The Kerry Effect

[Flopper]

[ If the president says we should invest in America, the headline will read, President proposes more government spending. .

What else could that mean?

It can mean several things, a call for business to invest in the US, for state and local communities to invest, or for individuals to invest their time resources to make America a better place.

 

[signelect]

The democrats ran a loser in Kerry and then we didn't learn and it was our turn 3 years ago with McCain/Palin. She sounds great but is not a presidential any thing. If we don't run a winner we will lose again and so will the country. Obama is as close to a demi-Gog as we have ever had and he doesn't know jack about running anything where he has to plan and execute. Obama actually believes that he is the second coming.

 

[kaz]

W

It's simple enough.

Don't attack countries that don't attack you.

How hard is that?

We were discussing "war crimes," now suddenly we're discussing whether we should have been in the war. Typical liberal argument, when you're losing, go a different direction.

Okay.

Are attacking a country that hasn't attacked you, killing millions of people, raping children, torturing and killing pows and destroying infrastructure, war crimes?

Yes or no?

What does this question have to do with your statement that I challenged you on? Zero. It's a deflection.

 

[Unkotare]

[ If the president says we should invest in America, the headline will read, President proposes more government spending. .

What else could that mean?

It can mean several things, a call for business to invest in the US, for state and local communities to invest, or for individuals to invest their time resources to make America a better place.

You don't believe that. You know exactly what that really means.

 

[Dr Grump]

The fact you see him as a community organiser speaks volumes of your partisanship.

He certainly does have his work cut out for him though. I have found him a weak and ineffectual president because he bends over too much towards the conservatives.

That being said, he is still better at his worst than Bush was at his best..

I see him as the "Community Organizer" because that was his pre-political career. just like Jimmy Carter was the Peanut Farmer and Ronald Reagan was the Actor and George Bush was the "Oil Man".

He's weak because he 'leads from behind', doesn't take the lead, and outsources the hard work of government. He just didn't roll over for the Republicans, he rolled over for the Congressional Democrats.

And sorry, while I'm no fan of Bush, the fact is, his worst unemployment rate was better than Obama's best. I'd rather take Bush's term average of 5% than Obama's average of 9%.

(Psst..oh, yeah, Bush isn't running.)

No, he was a state senator for seven years, senator for four and taught law for 12. He was only a community organiser for three years. Funny how you guys seem to zero in on three years of his working life, when he has been in the workforce for 20+ years.

I don't think he is rolling over for anybody - he is saying yes to most to keep the peace. He shouldn't. He should make his own decisions and live or die by them.

And why is that unemployment rate high? Cause and effect. The meltdown started under Bush (and the Dem Congress can take some blame too), and had nothing to do with Obama. I don't care if Bush is not running. Always said I hoped a Repub won the last election because Obama would get blamed for this mess. There is/was no way it could be cleaned up in four years...no way in hell. And here we are - it's all Obama's fault. Bullshit - those retards on Wall St, who want unfettered capitialism and sold crappy mortgages, are not Democrat voters my friend. Maybe at worst they are Ron Paul voters - at best Repub.

I am still trying to see what Repubs would have done different.

 

[JoeB131]

No, he was a state senator for seven years, senator for four and taught law for 12. He was only a community organiser for three years. Funny how you guys seem to zero in on three years of his working life, when he has been in the workforce for 20+ years.

I live in IL. He was such a non-entity in the State Senate I never heard of him before 2004, and I've been active in politics since 1980. Most of the time as the accidental Senator (only won because his opponents self-destructed) was spent running for President. As a supposed law professor, he never published anything. Community Organizer is the only job where we can be reasonably sure he was actually earning his paycheck.

I don't think he is rolling over for anybody - he is saying yes to most to keep the peace. He shouldn't. He should make his own decisions and live or die by them.

But that's not leadership.. He didn't run for "the guy everyone needs to get along with." He's supposed to be guiding the way.

And why is that unemployment rate high? Cause and effect. The meltdown started under Bush (and the Dem Congress can take some blame too), and had nothing to do with Obama. I don't care if Bush is not running. Always said I hoped a Repub won the last election because Obama would get blamed for this mess. There is/was no way it could be cleaned up in four years...no way in hell. And here we are - it's all Obama's fault. Bullshit - those retards on Wall St, who want unfettered capitialism and sold crappy mortgages, are not Democrat voters my friend. Maybe at worst they are Ron Paul voters - at best Repub.

I am still trying to see what Repubs would have done different.

Actually, both parties were knee deep in the mess on Wall Street. It was the Democrats who insisted on the CRA and threatened to sue banks that wouldn't make loans based on welfare checks. Dodd and Frank were knee deep in this stuff, and they were the ones who wrote the new financial regulations. Talk about foxes watching the henhouse.

