I have my problems with ALL THE CANDIDATES...

[g5000]

No sonny boy.

No your wacko opinions.

PROOF.

If you want me or anyone else to believe that President Obama did not create more than 3 MILLION jobs and save countless more, you'll need to do better than lushbo talking points.

You can't do it and you and I both know it.

Now go tell your mommy you're ready for din-din.

There are still less people employed today than when Obama took office.

January 2009, 11.6 million unemployed: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf

January 2012, 12.8 million unemployed: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf


It is necessary to create 100,000 jobs a month just to keep unemployment from rising. How many months out of the last 36 has Obama accomplished that?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Who ever is perfect for me won't be perfect to 99% of anyone else. Whoever is perfect to you, isn't going to be perfect for me. It takes an evaluation. If I get 75 to 80% of what's on my political wish list, I'm happy. I'll vote for anyone not obama. Not obama is an automatic 50%.

"Not Obama" is a ridiculous metric. As much as I detest Obama, it is possible for the GOP to conjure up someone worse. Like Gingrich.

In fact, of those who remain, I can't see any of them doing better than Obama. And that is why I will not vote. I do not see anyone who deserves my vote.

Obama's socialist agenda, if that is what you want to call it, is pretty much kiboshed. His hands are way too tied by the complete train wreck Bush left him to clean up. If Bush had handed off a healthy economy, we'd be well and truly screwed by Obama. But then again, if Bush had handed off a healthy economy, Obama wouldn't be President.

Obama was an automatic 100 percent "Not Bush". How'd that work out?

The only real danger Obama poses in the next 4 years is in his Supreme Court appointments. The bond markets will euthanize any socialist programs he has in mind.

Agree with you in principle ...

"Anybody but Obama" is as foolish as "vote them all out". Those who vote this way should have their heads examined. That head-in-the-sand attitude is what got Joe Walsh and Alan West elected.

Voting is a right but its also a responsibility.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No sonny boy.

No your wacko opinions.

PROOF.

If you want me or anyone else to believe that President Obama did not create more than 3 MILLION jobs and save countless more, you'll need to do better than lushbo talking points.

You can't do it and you and I both know it.

Now go tell your mommy you're ready for din-din.

There are still less people employed today than when Obama took office.

January 2009, 11.6 million unemployed: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf

January 2012, 12.8 million unemployed: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf


It is necessary to create 100,000 jobs a month just to keep unemployment from rising. How many months out of the last 36 has Obama accomplished that?

That's not the question. Not even close.

Fact is, President Obama's policies have created more than 3 MILLION jobs. Holding that next to the three/quarters of a million jobs we were losing EVERY SINGLE MONTH before he took office ...

How could he turn that around in such a short time?

AND - how will any of the Clown Candidates even begin to keep up with the president's job creation? Not one of them has a plan - other than give more money to the rich and take more away from the poor and working class.

Only an idiot would vote for one of the R candidates.

BUT, you still did not address what vampire kid said and what I asked him to prove.

And, you can't - anymore than he can.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well crap.

My bread got too well done - all because I was reading here!

BUT - it still looks pretty good.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

15 Trillion in debt


the correct candidate is staring us in the face. but he'll never be elected.

 

[The T]

I can prove it.
Closing down production industry.
Closing and/or blocking energy resources
Overregulation,union Gestapo professional industrial rule.
Globalization of certain trades.
Wasting of tax dollars on failed alternative energy experiments.
Even WITH COOKED BOOKS,unemployment increase..
Original design to crush the transportation industry by forcing up prices of gas nationally,by way of not allowing the access to national resources and leaving us at OPECS mercy and prices,which are geared by their board to support third world garbage nations.
Plus,allowance of illegal trash to live here and take benefits and jobs....


Shall I continue?

I note your words go unchallanged...ALL of them are true. But sit and watch the goal posts be moved...

 

[Ed Spacer]

I can prove it.
Closing down production industry.
Closing and/or blocking energy resources
Overregulation,union Gestapo professional industrial rule.
Globalization of certain trades.
Wasting of tax dollars on failed alternative energy experiments.
Even WITH COOKED BOOKS,unemployment increase..
Original design to crush the transportation industry by forcing up prices of gas nationally,by way of not allowing the access to national resources and leaving us at OPECS mercy and prices,which are geared by their board to support third world garbage nations.
Plus,allowance of illegal trash to live here and take benefits and jobs....


Shall I continue?

I note your words go unchallanged...ALL of them are true. But sit and watch the goal posts be moved...

Indeed so. There are so many links,reports etc.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Just like occupied,theliq,he never does.

 

[The T]

I can prove it.
Closing down production industry.
Closing and/or blocking energy resources
Overregulation,union Gestapo professional industrial rule.
Globalization of certain trades.
Wasting of tax dollars on failed alternative energy experiments.
Even WITH COOKED BOOKS,unemployment increase..
Original design to crush the transportation industry by forcing up prices of gas nationally,by way of not allowing the access to national resources and leaving us at OPECS mercy and prices,which are geared by their board to support third world garbage nations.
Plus,allowance of illegal trash to live here and take benefits and jobs....


Shall I continue?

I note your words go unchallanged...ALL of them are true. But sit and watch the goal posts be moved...

Indeed so. There are so many links,reports etc.

They are indeed. everywhere...but so many are so rabid of protecting the O.

But they have a vested interest in making sure thier gravy train on the backs of those that pay the bills isn't derailed...that means they might have to work.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Indeed,T,indeed.....Obama follows the Communist manifesto to a T.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Obviously whoever the nominee is against Obama, gets my vote,simply because he is the worst WH occupier in history,actions alone.

