Barrack Obama's RNC proclamation highlights six major personal shortcomings.

[TheGreatGatsby]

Barrack Obama proclaimed that he would not watch the RNC while urging college age kids to watch it and somehow realize how it was not what they should believe.

1. Obama's willingness to completely disregard Republicans at every turn. Remember in 2008; Obama stated that he would change how DC worked? Instead he turned the vitriol knob two notches hotter. What does it say, that a man in his position would so callously say he will not be listening to the ideas of the opposition?

2. Obama's a freaking psychopath. Psychopath's are largely unaware of how their lies are interpreted by clear thinking people. Does anybody in their right mind believe for one second that Obama won't be tuned into the platform of the 'enemy?'

3. Obama's incompetence. It's rather shortsighted to bitch slap so many potential voters. Independents can watch the great ideas and say to themselves; so Obama doesn't even want to hear this? We have heard account after account about Obama disregarding good advice to pursue his agenda of failure.

4. Obama is a hopeless ideologue. He pursues his anti colonialist vision for America; a vision that downgrades America and he has no use for ideas bases upon 'America's greatness.'

5. Obama realizes that he can't win the votes of mature voters. He still wants to be the rock star in chief. Notice, he did not tell everyone to watch the RNC. He told college aged kids to watch it. He plans on making immature personal attack after immature personal attack to appeal to young and impressionable minds. Never mind, that he can't appeal to people with 'life experience.'

6. Obama's belief in the public indoctrination system. He believes that his message of collectivism is resonating in a new generation and he is not worried about the RNC turning their minds. He believes in the system (propped by Hollywood) that much that he's not even worried about many college aged students flipping.

Source: Obama tells voters to watch Republicans, but he's not | Reuters

 

[Mr. H.]

At least he hasn't taken up the saxaphone.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, the Romney/Ryan supporters are real mature. They think you can cut taxes and increase spending and somehow that'll magically balance the budget.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yeah, the Romney/Ryan supporters are real mature. They think you can cut taxes and increase spending and somehow that'll magically balance the budget.

Nice propaganda. Too bad Ryan preemptively dispelled your nonsense by stating in his speech that spending should not exceed 20 percent of GDP. We know that Obama (supporters) will rely on 'lies, distortions, and distractions.' Thanks for showing that first hand.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, the Romney/Ryan supporters are real mature. They think you can cut taxes and increase spending and somehow that'll magically balance the budget.

Nice propaganda. Too bad Ryan preemptively dispelled your nonsense by stating in his speech that spending should not exceed 20 percent of GDP. We know that Obama (supporters) will rely on 'lies, distortions, and distractions.' Thanks for showing that first hand.

But he also don't support any tax increases, and revenues are currently around 15% of GDP. So there's a 5% per year deficit right there. It's also going to be hard for them to keep their promises to not cut Social Security/Medicare and double defense spending without going over 20%.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yeah, the Romney/Ryan supporters are real mature. They think you can cut taxes and increase spending and somehow that'll magically balance the budget.

Nice propaganda. Too bad Ryan preemptively dispelled your nonsense by stating in his speech that spending should not exceed 20 percent of GDP. We know that Obama (supporters) will rely on 'lies, distortions, and distractions.' Thanks for showing that first hand.

But he also don't support any tax increases, and revenues are currently around 15% of GDP. So there's a 5% per year deficit right there. It's also going to be hard for them to keep their promises to not cut Social Security/Medicare and double defense spending without going over 20%.

First off; the quote is that spending will not exceed twenty percent of GDP. You're mixing that up with revenues and then doing some sort of fraudulant math to come up with an equally fraudulant 5 percent figure that doesn't mean anything.

Second off, Romney/Ryan are not running on not cutting social security/medicare. They have stated quite clearly that belt tightening is in order. However, Obama did rob seniors of $722 billion to pay for entitlements to his entitled constituents. That is nothing to shake a stick at.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yeah, the Romney/Ryan supporters are real mature. They think you can cut taxes and increase spending and somehow that'll magically balance the budget.

Increased spending is not part of the Romeny agenda. Perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about so that we can spend time debating real factors and not correcting your incorrect statements. Never mind, I just won't read your clean zone posts. I don't have time for such nonsense.

 

[rightwinger]

Nice propaganda. Too bad Ryan preemptively dispelled your nonsense by stating in his speech that spending should not exceed 20 percent of GDP. We know that Obama (supporters) will rely on 'lies, distortions, and distractions.' Thanks for showing that first hand.

But he also don't support any tax increases, and revenues are currently around 15% of GDP. So there's a 5% per year deficit right there. It's also going to be hard for them to keep their promises to not cut Social Security/Medicare and double defense spending without going over 20%.