The thing Republicans would have done different is not impose a shitload of new regulations AND a new Health Care law that discourages employers from adding to payroll.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, he was a state senator for seven years, senator for four and taught law for 12. He was only a community organiser for three years. Funny how you guys seem to zero in on three years of his working life, when he has been in the workforce for 20+ years.

I live in IL. He was such a non-entity in the State Senate I never heard of him before 2004, and I've been active in politics since 1980. Most of the time as the accidental Senator (only won because his opponents self-destructed) was spent running for President. As a supposed law professor, he never published anything. Community Organizer is the only job where we can be reasonably sure he was actually earning his paycheck.

I don't think he is rolling over for anybody - he is saying yes to most to keep the peace. He shouldn't. He should make his own decisions and live or die by them.

But that's not leadership.. He didn't run for "the guy everyone needs to get along with." He's supposed to be guiding the way.

And why is that unemployment rate high? Cause and effect. The meltdown started under Bush (and the Dem Congress can take some blame too), and had nothing to do with Obama. I don't care if Bush is not running. Always said I hoped a Repub won the last election because Obama would get blamed for this mess. There is/was no way it could be cleaned up in four years...no way in hell. And here we are - it's all Obama's fault. Bullshit - those retards on Wall St, who want unfettered capitialism and sold crappy mortgages, are not Democrat voters my friend. Maybe at worst they are Ron Paul voters - at best Repub.

I am still trying to see what Repubs would have done different.

Actually, both parties were knee deep in the mess on Wall Street. It was the Democrats who insisted on the CRA and threatened to sue banks that wouldn't make loans based on welfare checks. Dodd and Frank were knee deep in this stuff, and they were the ones who wrote the new financial regulations. Talk about foxes watching the henhouse.

The thing Republicans would have done different is not impose a shitload of new regulations AND a new Health Care law that discourages employers from adding to payroll.

I concur with him having to guide the way..

A professor doesnt' have to publish anything - they lecture/teach. Doesn't matter if you havent' heard from him, at the end of the day he was more than a community organiser. And even if he was a community organiser, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, maybe the Repubs wouldn't have imposed more regulations, but that wasn't the question. What WOULD they have done to fix the mess?

 

[Liability]

I contend that President Obama is effectively un-re-electable.

It is perfectly okay with me that so many liberals and Democratics say that my belief is wrong.

I'm somewhat curious, though.

When a dedicated true-believer liberal Democratic claims that he or she "believes" that President Obama is practically a shoe-in for re-election, is it a matter of whistling past the tombstones in the graveyard at night? Or is there any actual reason to honestly "believe" that President Obama is "going" to "get" re-elected?

 

[The Rabbi]

I contend that President Obama is effectively un-re-electable.

It is perfectly okay with me that so many liberals and Democratics say that my belief is wrong.

I'm somewhat curious, though.

When a dedicated true-believer liberal Democratic claims that he or she "believes" that President Obama is practically a shoe-in for re-election, is it a matter of whistling past the tombstones in the graveyard at night? Or is there any actual reason to honestly "believe" that President Obama is "going" to "get" re-elected?

Yes, because the gOP will put up Rick Perry. Or Michelle Bachmann. Or Donald Trump. Or someone else that can't be electable because they would never vote for that person.
The GOP doesn't have great middle of the road candidates like Jon Huntsman, whom every Democrat would vote for. Right after they vote for Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

I concur with him having to guide the way..

A professor doesnt' have to publish anything - they lecture/teach. Doesn't matter if you havent' heard from him, at the end of the day he was more than a community organiser. And even if he was a community organiser, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, maybe the Repubs wouldn't have imposed more regulations, but that wasn't the question. What WOULD they have done to fix the mess?

1- I'm not. Frankly, he isn't even guiding. He's just trying to keep everyone on his side happy, and failing.

2- Yeah, a "community organizer" is a bad thing. Usually, it's a nice way of saying "Rabble Rouser". Usually the kind that starts a riot until he get concessions and walks around in $500.00 suits. Jackson, Sharpton, et al.

3- No, he doesn't HAVE to publish, but that is kind of expected in Academia. "Publish or Perish". Unless you are the "affirmative Action" member of the staff.

4- Again, if he did anything in the State legislature, I'd know who he was. I know who Madigan is. I know who Cullen is. People who are actually doing the work down in Springfield, I know.

5- You see, the regulations ARe the problem. In ANY recession, employers get rid of the people who are too expensive to keep on staff, until they get back into a profitable mode. Then when the figure out what their operational floor is, they see where they can expand, and that results in expanding staff and hiring.

but if anywhere where you might consider expanding will entangle you in a lot of regulations and obligations, you don't expand. You sit on your money and ride out the storm, and that's exactly what makes this recession different from others.