But,here's my analysis on all....
NEWT GINGRICH-I cannot stand him. He's a program in sheep's clothing. Regardless of what ANYONE says,anyone with the kind of morals he has in his personal life,tends to have the same approach to other areas. Plus,voting record,flipflopped more than a damn pancake. No,thanks.
MITT ROMNEY-got a taste of him on Massachusetts. He made cuts,but didn't truly achieve budget greatness because he egregiously increased fees and other items to makeup for the cuts,a true financier can accomplish this without having to raise fees. Socially,a liberal with an "R",like bush second term.
RON PAUL-makes it for me,and wins all across the board in the end the fed and domestic policy,but fails with the recognition of international threats and terrorism.
RICK SANTORUM-fails with his voting record,liberal spending,and no abortion for rape and life threatening matters,which is otherwiseIT should be,illegal otherwise.

Help

I long ago gave up looking for a candidate who is a perfect fit for me. Imo, the relevant questions are, does this person tend to agree with me on the most important (to me) issues and is he/she smart enough to see what is possible and talented enough to accomplish it.

Of the four candidates you listed, I have a problem with only one, Paul, precisely, I suspect, for the same reasons you like him, he is a ideologue, and I want some one who has the sense and humility to learn from experience, not some one who thinks he figured everything out thirty years ago.

Where you see flip flopping, I see pragmatism. Politics is about accomplishing what is possible given all the conditions that are present at the moment. Gringrich is an energetic and creative thinker who changes wives and sometimes his positions because he is always striving to accomplish the best that is possible at that particular moment, and while that may not seem appealing for some one who is married to him, I think it is a desirable quality in a president.

Romney is a businessman who is cautious about risk but a decisive leaders once a decision has been made. As a businessman he understands that tax cuts will boost the economy more than fee increases will harm it. As governor of the bluest of blue states, he concentrated on accomplishing what was possible, not ruing what was impossible, a true pragmatist who will, I believe do a competent job as president.

Santorum is conservative on most issues but with a pragmatic awareness that the best that can be accomplished at any particular time may not be ideal. All real leaders, as opposed to hardline slogan meisters, understand this.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Indeed,T,indeed.....Obama follows the Communist manifesto to a T.

Really?

EXACTLY how does President Obama follow a Communist manifesto?

You couldn't answer my first challenge and you wont be able to answer this one either.

Because its a very silly LIE.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Indeed,T,indeed.....Obama follows the Communist manifesto to a T.

Really?

EXACTLY how does President Obama follow a Communist manifesto?

You couldn't answer my first challenge and you wont be able to answer this one either.

Because its a very silly LIE.

I did. Do a comparison of his actions,voting,and motivations vs. The Communist manifesto,marxist.org: The Leading Marxist Site on the Net. matches perfectly.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Its not a lie,nor have you disproved or challenged,by facts,of everything listed.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Instead of diverting the conversation, please factually,discredit,everything I listed.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Well,Dudley doright? Where's your discrediting information to refute the facts that I posted? You're just a lame fag troll. Get lost.

 

[Full-Auto]

Obviously whoever the nominee is against Obama, gets my vote,simply because he is the worst WH occupier in history,actions alone.

But,here's my analysis on all....
NEWT GINGRICH-I cannot stand him. He's a program in sheep's clothing. Regardless of what ANYONE says,anyone with the kind of morals he has in his personal life,tends to have the same approach to other areas. Plus,voting record,flipflopped more than a damn pancake. No,thanks.
MITT ROMNEY-got a taste of him on Massachusetts. He made cuts,but didn't truly achieve budget greatness because he egregiously increased fees and other items to makeup for the cuts,a true financier can accomplish this without having to raise fees. Socially,a liberal with an "R",like bush second term.
RON PAUL-makes it for me,and wins all across the board in the end the fed and domestic policy,but fails with the recognition of international threats and terrorism.
RICK SANTORUM-fails with his voting record,liberal spending,and no abortion for rape and life threatening matters,which is otherwiseIT should be,illegal otherwise.

Help

I have my issues with them too.

My current favorite is the Rescue Rangers, Chip and Dale.

I will not vote for shit to replace shit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

IOW, you can't back up your silly commie accusation.

That's okay - you rabid rw's never can.

You just keep screeching nonsensical accusations - usually misspelled - and pile on more when you get called on it.

Still haven't gotten that 143 page pdf you said you had written and would send me. LOL

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obviously whoever the nominee is against Obama, gets my vote,simply because he is the worst WH occupier in history,actions alone.

But,here's my analysis on all....
NEWT GINGRICH-I cannot stand him. He's a program in sheep's clothing. Regardless of what ANYONE says,anyone with the kind of morals he has in his personal life,tends to have the same approach to other areas. Plus,voting record,flipflopped more than a damn pancake. No,thanks.
MITT ROMNEY-got a taste of him on Massachusetts. He made cuts,but didn't truly achieve budget greatness because he egregiously increased fees and other items to makeup for the cuts,a true financier can accomplish this without having to raise fees. Socially,a liberal with an "R",like bush second term.
RON PAUL-makes it for me,and wins all across the board in the end the fed and domestic policy,but fails with the recognition of international threats and terrorism.
RICK SANTORUM-fails with his voting record,liberal spending,and no abortion for rape and life threatening matters,which is otherwiseIT should be,illegal otherwise.

Help

I have my issues with them too.

My current favorite is the Rescue Rangers, Chip and Dale.

I will not vote for shit to replace shit.

I gotta say, although I disagree with your opinion of President Obama, I'm impressed with the integrity it takes to walk away from a bunch of poor candidates.

Fact is, a vote for the lesser of evils still leaves you with evil.

 

[Ed Spacer]

No facts AGAIN to refute my line items. . Oh well...