The President Obama Thread: "Election Year" Edition III

[TheOnlyOmega]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

Argue with the wiki

Socially Liberal. Fiscally Conservative.

So because one idiot makes a remark about what a woman's body 'can do', you stereotype all conservatives like that? Your bigotry is showing.

As a Christian, I have no desire to control a woman's body. But I believe that in the case of a woman becoming irresponsibly pregnant, the life of the child is more important than her not wanting to take responsibility for her actions. BUT as I said before this isn;t the forum for this discussion.

AS I've stated earlier, in this and other things such as social programs where not nearly everyone who partakes of the benefits actually needs them, we've become a society who wants to shirk personal responsibility and let others provide for us. Thanks for being an advocate of that philosophy.

The Republican party is STILL pouring money into Akin's campaign. The fact that he is on the congressional science committee is a ****ing joke. There are ****ing idiots down here preaching that evolution is from the pit of hell and that God's word is true, oh wait, that's not a preacher, that MY ****ING CONGRESSMAN. To even imply the the republican party knows what they are talking about in anyway on this issue makes you look like an idiot. Once again, why do Republicans want a woman to keep her child? Because the republican party will think she is a lazy moocher when she needs help.

Not from the way I was presenting it which is that they are all recognized and accepted write offs for tax purposes and if you have a problem with them, blame obama for not doing something about it.

I personally have no problem with raising taxes on billionaires. Of course I'm not deluded that it will make some huge difference to anyone in any way. It won't help with the debt or deficit, it won;t put one more cent into your or my pocket, it will just seem like some sort of social justice that those who have more are forced to pay some more. I also know the economical implications. What do you think a rich business owner will do if his taxes increase? He'll look to offset it by cutting expenses. What's one of the first ways business owners cut expenses? That's right, they lay people off. At least then you'll still have something to complain about: the heartless business owner who thoughtlessly lays people off in these tough economic times.



Again, raising taxes on the rich won't make a noticeable difference to anyone. If you believe that, you live in fantasyland.[/quote
]If you don't think it will help, then you need to lay off Mr. Romney's "job creator" kool aid.

The problem with democrats is they take a good thing and blow it all out of proportion where it isn't sustainable and creates a culture of, yes, entitlement.

I'll give just one example: My ex-wife worked woth a girl. She told her that she couldn't work more than 30 hours a week. My wife asked her why and she said that she had 2 kids and lived in a 2 bedroom apartment. When she had a 3rd kid, they gave her a bigger apartment. Her husband lived there but they couldn't disclose that or she would lose her benefits. She also got a check for the electric bill each month. When she got the bigger apartment she got a bigger check. They just found out how much her bill was and sent her a check for the amount. I always wondeed why they wsted postage on the stamp and didn't just send the check straight to the electric company but then I guess they weren't really concerned about whre they threw the money in the first place. She was often asked to work over and she adamantly refused because they tracked her hours and she said if she went over 30 a week she would lose her benefits. So basically everything was paid for for her and all the money she made at the store was for whatever she wanted to do with it. It was more profitable for her to play the system than actually work full-time like myself and maybe some others on here do. That is what I believe is not acceptable. So you're right, if Romney will do something about this blatant abuse of a good system, he is the person I and anyone else who works hard to fund these programs should vote for.

If you really think that people would rather rely on government benefits than have a nice job, then you're not a very smart person.

I'm going to end this before my brain decides to hurt itself.

 

[Spider‐Man]

Here is one thing I don't get. I understand saying Obama failed and he should be booted but why don't those people also say most house and senate members should get booted as well for failing us.

I can understand wanting to have a change in Washington, but in that case you probably want to get rid of both the President and the control of the House

I am absolutlely in favor of this. My new phlosophy is 'you have one term - plenty of time to do something good - if you don't, youre fired.' If everyone would get on board with this we could actually get bipartisan cooperation going in all houses and with the president because they would know the alternative would be losing their jobs. Sadly, the crux is what each person defines as 'doing something good' and when you have people touting what obama has done as a great success, it looks like those definitions are greatly varied. Of course those same people would be screaming to impeach over benghazi and ranting over the handling of Sandy if the current prez was a republican.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

I am absolutlely in favor of this. My new phlosophy is 'you have one term - plenty of time to do something good - if you don't, youre fired.'

Where the **** was this philosophy in 2004?

 

[Paradoxium]

Here is one thing I don't get. I understand saying Obama failed and he should be booted but why don't those people also say most house and senate members should get booted as well for failing us.

