Obama Is Gonna Win In November...

[Oldstyle]

It call comes down to one thing. Can the democrats lie convincingly enough to persuade Americans that there is improvement?

Statistics are making the case for the Democrats in many cases. In some cases not. Each stat has a value to you and to me...often times different values. Depends on which stats are better and which are worse.

Additionally, the alternatives to Mr. Obama do not seem all that appealing. Quick...what is Romney's plan for the military? Is he for upsizing, downsizing, more ships, recalling all of the troops? He won't say. Nobody seems to know. The words "empty suit" come to mind.

Romney has consistently called for an increase in military spending from 3.8% of GDP to 4% of GDP. That's been posted on his campaign site for a long time, Candy. Making a charge that he "won't say" is either you being lazy and not looking...or you misrepresenting the facts. You can agree or disagree with Romney's calls to increase military spending but you can't fault him for not having a plan.

 

[geauxtohell]

Sadly, I believe Obama will win.
1# Improving economy
2# Romney is very moderate socially. Has a past of being pro choice and anti-gun. Going to scare off the right wing of the gop.
3# If Obama keeps us out of war with Iran...He will get a boost!

Fuck the ecomony, asswipe.
Our men and women are dying globally, while this fucknut plays golf and vacations in Hawaii.
Hopefully he will enter into a war with Iran, the draft will be reinstated, and pole-smokers like you will finally get a chance to serve this country - on the front lines.

Enjoy your tour(s) of duty, assbrain.

Again I am left to ponder just when it was that you cracked up.

Has Obama usurped W's vacation record?

Other than that, as we are basically out of Iraq and are planning to be out of Afghanistan, I don't understand your complaint.

If it's all foreign policy, why don't you support Paul? Why would you potentially support three candidates who continually hint that they would get us into a war with Iran.

 

[Sallow]

Actually, Bush handled the 2001 recession reasonably well. Unemployment never got above 6.3%, despite 9/11 and everything else.

The 2008 recession, that's another matter.

No he didn't. There wasn't all that much of a "recession" either. The "Dot Com" bubble bascially was done. The result was a crap load of used tech gear that people were able to pawn off to more established companies. Cisco and the like took a hit..but they started innovating. Beginning with developing things like switches instead of hubs.

What Bush did was to drop interest rates to zero and severely inflate the housing and construction industry. That was the bubble that nearly did in the US economy.

Your description of what Bush did with interest rates couldn't be further from the truth and when you compare it to what's happened since Obama's been in office it's ludicrous. Yes, interest rates dropped under Bush to combat the recession following the Dot Com boom and bust...all the way from around 6% down to nearly 1% but starting in 2005 the Fed raised interest rates from around 1% all the way up to around 5%. Since Obama took over in 2009 that rate has stayed right around 0% and hasn't moved a bit in three years. So tell me, Sallow...if lowering interest rates is so terrrible then when do you expect that Obama will call for them to be raised? The answer to that one is not for some time because our economy still SUCKS.

First you say what I posted couldn't be further from the truth..then you back up what I posted.

There was no reason for Bush to do what he did. None. He came into office with a surplus and recovering economy. He could have paid down the debt and not cut taxes. Had he followed the same trajectory Clinton was on..the debt would have been eliminated by the time the next president assumed office. And you know full well why Obama can't raise interest rates..it's a farce you even ask such an absurd question.

 

[MarcATL]

It's crystal clear now more than ever before how INVESTED the Republicans and their fellow Hard-RWers are with the idea of Obama's failure. No matter what the evidence shows.

That Chrysler commercial really brought them out into the light...you can just see all the cockaroaches scurrying and scrambling for safety.

you are basing that on the assumption that the people in general are pleased that the government stepped in and bailed out a failed business model at thye cost of the tax payer.

I am a strong believer in pure competition...the backbone of capitalism. It is easy for Peter to take money from Paul to give to Penelope to make up for poor decisions Penelope made. And even easier for Peter to say "lookie what I did. I saved Penelope from going out of business"....(it may have been worth it for Obama to thank the Tax Payer for saving Chrysler.....but that is irrelevant now).

That being said, I did not approve of the move and although it may have "saved" chrysler...it hurt whomever it was that was going to step in and fill the void created by Chrysler going out o business.

