How do conservatives plan on winning?

[Sarah G]

They're going to use the ineligibility strategy in every state. It is their best hope.

 

[mskafka]

What a fucking moron, posting an hour long video and saying "see 5 through 12" yeah I have nothing better to do than that

Do you see why I can never put that asshole on ignore?

What a fucking retard

I thought it was very interesting and insightful. It is one of the big parasites that attached itself to our already bleeding economy. It isn't about blame. It's information. No ONE person caused this.

How unusual and surprising it would be to see both sides agree from time to time. Instead of arguing about it, why don't we look for solutions to fix it. It's our country. And electing another bad president (which is most of our candidates) isn't going to fix it. And our congress...oh my....about 95% of them need to be ousted. They don't seem to be the least bit interested or concerned about what WE are going through. Do you disagree with that?

 

[mskafka]

Simple, a message that contrasts that of those controlling the White House and US Senate. Can it get worse then it is today? well then just wait till you see first hand of what 4 more years of hope and change have in store for you.

So who is your choice for the next president of the us? And do you see hope and change in what the individual is claiming they plan to do? Do you believe them?

I don't think that pissing off Cuba again is a good idea. We've been down that road once. Do we really want to go there again?

 

[mskafka]

Right now O has only three safe havens: NY,Ca, Il. There's not a path for him to win. Miraculous recover of economy in the next 9 months could help him but probably not.

All 57 states are in play

Crap!! I forgot about. He may be leading in those seven new states that were annexed a couple of years ago.

Yes, and Sarah thought that Africa was a country, and McCain was concerned about our security again Czechoslovakia (in 2008), Ford had an issue with falling, and Bush couldn't remember an adage.

We all say and do silly things, when we're sleep-deprived.

 

[mskafka]

The very first thing ...

I would have thought that would be pretty damned obvious.

I think that the only thing that is pretty damned obvious is that the Republicans have caused the last three years to be wasted time because not only have they denied the President any of the programs he thought would be best for the country its also because they have managed to advance exactly none of their own Agenda - presuming they have any agenda other than obstruction.

In short the Congress has done nothing, and you sure as hell can't blame that on Obama.

I will agree with you on that. Our congress has been getting paid, basically to argue back and forth. Thanks, guys. I'm so glad that our tax dollars have gone to pay your salary, while some of you engaged in insider trading, and put your politics before your country. I hope that all of you get sent packing, in the coming years. We are sick of it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Simple:
By telling the truth.
The Obama cannot run against that.

Quoted for truth (see what I did there )

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The very first thing I have to say is that Obama is not the one to blame for our economy. No matter how you try to view it there is simply no denying that the economy we have today is a continuation of the economy that was handed to Obama on the day he took Office. It might be argued that he has done little to nothing to correct it, but it can not be said that he caused it.

Once that situation has been called for what it is, the Bush years extended, then you have to ask what Obama has done and the answer is precious little. Unforgivably he extended the Bush tax cuts and that alone doomed the economy to at least lackluster performance. But as to what he hasn't done, that is another story.

He has had nothing to work with. Congress has not given him a thing he asked for. And that was as true when Democrats held slim majorities in both houses as it is today. It is obstructionist policy in the Congress that has stopped Obama dead in his tracks and nothing else. That Obstructionist policy, or set of policies, was put in place and the ground held primarily by Republicans but they did in fact have help from old dog democrats who many of us call DiNOs, which of course means Democrats In Name Only. It is their collusion with those who demanded inaction who are the cause of the continuation of the Bush years, not President Obama.

Welcome to the forum.

You are wrong. The 'blame Bush' whine is past it's 'best before' date as the Brits would say.

And... if Congress has not given him a thing he asked for - that's because they are not elected to pander to the President. They are there to fulfill the promises they made to their constituents.

I would have thought that would be pretty damned obvious.

It's not Bush's fault anymore? That's the excuse now?

All those decisions that Bush COMMITTED the country to? Those are Obama's?
Really? They were FINE expenditures, approved by republiCONS under the Bush admin, but now, 4/5ths of them aren't when Obama takes office?

Man....you CONZ will say ANY LIE won't you?
Even saying that GOING INTO IRAQ was Obama's fault because he didn't pull all our troops out the second he got into office.

where is the spending on cash for clunkers
The spending for the military involvement in egypt/libya
the spending for obama's jobs bill?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Welcome to the forum.

You are wrong. The 'blame Bush' whine is past it's 'best before' date as the Brits would say.

And... if Congress has not given him a thing he asked for - that's because they are not elected to pander to the President. They are there to fulfill the promises they made to their constituents.

I would have thought that would be pretty damned obvious.

All those decisions that Bush COMMITTED the country to?

Every dollar spent is done so voluntary.
The Obama CHOSE to continue any and every spending program from the Bush administration.
There's no way to honestly argue that the deficits are anyone's but His.

True. He could have stopped every program ever started or perpetuated by Bush cold while Pelosi and Reid controlled the Congress for him.

Face it, lefties: After three years, Obama owns it all. Period.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

All those decisions that Bush COMMITTED the country to?