Case in point. IN ObamaScare, there are a whole bunch of requirements that kick in when you hit 50 employees. So if you have the company that has 49 employees, are you going to hire warm body #50? NOt likely. And if you have 51 employees and you know this stuff is about to get real, you get rid of two bodies.

But Obama put his Rube Goldberg Health Care reform ahead of getting people back to work. And now everyone's afraid to hire.

 

[Sallow]

I contend that President Obama is effectively un-re-electable.

It is perfectly okay with me that so many liberals and Democratics say that my belief is wrong.

I'm somewhat curious, though.

When a dedicated true-believer liberal Democratic claims that he or she "believes" that President Obama is practically a shoe-in for re-election, is it a matter of whistling past the tombstones in the graveyard at night? Or is there any actual reason to honestly "believe" that President Obama is "going" to "get" re-elected?

Not a "shoe-in". But a squeaker.

It's going to be close.

 

[Sallow]

W

We were discussing "war crimes," now suddenly we're discussing whether we should have been in the war. Typical liberal argument, when you're losing, go a different direction.

Okay.

Are attacking a country that hasn't attacked you, killing millions of people, raping children, torturing and killing pows and destroying infrastructure, war crimes?

Yes or no?

What does this question have to do with your statement that I challenged you on? Zero. It's a deflection.

Sweet baby jeebus..make up your mind..

will ya?

 

[Dr Grump]

I concur with him having to guide the way..

A professor doesnt' have to publish anything - they lecture/teach. Doesn't matter if you havent' heard from him, at the end of the day he was more than a community organiser. And even if he was a community organiser, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, maybe the Repubs wouldn't have imposed more regulations, but that wasn't the question. What WOULD they have done to fix the mess?

1- I'm not. Frankly, he isn't even guiding. He's just trying to keep everyone on his side happy, and failing.

2- Yeah, a "community organizer" is a bad thing. Usually, it's a nice way of saying "Rabble Rouser". Usually the kind that starts a riot until he get concessions and walks around in $500.00 suits. Jackson, Sharpton, et al.

3- No, he doesn't HAVE to publish, but that is kind of expected in Academia. "Publish or Perish". Unless you are the "affirmative Action" member of the staff.

4- Again, if he did anything in the State legislature, I'd know who he was. I know who Madigan is. I know who Cullen is. People who are actually doing the work down in Springfield, I know.

5- You see, the regulations ARe the problem. In ANY recession, employers get rid of the people who are too expensive to keep on staff, until they get back into a profitable mode. Then when the figure out what their operational floor is, they see where they can expand, and that results in expanding staff and hiring.

but if anywhere where you might consider expanding will entangle you in a lot of regulations and obligations, you don't expand. You sit on your money and ride out the storm, and that's exactly what makes this recession different from others.

Case in point. IN ObamaScare, there are a whole bunch of requirements that kick in when you hit 50 employees. So if you have the company that has 49 employees, are you going to hire warm body #50? NOt likely. And if you have 51 employees and you know this stuff is about to get real, you get rid of two bodies.

But Obama put his Rube Goldberg Health Care reform ahead of getting people back to work. And now everyone's afraid to hire.

I'm still looking for the right side's answers. Telling the other side what NOT to do is easy. What WOULD you do to stimulate growth etc....

 

[dilloduck]

As an incumbant politician I would do nothing but I'd promise to do whatever would get me the most votes. It's just my job.

 

[Liability]

I contend that President Obama is effectively un-re-electable.

It is perfectly okay with me that so many liberals and Democratics say that my belief is wrong.

I'm somewhat curious, though.

When a dedicated true-believer liberal Democratic claims that he or she "believes" that President Obama is practically a shoe-in for re-election, is it a matter of whistling past the tombstones in the graveyard at night? Or is there any actual reason to honestly "believe" that President Obama is "going" to "get" re-elected?

Yes, because the gOP will put up Rick Perry. Or Michelle Bachmann. Or Donald Trump. Or someone else that can't be electable because they would never vote for that person.
The GOP doesn't have great middle of the road candidates like Jon Huntsman, whom every Democrat would vote for. Right after they vote for Obama.

LOL.

Interesting.

I would NEVER vote for President Obama's re-election especially after seeing how miserable he has been so far in his first (hopefully last) term.

But I don't consider him "unelectable" or un-re-electable" on the basis that I personally wouldn't vote for him.

I think that the charlatan in chief has lost his previously hypnotized "base" of "others."