No sir, YOU are the one basing your assumptions on a possibility, a coulda-woulda-shoulda...a fantasy.

Everyone else is basing it on the facts and what actually happened. Fact 1: Chrysler was tanking. Fact 2: If they tanked it would have SEVERELY hurt the Detroit, Michigan, and USA economy. Fact 3: They LOANED the money to Chrysler. Fact 4: Chrysler used the money and bounced back with a ROAR. Fact 4: It saved the economy and they're going to get their money back. Fact 5: It worked.

I don't know WHO is upset with it. Fact 5: The American people ultimately care about RESULTS no matter how things got done. In the final analyis, Obama made the right called that ended with GREAT results. All that other stuff you're talking about is rhetorical, hypothetical nonsense.

BTW, which hypothetical company would have stepped in to "fill the void?" How do you know that to be true?

I mean, your argument falls apart in so many different ways it's not funny.

We get it, you're no fan of Obama. Just more evidence of how invested a certain segment of the population is in the IDEA of Obama's failure...no matter what the facts show.

Tell Hannity I said what's up. Peace.

 

[geauxtohell]

2. America in general is not that stupid.
3. The Negro Voting block is, but when have they ever been smart about their voting?

You are, in fact, that stupid Jimmy.

You are a credit to your side.

 

[geauxtohell]

Newt? A 'perfectly good Catholic?

Yea... right.

But I'll vote for Gingrich if he's the nominee. Or Santorum. Or Paul. Or even Sarah fucking whackjob Palin.... Anyone but Obama.

Didn't you say not too long ago that you could never vote for Gingrich?

I know...right?

I never believed that LIAR then and I don't believe the LIAR now. She was always going to vote straight GOP.

I don't know why she's so invested in this "independant, down-the-middle" farce.

I wonder how the Catholic church views calling oneself a bitch online. I wonder if that would incense them.

I surely don't want it to happen...

but it's gonna happen...

and since we might as well get used to it, no matter come hell or high water, I wanna take this opportunity to rub it in the faces of all the right-wing assholes who've given me crap these last coupla weeks...

SO work against it happening....It is not preordained.........

Uhm....actually, yes it is.

It's funny to watch people feel the need to invent excuses for arriving at their pre-ordained conclusion.

 

[candycorn]

The GDP was inflated by government.

Cars for government motors are selling at discounts to anyone that can pen their signature. Existing home sales are up due to prices falling, and home prices are still falling.

New home sales are still slumping. Sub primes still available.

However the economy is beginning to take off despite Obama.

Gee, thats gotta hurt....admitting it's getting better.

When you going to get back to the other thread. You got some work to do.

Why would it hurt? Again being an unthinking party hack get specific

Since I belong to no political party you must be talking about your self when you say "unthinking party hack". It fits.

 

[candycorn]

It call comes down to one thing. Can the democrats lie convincingly enough to persuade Americans that there is improvement?

Statistics are making the case for the Democrats in many cases. In some cases not. Each stat has a value to you and to me...often times different values. Depends on which stats are better and which are worse.

Additionally, the alternatives to Mr. Obama do not seem all that appealing. Quick...what is Romney's plan for the military? Is he for upsizing, downsizing, more ships, recalling all of the troops? He won't say. Nobody seems to know. The words "empty suit" come to mind.

Statistics can be manipulated for any kind of lie you want to come up with. As Mark Twain said "There are lies. There are damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Oh...

So if the GOP comes up with stats...they are by the virtue of your post lying too?

Interesting tactic you're taking.

Do you know Romney's plans for the military?

 

[candycorn]

It call comes down to one thing. Can the democrats lie convincingly enough to persuade Americans that there is improvement?

Statistics are making the case for the Democrats in many cases. In some cases not. Each stat has a value to you and to me...often times different values. Depends on which stats are better and which are worse.

Additionally, the alternatives to Mr. Obama do not seem all that appealing. Quick...what is Romney's plan for the military? Is he for upsizing, downsizing, more ships, recalling all of the troops? He won't say. Nobody seems to know. The words "empty suit" come to mind.

Romney has consistently called for an increase in military spending from 3.8% of GDP to 4% of GDP. That's been posted on his campaign site for a long time, Candy. Making a charge that he "won't say" is either you being lazy and not looking...or you misrepresenting the facts. You can agree or disagree with Romney's calls to increase military spending but you can't fault him for not having a plan.