Every dollar spent is done so voluntary.
The Obama CHOSE to continue any and every spending program from the Bush administration.
There's no way to honestly argue that the deficits are anyone's but His.

True. He could have stopped every program ever started or perpetuated by Bush cold while Pelosi and Reid controlled the Congress for him.

Face it, lefties: After three years, Obama owns it all. Period.

He even said so himself

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN5-ovvFL0]FLASHBACK: Obama: My Presidency Will Be 'A One-Term Proposition' If Economy Doesn't Turn In 3 Years - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Article 15]

He's GOING to run on his record and he's GOING to win.

You guys have deluded yourselves to the point where you actually believe your own bullshit.

When he finally starts campaigning (that's another line of your own bull that you guys have actually come to believe, "Campaigner in Chief"), you guys aren't going to know what hit you.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

He's GOING to run on his record and he's GOING to win.

You guys have deluded yourselves to the point where you actually believe your own bullshit.

When he finally starts campaigning (that's another line of your own bull that you guys have actually come to believe, "Campaigner in Chief"), you guys aren't going to know what hit you.

Hi Pot, Meet Kettle



Unless the economy turns around, as it seems it may do, obama's record sucks.

There are over 1.5 million fewer net jobs today than when he took office
He added more to the debt already than bush did in 8, and he called bush unpatriotic for his debt spending
Obamacare is unpopular
Stimulus is unpopular and failed


Killing bin laden, ending iraq on Bush's original timeline, and being smart about using seals to rescue hostages wont be enough to overcome that.

It will be a close election and obama is no shoe in.

If you need links for any of the above give a shout, i have them.

 

[Article 15]

He's GOING to run on his record and he's GOING to win.

You guys have deluded yourselves to the point where you actually believe your own bullshit.

When he finally starts campaigning (that's another line of your own bull that you guys have actually come to believe, "Campaigner in Chief"), you guys aren't going to know what hit you.

Hi Pot, Meet Kettle



Unless the economy turns around, as it seems it may do, obama's record sucks.

There are over 1.5 million fewer net jobs today than when he took office
He added more to the debt already than bush did in 8, and he called bush unpatriotic for his debt spending
Obamacare is unpopular
Stimulus is unpopular and failed


Killing bin laden and being smart about using seals to rescue hostages wont be enough to overcome that.

It will be a close election and obama is no shoe in.

The economy has turned around, dude.

The stimulus worked.

9 straight quarters of GDP growth, almost two straight years of monthly private sector job growth.

Compare that to losing 700k jobs a month and GDP shrinking at a rate of 5% when he took office.

That's a turn around no matter how to try to spin it.

And LMFAO @ trying to compare Bush debt to our current debt. One was by choice during alleged "good" economy ... another was HANDED to Obama (the first trillion+ debt was under Bush) along with a tail spinning economy with falling government receipts while MILLIONS were being put out of work.

You think every year's budget is in a vacuum?

C'mon now.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that the FACT that the economy is in MUCH better shape than he got it wont be perfectly articulated every day of the campaign season.

Oh, and you're two front runners are awful candidates. One guy almost nobody likes and the other has made flip flopping an art form and can't relate to anyone besides the uber wealthy.

Have fun with all that.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Budget, what budget the congress hasn't even sent one to obama since he took office

the other stuff is just fluff and excuses, like bush did while he was president obama owns everything now, good or bad.

The economy is not in better shape than when he got it at all.

Gas was under 2 bucks a gallon, its over 3
Milk is up 25%
cotton is up 30%
Jobs are down 1.5 million
GDP is sluggish (1.7% for the year, we need 3% to keep up with population growth, under 3% is bad)


It is what it is man, like I said the indicators do look good now and hopefully it turns around but if it doesn't obama is done.

And bush sucked, we all know that, so trying to justify any of obama's shortcomings by pointing out that bush failed too doesn't change anything about how obama hasn't been stellar.

 

[Article 15]

Budget, what budget the congress hasn't even sent one to obama since he took office

the other stuff is just fluff and excuses, like bush did while he was president obama owns everything now, good or bad.

The economy is not in better shape than when he got it at all.

Gas was under 2 bucks a gallon, its over 3
Milk is up 25%
cotton is up 30%
Jobs are down 1.5 million
GDP is sluggish (1.7% for the year, we need 3% to keep up with population growth, under 3% is bad)


It is what it is man, like I said the indicators do look good now and hopefully it turns around but if it doesn't obama is done.

And bush sucked, we all know that, so trying to justify any of obama's shortcomings by pointing out that bush failed too doesn't change anything about how obama hasn't been stellar.

You're whole argument is a bunch of nonsensical spin that ignores the reality of the economy being in a tail spin when Obama took office.

Beside the pure ridiculousness of saying current slow GDP growth is worse than the plummeting GDP then, take gas for example, WHY was gas below $2 a gallon?

It was under $2 a gallon because gas prices plummeted right along with the market and they have gone back up along with the market.

If under $2 a gallon of gas means the economy was better shape then than it is now, try reconciling that with the 700k jobs a month we were losing and 5% quarterly shrinkage of GDP we were experiencing when gas prices were that low. Calling the economy in better shape then seems pretty silly now, huh? I'm sure everyone who was seeing their 401k's losing chunks at a time then would agree. If anything we were looking at the pump and saying "well at least gas prices took a hit too".