I can understand wanting to have a change in Washington, but in that case you probably want to get rid of both the President and the control of the House

They all should be wiped off the slate. That's why nothing short of a reboot is going to get anyone anywhere. The president is mostly ceremonial.

The only way to get a reboot is to let them burn and crash hard.

 

[Kelly]

They all should be wiped off the slate. That's why nothing short of a reboot is going to get anyone anywhere. The president is mostly ceremonial.

The only way to get a reboot is to let them burn and crash hard.

I hate it, but I'm having to agree with this sentiment more and more....

 

[Spider‐Man]

Socially Liberal. Fiscally Conservative.

I must've missed that in the link I provided. And since you can't seem to produce one supporting your position...they are a left leaning organization. And the best they can come up with to support obama is 'he's the devil we know.' How pitiful.

The Republican party is STILL pouring money into Akin's campaign. The fact that he is on the congressional science committee is a ****ing joke. There are ****ing idiots down here preaching that evolution is from the pit of hell and that God's word is true, oh wait, that's not a preacher, that MY ****ING CONGRESSMAN. To even imply the the republican party knows what they are talking about in anyway on this issue makes you look like an idiot. Once again, why do Republicans want a woman to keep her child? Because the republican party will think she is a lazy moocher when she needs help.

And once again, you stereotying all republicans reveals you to be a prejudiced bigot. Hey, are you a white southerner? Since we're stereotyping, you must also be a racist. Such a hater.

If you don't think it will help, then you need to lay off Mr. Romney's "job creator" kool aid.

So I ask you to show me mathematically how it would help and this is the best you can do? Yeah, I'm the dumb one in this discussion.

If you really think that people would rather rely on government benefits than have a nice job, then you're not a very smart person.

So why are more and more people receiving government benefits. Is the number of people who need these actually increasing? Where does it stop? At some point the money available from taxes won't be sufficient to support the ever increasing number. But you know better...cuz you're so smart and all

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charles...y-greatly-increasing-the-power-of-government/

I'm going to end this before my brain decides to hurt itself.

Too late.

 

[Spider‐Man]

Where the **** was this philosophy in 2004?

I guess the word 'new' must've slipped over your head. Question is, where is it now?

 

[SV Fan]

I guess the word 'new' must've slipped over your head. Question is, where is it now?

Personally I don't think the President should be limited to 1 term, I can live with 2 terms. Where I think the problem happens is that House and Senate members should be limited to 2 terms as well

Doing this would allow people to still have 20 year careers in Washington(8 being part of the house, 12 being part of the Senate) but it would stop career long Washington guys. Personally I would like to see more people in the House and Senate who spent years in local and state governments, I think it would give them more grasp what there state needs

 

[Kelly]

I'm fine with 2 terms on the President, but I definitely want term limits in Congress....and yeah, I like the idea of a prerequisite of some state rep time thrown in....

 

[Fading]

I can agree with that. As much as the presidential politics can disillusion you, our lazy congress is much worse. Most of them think their entire job is to oppose the other party at all times. They hardly work, and most of the time when they do it's as yes men, and not individual thinkers.

 

[Kelly]

I can agree with that. As much as the presidential politics can disillusion you, our lazy congress is much worse. Most of them think their entire job is to oppose the other party at all times. They hardly work, and most of the time when they do it's as yes men, and not individual thinkers.

I don't think that is exactly it....I think most of them think their entire job is to keep their job, and most seem to think that their constituents think they should oppose the other party at all times in order to keep their jobs...

 

[Spider‐Man]

Personally I don't think the President should be limited to 1 term, I can live with 2 terms. Where I think the problem happens is that House and Senate members should be limited to 2 terms as well

Doing this would allow people to still have 20 year careers in Washington(8 being part of the house, 12 being part of the Senate) but it would stop career long Washington guys. Personally I would like to see more people in the House and Senate who spent years in local and state governments, I think it would give them more grasp what there state needs

I'm not saying the President shouldn't be allowed to run for more than 1 term. I am saying that if he or she fails to perform admirably in their first term, we the people should deny them a second one. And parties be damned. If we'd all come together and forget about party and treat anyone in public office just like we would if we were their boss and reward them if they do well and fire them if they do poorly. It wouldnt take long before they got the message: get to some bipartisan progress and make this country better or we will put someone else in your place.

I also think more power needs to go to the states and less to the federal government. In general that is one reason why I lean more conservative in that they are typically for smaller government.

 

[SV Fan]

I also think more power needs to go to the states and less to the federal government. In general that is one reason why I lean more conservative in that they are typically for smaller government.