First off; the quote is that spending will not exceed twenty percent of GDP. You're mixing that up with revenues and then doing some sort of fraudulant math to come up with an equally fraudulant 5 percent figure that doesn't mean anything.

Second off, Romney/Ryan are not running on not cutting social security/medicare. They have stated quite clearly that belt tightening is in order. However, Obama did rob seniors of $722 billion to pay for entitlements to his entitled constituents. That is nothing to shake a stick at.

If we are spending 20% of GDP but only taking in 15% of GDP how are we not running a deficit?

 

[Polk]

Nice propaganda. Too bad Ryan preemptively dispelled your nonsense by stating in his speech that spending should not exceed 20 percent of GDP. We know that Obama (supporters) will rely on 'lies, distortions, and distractions.' Thanks for showing that first hand.

But he also don't support any tax increases, and revenues are currently around 15% of GDP. So there's a 5% per year deficit right there. It's also going to be hard for them to keep their promises to not cut Social Security/Medicare and double defense spending without going over 20%.

First off; the quote is that spending will not exceed twenty percent of GDP. You're mixing that up with revenues and then doing some sort of fraudulant math to come up with an equally fraudulant 5 percent figure that doesn't mean anything.

Second off, Romney/Ryan are not running on not cutting social security/medicare. They have stated quite clearly that belt tightening is in order. However, Obama did rob seniors of $722 billion to pay for entitlements to his entitled constituents. That is nothing to shake a stick at.

I'm not mixing up anything. If spending is going to be 20% of GDP, but revenues are only 15% of GDP, that creates a 5% shortfall. Nothing fraudulent about that at all.

Romney had said repeatedly that he will not cut benefits for current seniors. Also, it's pretty damn dishonest to say we need to tighten our belt, then attack Obama for doing. Doubly so for Ryan, since his budget proposal assumes the same cuts he's attacking (except that instead of taking it from insurance company slush fund, he's actually cutting benefits).

 

[Polk]

Yeah, the Romney/Ryan supporters are real mature. They think you can cut taxes and increase spending and somehow that'll magically balance the budget.

Increased spending is not part of the Romeny agenda. Perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about so that we can spend time debating real factors and not correcting your incorrect statements. Never mind, I just won't read your clean zone posts. I don't have time for such nonsense.

Romney has stated repeatedly that he wants to massively increase defense spending. He's also promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare for current seniors.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yeah, the Romney/Ryan supporters are real mature. They think you can cut taxes and increase spending and somehow that'll magically balance the budget.

Increased spending is not part of the Romeny agenda. Perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about so that we can spend time debating real factors and not correcting your incorrect statements. Never mind, I just won't read your clean zone posts. I don't have time for such nonsense.

Romney has stated repeatedly that he wants to massively increase defense spending. He's also promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare for current seniors.

He has promised to "preserve" medicare (not not make cuts). He has also advocated a strong military, but Paul Ryan stated in his own RCP speech that not all military spending is good spending. I honestly don't think you're interested in knowing just simple positions of the candidates b/c you're so worried about selling your own narrative.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

But he also don't support any tax increases, and revenues are currently around 15% of GDP. So there's a 5% per year deficit right there. It's also going to be hard for them to keep their promises to not cut Social Security/Medicare and double defense spending without going over 20%.

First off; the quote is that spending will not exceed twenty percent of GDP. You're mixing that up with revenues and then doing some sort of fraudulant math to come up with an equally fraudulant 5 percent figure that doesn't mean anything.

Second off, Romney/Ryan are not running on not cutting social security/medicare. They have stated quite clearly that belt tightening is in order. However, Obama did rob seniors of $722 billion to pay for entitlements to his entitled constituents. That is nothing to shake a stick at.

I'm not mixing up anything. If spending is going to be 20% of GDP, but revenues are only 15% of GDP, that creates a 5% shortfall. Nothing fraudulent about that at all.

Romney had said repeatedly that he will not cut benefits for current seniors. Also, it's pretty damn dishonest to say we need to tighten our belt, then attack Obama for doing. Doubly so for Ryan, since his budget proposal assumes the same cuts he's attacking (except that instead of taking it from insurance company slush fund, he's actually cutting benefits).

Yes__ well we never know what revenues will be first off. Though, with better management, they should be increasing. And Romney/Ryan aren't promising a balanced budget right away. That'd certainly be nice and long term, I certainly believe that would be a worthy goal (if not short term - but it's not what they're campaigning on).

 

[jwoodie]

Yeah, the Romney/Ryan supporters are real mature. They think you can cut taxes and increase spending and somehow that'll magically balance the budget.

I'm sooo impressed by your concern about balancing the budget! Please remind us what your plan is?

