Far Reach????!!!

SharBar57 wrote:P.S. In addition, if Hitler were running against Obama then you would vote for him because of your hatred of Obama? That's what I get from all of your posts and inuendos concerning one of the best Presidents we have ever had. Are you sure your hatred is not based on the color of his skin????

CorvetteDan wrote:The reason you have an Obama too like or hate is probably because the GOP didn't put forth a quality candidate. I really expected the Dems to choose Hillary and I think she would have been a lot better than Obama. But I also feel that with 2008 and the way things were, the presidency was a lose lose situation for anyone. Mike, you are a business owner. Would you try for a job that you don't think you could do correctly? I wouldn't. I have turned down jobs that I knew wouldn't work right.

RLMcB wrote:Dan, every man that has ever done anything worthwhile has had to prioritize his opportunities. Often it is which will work out better, however, there are some that just plain look awful, and prob'ly are. Having said that, the presidency is always a win win situation. History has treated some very bad presidents rather kindly, especially financially. The very worst modern presidents may have had their public images tarnished, but still made gazillion$$$. Hoover, Nixon, Carter, Shrub, while one of the best was villified while in office, never made much money, but in the end looks head and shoulders above the four I mentioned, Harry S Truman. BTW, this tells you how smart the money men on Wall Street are; The stock market has advanced more under Democratic administrations than it has under Republicans since 1900, yet the gurus on the street keep supporting republicans. Does that make sense to you? [url=http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/09/04/history-shows-markets-gdp-outperform-under-democrats/

meiden wrote:

SharBar57 wrote:P.S. In addition, if Hitler were running against Obama then you would vote for him because of your hatred of Obama? That's what I get from all of your posts and inuendos concerning one of the best Presidents we have ever had. Are you sure your hatred is not based on the color of his skin????

It's hilarious to watch this type of reach. So what if Chavez or Castro were running against Obama? Would Snooker (or I) vote for him because it's Obama or he is black??? Give me a break. If someone left of Obama were somehow running against Obama...I'd vote for Obama. This isn't rocket science Sharon. It is plain as day... Snooker and I disagree with Obama's policies and ideology. Because Romney, who is far from perfect in my eyes, is more conservative than Obama...I vote for Romney and won't even give Obama consideration. Simple...no reaching requred!!!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Posts: 195
Points: 2719
Reputation: 0
Join date: 2012-02-13



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I certainly wouldn't call it a "reach" by any imagination. Both of you are so far right you are going to fall off that cliff if you don't "reach" for something to hang on to. Neither of you will admit to the failings of Romney. Just because he is conservative is the only reason you say you are going to vote for him. Well, then, my reason for voting for Obama is not just because he is MORE liberal than Romney, it's because he is a helluva lot more qualified to remain President than ala carte Romney! Obama is the better man for President and for the past 4 years he has proven that! Now, Mike...is that a reach? I don't think so, and just because our political views differ (and I mean by a WHOLE lot) doesn't mean that you are more "right" than I am...uh..oh, yeah...I forgot...you are, but not that kind of right!

Sharon

SharBar57 wrote:I've said many times that Romney has failings. (I have not read one thing against Romney from you nor Snooker!)

I'll make sure I point them out for you Sharon.

last four years has proven that. The worst recovery in history, 8+% (under 8%, Mike!) unemployment (when you don't cook the books (so you are buying into that mularky, too, Mike? Thought you were smarter than that!)

Sharon, you do realize that the net increase of people taking jobs between August and September would've had to be over 700,000 to get that kind of a drop? Listen...there are two ways to create a downward move in a percentage...decrease the numerator or increase the denominator. The numerator in this fraction is the number of people actively looking for a job. When that number drops (labor participation rate) the percentage decreases. So...if that number stayed the same...the denominator (total number of people working) would have to have grown by 700,000. We have a 1.3% gdp, no huge drop in unemployment claims and some pretty benign durable orders, retail sales and housing markets. THere is no way in hell 700,000 more people are working now then they were last month while the labor partication rate drops. I am smart enough to know the 7.8% is mularky.

sky high gas prices,(prices were low when Obama took office because of the "depression" we were in and with the improvement in the economy and the greed of the oil companies gas prices it's no wonder that gas prices should rise...and you call yourself an economist?)

First off I'm not an economist but it seems I understand it as well as most. You do realize the economy isn't booming right? You also realize that a bunch of new management didn't just join the oil companies wherein they weren't greedy in 2008 but suddenly are greedy right? That lame argument holds merit only if we have a booming economy causing oil prices to rise but last I looked we have a worldwide recession and the US is a 1.3% gdp. I also am betting everything that I have that the people who are and were running the oil companies were just as greedy then as they are now.

food prices shooting up, the housing market still in the tank, ( actually the housing market has improved since Obama took over Bush's mess as has the economy...look at the stock market...the wealthy are doing just great, but the "trickle down" doesn't seem to be working!)

It's still in the tank. Maybe slightly less of a tank but a tank nonetheless. BTW...exactly which policy implemented by Obama has helped the housing market at least begin a recovery?

even his Secretary of State yesterday talked about an ever more dangerous world, (I don't deny that fact and it has been a more dangerous world ever since 9/11 under Bush's watch...don't forget that, Mike! But, at least Obama had the "balls" and fortitude to "get" bin Laden...Bush couldn't be bothered. I think that is one helluva "good" thing that has happened under Obama's watch!) ...