Increase spending...on what?

 

[Oldstyle]

No he didn't. There wasn't all that much of a "recession" either. The "Dot Com" bubble bascially was done. The result was a crap load of used tech gear that people were able to pawn off to more established companies. Cisco and the like took a hit..but they started innovating. Beginning with developing things like switches instead of hubs.

What Bush did was to drop interest rates to zero and severely inflate the housing and construction industry. That was the bubble that nearly did in the US economy.

Your description of what Bush did with interest rates couldn't be further from the truth and when you compare it to what's happened since Obama's been in office it's ludicrous. Yes, interest rates dropped under Bush to combat the recession following the Dot Com boom and bust...all the way from around 6% down to nearly 1% but starting in 2005 the Fed raised interest rates from around 1% all the way up to around 5%. Since Obama took over in 2009 that rate has stayed right around 0% and hasn't moved a bit in three years. So tell me, Sallow...if lowering interest rates is so terrrible then when do you expect that Obama will call for them to be raised? The answer to that one is not for some time because our economy still SUCKS.

First you say what I posted couldn't be further from the truth..then you back up what I posted.

There was no reason for Bush to do what he did. None. He came into office with a surplus and recovering economy. He could have paid down the debt and not cut taxes. Had he followed the same trajectory Clinton was on..the debt would have been eliminated by the time the next president assumed office. And you know full well why Obama can't raise interest rates..it's a farce you even ask such an absurd question.

Bush did not come into office with a "recovering economy". That's total bullshit. The Dot Com boom was coming to a close in the last years of the Clinton Administration. What Bush inherited was a recession. He lowered interest rates to stimulate the economy and then raised them again. So show me where Obama has done ANYTHING but keep interest rates as low as they can possibly be?

 

[Oldstyle]

Statistics are making the case for the Democrats in many cases. In some cases not. Each stat has a value to you and to me...often times different values. Depends on which stats are better and which are worse.

Additionally, the alternatives to Mr. Obama do not seem all that appealing. Quick...what is Romney's plan for the military? Is he for upsizing, downsizing, more ships, recalling all of the troops? He won't say. Nobody seems to know. The words "empty suit" come to mind.

Romney has consistently called for an increase in military spending from 3.8% of GDP to 4% of GDP. That's been posted on his campaign site for a long time, Candy. Making a charge that he "won't say" is either you being lazy and not looking...or you misrepresenting the facts. You can agree or disagree with Romney's calls to increase military spending but you can't fault him for not having a plan.

Increase spending...on what?

Obama is calling for quite substantial cuts to the size of our military. Romney is against that. Did you go to his website and look?

 

[candycorn]

Romney has consistently called for an increase in military spending from 3.8% of GDP to 4% of GDP. That's been posted on his campaign site for a long time, Candy. Making a charge that he "won't say" is either you being lazy and not looking...or you misrepresenting the facts. You can agree or disagree with Romney's calls to increase military spending but you can't fault him for not having a plan.

Increase spending...on what?

Obama is calling for quite substantial cuts to the size of our military. Romney is against that. Did you go to his website and look?

Actually no I did not; I am not going to vote for the man so there isn't much need in going there for me.

The lack of specifics from Romney Supporters is shocking.

Do you even know what he is prescribing other than the vague generalities? Any word on how he's going to pay for the increase in military spending? Almost 1/2 of all dollars spent on the military on this planet is spent by the United States. And he wants to actually increase that?

 

[Oldstyle]

Increase spending...on what?

Obama is calling for quite substantial cuts to the size of our military. Romney is against that. Did you go to his website and look?

Actually no I did not; I am not going to vote for the man so there isn't much need in going there for me.

The lack of specifics from Romney Supporters is shocking.

Do you even know what he is prescribing other than the vague generalities? Any word on how he's going to pay for the increase in military spending? Almost 1/2 of all dollars spent on the military on this planet is spent by the United States. And he wants to actually increase that?