 

[Polk]

Increased spending is not part of the Romeny agenda. Perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about so that we can spend time debating real factors and not correcting your incorrect statements. Never mind, I just won't read your clean zone posts. I don't have time for such nonsense.

Romney has stated repeatedly that he wants to massively increase defense spending. He's also promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare for current seniors.

He has promised to "preserve" medicare (not not make cuts). He has also advocated a strong military, but Paul Ryan stated in his own RCP speech that not all military spending is good spending. I honestly don't think you're interested in knowing just simple positions of the candidates b/c you're so worried about selling your own narrative.

Romney has specifically pledged to increase defense spending. He has also pledged to not cut benefits for current seniors. He has not that that pledge overall, but he has to current seniors.

 

[Polk]

First off; the quote is that spending will not exceed twenty percent of GDP. You're mixing that up with revenues and then doing some sort of fraudulant math to come up with an equally fraudulant 5 percent figure that doesn't mean anything.

Second off, Romney/Ryan are not running on not cutting social security/medicare. They have stated quite clearly that belt tightening is in order. However, Obama did rob seniors of $722 billion to pay for entitlements to his entitled constituents. That is nothing to shake a stick at.

I'm not mixing up anything. If spending is going to be 20% of GDP, but revenues are only 15% of GDP, that creates a 5% shortfall. Nothing fraudulent about that at all.

Romney had said repeatedly that he will not cut benefits for current seniors. Also, it's pretty damn dishonest to say we need to tighten our belt, then attack Obama for doing. Doubly so for Ryan, since his budget proposal assumes the same cuts he's attacking (except that instead of taking it from insurance company slush fund, he's actually cutting benefits).

Yes__ well we never know what revenues will be first off. Though, with better management, they should be increasing. And Romney/Ryan aren't promising a balanced budget right away. That'd certainly be nice and long term, I certainly believe that would be a worthy goal (if not short term - but it's not what they're campaigning on).

Revenues would increase as a percentage of GDP if the economy was better (less write-offs for loss, etc.), but it wouldn't equal 5% of GDP.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's major mistake is that he's watching ESPN instead of the RNC convention. Which means he has no intention of responding to what the republicans say. He's going to do what he always does, rely on what others tell him that the republicans said. This is going to totally screw him over in the debates. Imagine a fighter who refuses to watch films of his opponent, but instead relies on what people tell him his opponent does. Then the two have to actually meet in the ring.

In seeing what obama is doing, it seems that he has completely lost interest. It's not new anymore, he's done it before. The thrill is gone, for him. The fire in his belly has gone out. He doesn't want to lose, he just doesn't care and going through the motions is now an imposition. obama never did enjoy a challenge for the sake of challenge and he's never had to really fight for anything before.

If I had to make one prediction for this election it would be that the democrats will abandon jobs and the economy as issues and hit hard on social issues.

Here's who the democrats are going to put up against Condi Rice, Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic National Convention Committee Wednesday announced a lineup of convention speakers who will further solidify the party's standing with female voters.

The list, passed along by a source from the committee, includes the following names:

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
Former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Tammy Duckworth.
Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University student.
Denise Juneau, state superintendent of public instruction, Montana.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Caroline Kennedy.
Lilly Ledbetter.
Eva Longoria, Obama campaign co-chair.
U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, together with the women of the U.S. Senate.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/democratic-convention-women_n_1820517.html

This is NOT a winning line up.

 

[Dot Com]

repubs using "fuzzy math" again? No surprise there.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Romney has stated repeatedly that he wants to massively increase defense spending. He's also promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare for current seniors.

He has promised to "preserve" medicare (not not make cuts). He has also advocated a strong military, but Paul Ryan stated in his own RCP speech that not all military spending is good spending. I honestly don't think you're interested in knowing just simple positions of the candidates b/c you're so worried about selling your own narrative.

Romney has specifically pledged to increase defense spending. He has also pledged to not cut benefits for current seniors. He has not that that pledge overall, but he has to current seniors.

No__ he has not pledged an increased military budget; though that would be a likely outcome (not including war costs). And he has promised to preserve benefits. That doesn't mean we can't become more cost efficient.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

obama's major mistake is that he's watching ESPN instead of the RNC convention. Which means he has no intention of responding to what the republicans say. He's going to do what he always does, rely on what others tell him that the republicans said.....

It's the chicken or the egg theory.

Is Obama ignorant b/c he's stupid or is he stupid b/c he's ignorant.

And he always has us asking. Is he really that stupid or is he lying? He really expects us to believe that he won't be watching the convention? Of course he will. But if not, then he really is as stupid as many of us believe he is.

He's just not a good leader and it shows.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is the greatest natural disaster to ever hit America