Really? That took fortitude? BTW...I guess on MOnday Obama can spend the 90 minutes talking about bin Laden as he has nothing else to talk about with the middle east and northern Africa crumbling around him, Iran within a year from a bomb, Syria in an all out civil war and China and Russia pushing us around like a rag doll.

Name one thing that is "good" right now. (I have already mentioned just a few of the MANY "things" that the Obama administration has done with no help from the obstructionist Tea Partiers! Again...I listed over 20 "things" including laws that have been "good" for our country, but you being who you are can't see this. It's an Obama "thing"...you "guys" hate him...and it's not just for what he stands for!)


Again I ask...what? You've mentioned bin Laden and somehow claim that a housing market still well below any time except the past four abysmal years is a good thing. Where were those 20 things? I don't see them in this post. And again...please quit calling me a racist. At this point should you do it again after I've asked not to, you no longer go from someone that I disagree with but to someone who is actively hateful towards me and one that I don't need to acknowledge for politics or football.

Ok, then...would you vote for the likes of Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann, or Jan Brewer, or lets say...Christine O'Donnell if they were running against Obama?

Yes, why? I know how Obama votes and think that any of those would vote for at least slightly less federal intrusion. Now if you want an example of a woman (noting your pattern above) I'd say my favorite option would be Condoleesa Rice.

Oh, and how about a Todd Atkins? Conservatives all of them, and "empty heads" as well, and can you HONESTLY say anyone of them would be qualified to govern this country better than Obama?

Not sure but I'd bet on them...if you are just asking about qualified to govern...the answer is they certainly couldn't do worse than Obama who has PROVEN he can't govern. What you don't get or are just too hateful to see is that the only way I vote for Obama is if he ran against someone more left than he. It's that simple.

CorvetteDan wrote:There is an article floating around this morning. It states that no president has any control over gas prices. This I knew before this story ever came out. Crude oil is a market commodity. And it isn't controlled by it's availability, but rather the perception of it's availability. Now the Canadien pipeline. Any one familiar with that one? Well, it is sand oil. They pump sludge across our border. Then we extract the oil but we still keep the rest. Hmm... why does that sound a lot like cleaning up a Gulf oil spill?

Dan, I disagree that the president has no control over oil prices. It's all about supply and demand. In 2007 the economy was cranking and the price of gas was $2.5-$3. It went under $2 when the economy crashed. Bush didn't show the leadership necessary to reign in the Congress from encouraging bad home loans and repealing too many banking regulations and banks from shirking the risk by creating collateralized debt. Still, while the economy was humming along between 4-5% gdp, oil prices stayed low...why? Because of a real push for supply and a drive toward natural gas. Obama has now issued 1/3 the permits for new wells that were issued under the last three years of the Bush admin. Speculators see that as a show that supply will decrease. Obama has invested three times as much into renewables as he has oil and is working to crush the coal industry...demand is staying about the same even with slowing growth around the world to make up for the energy loss from the pressure on coal. This drives up prices of oil.

Obama is a millionaire. He wasn't born that way, but it doesn't seem like he lived in the Ghetto either. I think that he did have a confusing childhood. But he did make his fortune himself which is quite similar to running a company. He is a Harvard Law graduate. Harvard Law does not rate their graduates but Obama did get an award for the highest GPA in his class. The man is not stupid and from his childhood he knows how the other 99% live. Romney was born with a 2 ton silver spoon in his mouth. Having a successful company is very easy with unlimited assets. And paying the employees with your pocket change makes failure difficult. Mike, I realize it can be difficult for you, because you like me valued your employees and rewarded them accordingly. But that good treatment comes out of the profit. We also were not sending paychecks to India and China and sticking our money in an offshore bank. Sit back and really think about that for a minute.


Dude...i"ve thought about this for a LONG time. It's not difficult for me at all. First off Romney's silver spoon was taken away at the age of 21 and he lived in a two bedroom apartment with 3 kids using an ironing board for a kitchen table. read his whole story. Romeny absolutely knows how the "other 99%" live...it's a little arrogant to think otherwise. You do realize that obama has money in offshore bank accounts right? Have jobs from some of Bain's work gone overseas? Absolutely. Have jobs from the policies of Obama and other politicians forced jobs overseas? At a MUCH bigger clip than anything Bain has done. This is what kills me. Our burdensome tax policy has pushed FAR, FAR more jobs to India and China than anything that Bain has ever done. Where is the outrage?


Is Obama the answer????? Who knows. Romney??? He's the nightmare. He has no answer. His statements?? Mostly they have no merit. When you are trying to get a job, you say what you need to.


And this is the crux of our disagreement. You say "who knows" about Obama and that Romney is a nightmer. I say the complete opposite. I say Obama has PROVEN he is a nightmare given the state of the economy and the world today. The fact that we have lost our top credit rating and have $1T in deficits as far as the eye can see, a world recession with absolutely no leadership from America, a geopolitical environment that is as bad as it's been worldwide since WWII. Is Romeny the answer? That is the one where you say "who knows". We have no record of him running the federal government...we do for Obama and it's not pretty.


Complaint about lack of knews released on the Lybia incident. Look at it this way. When the police are doing a crime scene the do not send out a copy of the evidence to the news. They have a case to solve.

No...but what they DON'T do is blame one party right away as the adminsitration did blaming the video.