a temporary station in life where I was working to better my condition, to improve my life, to meet my aspirations and my goals. To me the focus has to be on upward mobility, on removing the barriers that makes it harder for people to rise.”

What will happen during the lame duck session of Congress:

“It depends on who wins [the November elections] I really believe that. So look at all the things you’ve got. You’ve got all the tax policies [expiring]. You’ve got the sequester coming Jan. 2. The debt [limit] thing is just an unknown…My guess is, depending on who wins will determine what lame duck activities occur. In my perfect world view [Republicans win the House, Senate, and White House]…we will be putting our governing coalition together and we will buy time. We will extend things for a period of time enough to put in place permanent replacements, permanent fixes to fix these things. If it’s divided, and obviously you have this president, I don’t know. I don’t know.”

On presidential hopeful Mitt Romney:

Mr. Ryan said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney needed to speak more about tax reform, but he said “he is stepping into that groove. I think he is getting into that mode of doing that.”

On taxes:

“I think tax reform is in play. The whole tax code blows up at the end of this year.”

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1343 on: February 16, 2012, 03:57:47 PM »

By Sara Murray and Danny Yadron

It’s shaping up to be a lonely night in Georgia next month.


Republican presidential candidates, from left, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) look toward moderator Wolf Blitzer of CNN as they participate in the Republican presidential candidates debate in Jacksonville, Fla., Jan. 26, 2012. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul dropped out of the GOP candidates’ debate March 1 in Atlanta, robbing former House Speaker  Newt Gingrich of his chance to dominate the stage in his former stomping grounds days ahead of Super Tuesday.

CNN, which is hosting the debate, said it will be canceled. “Without full participation of all four candidates, CNN will not move forward with the Super Tuesday debate,” the cable network said in a statement.

The mass dropout strips Mr. Gingrich of his preferred mode of campaigning: Slamming his opponents – and the media – on the debate stage.

The Republican debates have taken on outsized influence this year. They’ve been watched by millions and have repeated caused shifts in the polls, contributing to an already volatile GOP primary.

“If they won’t do their job as a candidate, how can we expect them to do their job as president?” said Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul noted there have been 20 debates, including eight hosted by CNN.

“Gov. Romney will be spending a lot of time campaigning in Georgia and Ohio ahead of Super Tuesday,” Ms. Saul said in a statement. “With eight other states voting on March 6th, we will be campaigning in other parts of the country and unable to schedule the CNN Georgia debate.”

Hogan Gidley, spokesman for Mr. Santorum’s campaign, said his candidate has no plans to participate either.

“We got to campaign, man,” Mr. Gidley said. “At some point we have to get out shake hands and get some votes.”

Texas Rep. Paul is out as well. “He’s not going, either,” said spokesman Gary Howard.

The candidates are still scheduled to debate in Mesa, Ariz., on Feb. 22, which is also hosted by CNN.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #1344 on: February 17, 2012, 10:55:01 AM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-is-romneys-secret-weapon-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1345 on: February 20, 2012, 03:10:36 PM »

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/02/michelles-ski-trip-marks-16-obama-vacations/294051


YOU WOULD, WOULDN’T YOU? “You’d think with her husband’s reelection on the line, Michelle Obama would not go on another vacation. She must really need to get out of the White House. It looks awful for the campaign, which attempts to radiate concern for the economically downtrodden, to have her romping on another luxurious vacation. Aspen, for skiing, after Christmas in Hawaii, and — a while back — summer on Martha’s Vineyard. These selections couldn’t be more precisely chosen to inspire envy. You’d think they’d rein her in… or at least moderate the optics. What’s going on? Are they super-confident of victory in November? Counting on our short memories? Or is getting Michelle away from the White House a big priority?”
 
Posted at 10:28 am by Glenn Reynolds
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1346 on: February 20, 2012, 03:16:31 PM »

Gee, give the woman a break; who cares....

Copied from you posted article;

"According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #1347 on: February 20, 2012, 03:22:33 PM »

Gee, give the woman a break; who cares....

Copied from you posted article;

"According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that."



Where he would clear brush on his ranch, unlike Queen Michelle's high dollar getaways.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6007


« Reply #1348 on: February 21, 2012, 09:33:39 AM »

Obama is leading in the individual matchups at this point in spite of presiding over a miserable economic 'recovery', therefore he will win in November; that is the pessimism I have been hearing.  Polls from other Presidential years:

Gallup Jan 1980 Carter 63%, Reagan 32%

Dukakis up by 17% over George H.W. Bush, July and August 1988
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #1349 on: February 21, 2012, 10:06:23 AM »

Doug,

Good point.  No need to panic as it is way too early.   The Repubs have not consolidated and are not focused on Obama and the MSM is having a great time yucking up their attacking each other.   

When reporters go out on the street and ask pedestrian basic questions about politics, the direction of the country, history, etc.  It is amazing how little people know.  It seems most people are not paying attention or thinking beyond the headlines if even that.

I guess that is one reason why it is so easy to bribe people for votes and blame the "rich".

Gallup says the unempolyment rate is 9% - watch for all sorts of explanations why this is wrong for the OBama outlets, why their calculations are misleading and for the WH to dispute the numbers, and finally "it would be far worse without Obama".  Anything but the truth and accepting any responsibility.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!