They talk a good game about smaller government but let's face facts, government got bigger under conservative saint Ronald Reagan and has got progressively bigger each successive president.

I get the idea about wanting less government, but people who claim they want that should have voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. Anybody who claims they want less Big Government as a rally cry(I am looking at you Tea Partyers) had the guy who actually believes that instead of somebody who gives soundbites, and didn't bother voting for him for the most part.

 

[Spider‐Man]

They talk a good game about smaller government but let's face facts, government got bigger under conservative saint Ronald Reagan and has got progressively bigger each successive president.

I get the idea about wanting less government, but people who claim they want that should have voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. Anybody who claims they want less Big Government as a rally cry(I am looking at you Tea Partyers) had the guy who actually believes that instead of somebody who gives soundbites, and didn't bother voting for him for the most part.

Let's face it, there was as much chance of republicans coming together to elect Paul as there is of people from both parties coming together to to fire the president each term regardless of perty affiliation. I don;t know how many teapartiers did/did not vote for Paul but surely you can see the problem. If they did get Paul (the candidate they most wanted) as the Republican candidate, there is even less of a chance that the independents, surely the most critical portion of the voting public in this time where left and right are so evenly polarized, would think him to radically right and swung for obama. What good does it do to get your preferred candidate for your party if he stands less chance of winning in NOvember than somene else. You think if this race is this tight with Romney, Paul would've stood a chance?

 

[SV Fan]

Let's face it, there was as much chance of republicans coming together to elect Paul as there is of people from both parties coming together to to fire the president each term regardless of perty affiliation. I don;t know how many teapartiers did/did not vote for Paul but surely you can see the problem. If they did get Paul (the candidate they most wanted) as the Republican candidate, there is even less of a chance that the independents, surely the most critical portion of the voting public in this time where left and right are so evenly polarized, would think him to radically right and swung for obama. What good does it do to get your preferred candidate for your party if he stands less chance of winning in NOvember than somene else. You think if this race is this tight with Romney, Paul would've stood a chance?

That's a fair argument but while he most likely wouldn't do better then Romney but I do think Paul would stand more of a chance in a national election then Santorum(who got some of the tea party support) and I would argue Gingrich as well

All that being said Ron Paul running for President probably would have a slightly better outcome then Barry Goldwater(ie Obama probably would win most swing states and a couple of solid Red states might join them)

 

[Spider‐Man]

That's a fair argument but while he most likely wouldn't do better then Romney but I do think Paul would stand more of a chance in a national election then Santorum(who got some of the tea party support) and I would argue Gingrich as well

All that being said Ron Paul running for President probably would have a slightly better outcome then Barry Goldwater(ie Obama probably would win most swing states and a couple of solid Red states might join them)

Dude, I'm getting tired! We are literally carrying on two conversations at the same time in different threads I gotta get outta here! I'll see you on here tomorrow!

 

[CConn]

For all those fed up with our politicians in general... It's our own citizenry's fault.any politician who is at all honest, genuine Or real immediately loses out to the manufactured, opinion poll-made ********ter. And no one cares. Because they all continue to go out and elect the same people over and over again, they all incorrectly think the policies of their rival parties is what's ruining this country. Its a shame.

The only thing that could dramatically improve this country at this point is reform, open mindedness, and the intelligence to look outside our borders and back through history to see what alternate policies, structures and systems really work.

But, again, no sizable quadrant of our populace has the interest to do that.

 

[Arc-Light]

Really dude? Because I kind of think that FDR inheriting the Great Depression kinda beats what Obama inherited. By like a lot.

Agreed, but going by today's standard what he inherited is much worse...

 

[CConn]

That's only because people have absolutely no perspective.

 

[Arc-Light]

Obama said he'd reduce the deficit and have unemployment at 5% in his first term. Was he being a moron or just lying? Did you take him to heart on these things?

No i did a when he said that.....

 

[Destructus86]

 

[Schlosser85]

Um....ok.

 

[Darthphere]

I like how it says under Bill Ayers (Shameless 60's Terrorist). Is shameless really necessary there? Like if it said "Shameful 60's terrorist" does it make it better?

 

[X Knight]

I'm in favor of term limits for Congress, too.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And once again, you stereotying all republicans reveals you to be a prejudiced bigot. Hey, are you a white southerner? Since we're stereotyping, you must also be a racist. Such a hater.

And yet, you just went and stereotyped liberals as entitled moochers...

Just saying.