That he will get the vote of the perpetually delusional liberals is a given. But he didn't win just because THAT portion of the Democrat Parody base voted for him. Instead, he won because lots of the so-called "independents" voted for him in significant numbers. This time around, it appears that he has already lost their support.

Hell, even Robert Redford is expressing "doubts" about the man.

 

[Liability]

I contend that President Obama is effectively un-re-electable.

It is perfectly okay with me that so many liberals and Democratics say that my belief is wrong.

I'm somewhat curious, though.

When a dedicated true-believer liberal Democratic claims that he or she "believes" that President Obama is practically a shoe-in for re-election, is it a matter of whistling past the tombstones in the graveyard at night? Or is there any actual reason to honestly "believe" that President Obama is "going" to "get" re-elected?

Not a "shoe-in". But a squeaker.

It's going to be close.

Maybe. But I don't see how the numbers stack up.

I think he loses and he loses BIG.

In fact, candidly (and again it's perfectly fine by me that liberal Democrats think I have it all wrong), it is surprising that the Democrat Parody as a whole hasn't gone into damage control mode. They urgently need to jettison this guy and try to salvage the race by putting up a real contender.

Isn't it obvious by now that even folks, like me, who once dreaded the notion of a Hillary Clinton Presidency can actually see her as a viable candidate and even as a better President than the cluck currently at the helm?

 

[The T]

I contend that President Obama is effectively un-re-electable.

It is perfectly okay with me that so many liberals and Democratics say that my belief is wrong.

I'm somewhat curious, though.

When a dedicated true-believer liberal Democratic claims that he or she "believes" that President Obama is practically a shoe-in for re-election, is it a matter of whistling past the tombstones in the graveyard at night? Or is there any actual reason to honestly "believe" that President Obama is "going" to "get" re-elected?

Not a "shoe-in". But a squeaker.

It's going to be close.

Maybe. But I don't see how the numbers stack up.

I think he loses and he loses BIG.

In fact, candidly (and again it's perfectly fine by me that liberal Democrats think I have it all wrong), it is surprising that the Democrat Parody as a whole hasn't gone into damage control mode. They urgently need to jettison this guy and try to salvage the race by putting up a real contender.

Isn't it obvious by now that even folks, like me, who once dreaded the notion of a Hillary Clinton Presidency can actually see her as a viable candidate and even as a better President than the cluck currently at the helm?

But would Bill allow it? Oops nevermind I forgot whom wears the overalls in that family...it ain't Bill.

 

[Unkotare]

I contend that President Obama is effectively un-re-electable.

It is perfectly okay with me that so many liberals and Democratics say that my belief is wrong.

I'm somewhat curious, though.

When a dedicated true-believer liberal Democratic claims that he or she "believes" that President Obama is practically a shoe-in for re-election, is it a matter of whistling past the tombstones in the graveyard at night? Or is there any actual reason to honestly "believe" that President Obama is "going" to "get" re-elected?

Not a "shoe-in". But a squeaker.

It's going to be close.

Swallow likes squeakers...

 

[The Rabbi]

I contend that President Obama is effectively un-re-electable.

It is perfectly okay with me that so many liberals and Democratics say that my belief is wrong.

I'm somewhat curious, though.

When a dedicated true-believer liberal Democratic claims that he or she "believes" that President Obama is practically a shoe-in for re-election, is it a matter of whistling past the tombstones in the graveyard at night? Or is there any actual reason to honestly "believe" that President Obama is "going" to "get" re-elected?

Not a "shoe-in". But a squeaker.

It's going to be close.

Maybe. But I don't see how the numbers stack up.

I think he loses and he loses BIG.

In fact, candidly (and again it's perfectly fine by me that liberal Democrats think I have it all wrong), it is surprising that the Democrat Parody as a whole hasn't gone into damage control mode. They urgently need to jettison this guy and try to salvage the race by putting up a real contender.

Isn't it obvious by now that even folks, like me, who once dreaded the notion of a Hillary Clinton Presidency can actually see her as a viable candidate and even as a better President than the cluck currently at the helm?

You would expect the Dums to have tossed this joker. I suspect because he supported Pelosi and Reid and let them essentially run the country for 2 years they retain some loyalty to him and vice versa. So they won't jump for Hillary.
Look at the states Obama won in 08 and ask if he is still going to win places like VA, OH, and FL. Uh, no.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm still looking for the right side's answers. Telling the other side what NOT to do is easy. What WOULD you do to stimulate growth etc....

again, NOT imposing a bunch of regulations would have encouraged growth.

You work under the delusion that government actually does anything constructive about the economy. It doesn't.

Had Obama NOT run up 4 trillion in new debt, NOT imposed an unworkable health plan, not imposed a bunch of regulations on the banks, the economy would have grown out of this recession by now. Just like it has from every other recession.