And lo and behold the same can be said about milk:

And cotton in September of 2008 was 73.59 cents/lb and in January of 2009 they were 57.70 cents/lb. Hmmm. Today they are at 88.26 cents/lb. Hmmm.

Cotton - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi

This is why it's pretty dishonest of you to point at things like gas prices and be all like "see? better then than now." You're smarter than that.

But that's what you guys are apparently counting on.....people being dumb enough to not understand things beyond the face value you choose to show them and buy the bullshit.

You guys have been allowed to run your mouths long enough. It's not going to work anymore.

 

[Grandma]

It took 8 years for the Bushreich to wipe out the economy. Yet some of you expect Obama, with an obstructionist we-have-to-keep-him-at-one-term-regardless-of-what-our-actions-do-to-America Congress to completely repair the damage and even come out ahead in 4 years.

 

[rdean]

I see them aligning with the uber-wealthy against everyone else.
Look at their top candidates. One has a half-million credit line at Tiffany's to keep his trophy wife happy and HE'S the poorer one.

Good luck connecting with everyday Americans. You know...those people who AREN'T millionaires? It's going to be a pretty hard sell that a Wall Street insider who wrecked jobs for a living is a better choice than a guy who came in, somewhat cleaned up the mess left him and has started to fix things.

I can't wait for someone to ask Romney or Newt how much a gallon of milk or a pair of jeans cost.
When they can't answer satisfactorily, everyone will know just how out of touch they are with WORKING AMERICANS and that will seal their fate.

By pointing to obama's record
By pointing out his divisive rhetoric
By pointing out the inflation in goods, services, and gas prices since he took office
by pointing out that there are less net jobs today, with more american citizens in total, then when he took office
By pointing out that he has added more to the debt than any previous president
By pointing out he wants to return to pre-bush tax rates which would make my 5 figure income's taxes go up 3%
By pointing out hte LONG LIST of republican legislative bills to help the economy which the democrats have obstructed in the senate.

I'm sure there is more

Obama's divisive rhetoric? Examples?

This part is just strange, "By pointing out that he has added more to the debt than any previous president". The reason no one believes that is because it's not true.

 

[Colin]

How do conservatives plan on winning?

Observing from the outside, it appears that conservatives won't have to plan on winning. The other lot seem to be planning on losing.

 

[rdean]

It took 8 years for the Bushreich to wipe out the economy. Yet some of you expect Obama, with an obstructionist we-have-to-keep-him-at-one-term-regardless-of-what-our-actions-do-to-America Congress to completely repair the damage and even come out ahead in 4 years.

True, and what's worse, more than a hundred Republicans who voted against the stimulus took hundreds of millions in stimulus money, created thousands of jobs and then took credit for the jobs they voted against.

You don't even need to do any "research". Just type, "republicans took stimulus money" into any search engine and you can find out their names, their vote, how much they took, what they spent it on and the estimated number of jobs.

I don't get how they can run on, "The stimulus created no jobs". They think they can lie and no one will notice? If you keep lying then people believe everything you say is a lie.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugex....,cf.osb&fp=309c14521557146d&biw=1742&bih=882

 

[Oldstyle]

The very first thing I have to say is that Obama is not the one to blame for our economy. No matter how you try to view it there is simply no denying that the economy we have today is a continuation of the economy that was handed to Obama on the day he took Office. It might be argued that he has done little to nothing to correct it, but it can not be said that he caused it.

Once that situation has been called for what it is, the Bush years extended, then you have to ask what Obama has done and the answer is precious little. Unforgivably he extended the Bush tax cuts and that alone doomed the economy to at least lackluster performance. But as to what he hasn't done, that is another story.

He has had nothing to work with. Congress has not given him a thing he asked for. And that was as true when Democrats held slim majorities in both houses as it is today. It is obstructionist policy in the Congress that has stopped Obama dead in his tracks and nothing else. That Obstructionist policy, or set of policies, was put in place and the ground held primarily by Republicans but they did in fact have help from old dog democrats who many of us call DiNOs, which of course means Democrats In Name Only. It is their collusion with those who demanded inaction who are the cause of the continuation of the Bush years, not President Obama.

This post is one of the most delusional things I've ever seen here.

First of all, Barack Obama was given Super Majorities to work with in both the House and Senate, not "slim majorities". Instead of addressing the economy however, he chose to pursue ObamaCare after taking office. What stopped Obama dead in his tracks was the mid-term elections when the electorate sent a loud and clear message to Barry, Harry and Nancy that they were not happy with the progressive nonsense that the three of them had been passing for a year and a half. As for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts? Obama didn't have a choice! He knew that if he let the cuts expire the economy would worsen and he'd have ZERO chance of getting reelected. The so called DINO's that you refer to knew that as well which is why moderate Democrats wouldn't back Obama on getting rid of the tax cuts even if he'd wanted them to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Modern Democrat Lies:

Obama never had a veto proof majority
The Tea Party got us downgraded
Obama's spending didn't cause the deficit