So what you're admitting is that even though you've accused Romney of not stating what he's going to do...that you've never gone to his campaign website and looked at the specifics of what he IS planning to do? You excuse yourself by stating that you don't feel you have to since you're not planning on voting for him? Sorry, Corn but if you won't examine the positions that have been provided by his campaign then you have no business in accusing him of not having a plan. I don't plan on voting for Barack Obama but that doesn't mean I can make statements about him out of sheer ignorance because I won't bother to check what his stance on an issue is.

 

[Oldstyle]

Increase spending...on what?

Obama is calling for quite substantial cuts to the size of our military. Romney is against that. Did you go to his website and look?

Actually no I did not; I am not going to vote for the man so there isn't much need in going there for me.

The lack of specifics from Romney Supporters is shocking.

Do you even know what he is prescribing other than the vague generalities? Any word on how he's going to pay for the increase in military spending? Almost 1/2 of all dollars spent on the military on this planet is spent by the United States. And he wants to actually increase that?

And to accuse Romney supporters of a "lack of specifics" when you've admitted that you never took the time to LOOK at the specifics given is rather amusing.
You're not paying attention, Corn...Obama wants to lower defense spending to approximately 3.8% of GDP...Romney wants to keep it at 4% of GDP and is cautioning against weakening our military at this time. Keeping something at a constant level is not the same as increasing it.

 

[candycorn]

Obama is calling for quite substantial cuts to the size of our military. Romney is against that. Did you go to his website and look?

Actually no I did not; I am not going to vote for the man so there isn't much need in going there for me.

The lack of specifics from Romney Supporters is shocking.

Do you even know what he is prescribing other than the vague generalities? Any word on how he's going to pay for the increase in military spending? Almost 1/2 of all dollars spent on the military on this planet is spent by the United States. And he wants to actually increase that?

So what you're admitting is that even though you've accused Romney of not stating what he's going to do...that you've never gone to his campaign website and looked at the specifics of what he IS planning to do?

Thats right.

You excuse yourself by stating that you don't feel you have to since you're not planning on voting for him?

We've had 30 debates, you and the endless rabble of wingnuts are here every day telling us how Obama is going to lose and commenting on him.

I figured I'd pick it up by now.

Sorry, Corn but if you won't examine the positions that have been provided by his campaign then you have no business in accusing him of not having a plan. I don't plan on voting for Barack Obama but that doesn't mean I can make statements about him out of sheer ignorance because I won't bother to check what his stance on an issue is.

Generally you don't have to since he is POTUS. A known quantity. Covered extensively.

The fact that the specifics are not there (hence you're not coming out with them) or how he'll pay for the INCREASE in spending on the military should be worrisome to you.

 

[Chris]

 

[JoeB131]

Congrats, you've passed "Lying with Charts".

Obama's economy has been pathetic, but we all might just suck it up and learn to live with less, which is a real shame.

Too bad the Republicans didn't run a real Republican.

 

[Chris]

Congrats, you've passed "Lying with Charts".

Obama's economy has been pathetic, but we all might just suck it up and learn to live with less, which is a real shame.

Too bad the Republicans didn't run a real Republican.

The economy has been growing for two years.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Congrats, you've passed "Lying with Charts".

Obama's economy has been pathetic, but we all might just suck it up and learn to live with less, which is a real shame.

Too bad the Republicans didn't run a real Republican.

The economy has been growing for two years.

That's what Obama keeps telling us.

Some actually believe him....

 

[Cowman]

Sadly, I believe Obama will win.
1# Improving economy
2# Romney is very moderate socially. Has a past of being pro choice and anti-gun. Going to scare off the right wing of the gop.
3# If Obama keeps us out of war with Iran...He will get a boost!

Fuck the ecomony, asswipe.
Our men and women are dying globally, while this fucknut plays golf and vacations in Hawaii.
Hopefully he will enter into a war with Iran, the draft will be reinstated, and pole-smokers like you will finally get a chance to serve this country - on the front lines.

Enjoy your tour(s) of duty, assbrain.

Posts from you make me laugh. You complain about dying soldiers, then you desire to see more soldiers sent off to die.

Why do you like dead soldiers so much, Fred Phelps?

"Enjoy your tour(s) of duty, assbrain." - Sure sounds like a man who respects the troops.

Why don't you give me a negative rep for that? I'll give you a creative idea on what you can put for the message. How about, "Biaaaaaatttttttttttttccccccccccccchhhhhhhhh"?