|
44924. concerned - 11/5/2012 12:44:27 PM Latest CNN poll (Nov 2-4) has 0bama and Romney in a dead heat at 49-49%, which is similar to several other MSM polls showing a tie or a narrow lead for 0bama. But I've seen reports that these recent polls are oversampling Democrats much more than earlier polls. Whatever gets the results they want, I guess.
If 0bama wins, be prepared to see your take home pay drop from 2 - 5% (if you are employed), and a resulting spike in unemploymen (due to higher business taxes). Less of a tax increase, if at all, if Romney wins, and unemployment will decrease in the short to medium term, at least (I'm mindful of the warnings that we are already tipping into another full blown recession). Just want to make sure you guys have some idea what you're voting *for*, rather than merely against, because Democrats are almost completely negatively motivated this year, which wouldn't seem to pass the Darwin test under normal circumstances.
I couldn't believe how stunningly stupid 0bama's current pitch is: "It'll take more than 4 years to repair the damage the last administration has done" and the like. What 'repair'? What 'damage'? The recession ended over three years ago. Sheesh! And of course, still blaming Bush. What a sorry excuse for a candidate.
Clearly, 0bama has no respect for his supporters' intellects whatsoever and is assuming that they are either almost totally uninformed or, at best, badly misled. And he is happy to exploit that. 44925. iiibbb - 11/5/2012 4:04:28 PM It is worth 2-5% of my take home pay to
a) dispense with the notion that getting this country into a rational economic stance can not be achieved with cuts alone.
b) squelch the tide of anti-intellect, anti-science, religious nutjobbery that are finding their way into elected office
c) bring the Republican party back to the center
d) not having someone like Romney president 44926. iiibbb - 11/5/2012 4:17:37 PM e) ending this war on all forms of birth control
f) putting some energy into alternative energy
I could go on and on....
44927. iiibbb - 11/5/2012 4:17:56 PM 2-5% sounds like a fucking bargain to me. 44928. concerned - 11/5/2012 7:19:01 PM What do you have against Romney - since the Democrats have borrowed so many ideas from him?
a) is the Republican position that you are advocating.
b) on the whole it is Democrats who are more anti-intellectual than Republicans, as evidenced by studies of presidential campaign speeches that show Republican candidates communicating at at a level at least two educational grades higher than Democrat candidates do.
c,d) Romney is nothing if not a center-right Republican - have you forgotten or don't you know that he was a successful governor in a state with 90% Democrat voters?
e) There is a constitutional right to birth control and no 'war against birth control'.
f)About half of the alternative energy companies that the 0bama Administration have thrown billions of dollars into are in trouble or have already failed. I think you are merely reacting to the symbolism here and don't give a flip about the real world aspects of alternative energy. Remember, I maintai 10 acres of forested land and am on a geothermal heatpump, but I can tell the difference between this Democrat alternative energy bullshit and what will work, and you apparently can't.
It sounds like you got comprehensively suckered by dishonest Leftist rhetoric - why do you feel so comfortable with these lies from the Left?
44929. concerned - 11/5/2012 7:20:19 PM I think you are reacting to Romney's religion which is sort of bigoted, if you ask me. 44930. judithathome - 11/5/2012 7:29:33 PM Considering that the Democrats ripped off (& totally bastardized) Romneycare, and that 0bama closely followed Romney's paper on restructuring GM and Chrysler, I have to think all your frothing about Romney being an extremist is largely a put-on.
Evidently Romney's new incarnation as an opposer of both those things is what we're railing against...he denied his own health program and said it wouldn't work nationwide and has only turned to the "I would have saved Detroit" meme when it looked like that was the best way to go...previously, and even NOW...he was/is saying Obama has killed the auto industry....despite visual evidence to the contrary.
To me, he deserves every criticism he gets simply for choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate. And evidently so does Romney and his team...Ryan hasn't had a media interview for a long time, in campaign years, and at his last one, he acted like an ass to the interviewer. Mayby he should back off on those protien shakes a bit.
Of course, Romney himself hasn't answered any media questions for over 20 days....and even with that technique, hasn't remained gaff-free.
I think he showed his character by running blatantly false ads and refusing to take them down when it was proven they were false...along with his 47% remarks, the Jeep ads alone shows his contempt for the intelligence of people "not of his class"...he thinks if he says it enough, the great unwashed will believe it.
44931. judithathome - 11/5/2012 7:32:50 PM I think you are reacting to Romney's religion which is sort of bigoted, if you ask me.
Where? Where was he reacting to Romney's religion??? Not one mention of his religion anywhere....except by you in that accusation.
44932. iiibbb - 11/5/2012 7:34:36 PM What I have against Romney is 2 things
a) say anything anyone wants to hear --- so you don't actually know what he's going to do, but you have to assume it's going to be whatever benefits him the most
b) The way he made his money. The claim that he's a "businessman". I cannot separate him from the type of people that drove this economy into a ditch. The people who make money simply by moving money and not by making things.
c) The Republican party has gone off the deep end with their religious zealotry. I can't stomach it. I consider myself Christian and I can't stand the mismatch I have in values between what I know of my religion and what Republican stakeholders have.
d) I still hold against Republicans the statement that the goal of them is to ensure that Obama fails. They put the failure of this president ahead of the success of this country. It is close to unforgivable. 44933. iiibbb - 11/5/2012 7:36:21 PM 2 things became several...
also re alternative energy. I'm not saying that Obama's approach is the best... but I'm certainly not confident that Republicans wouldn't do whatever they could to maintain status quo-- which is untenable in my opinion. We need to prepare for the future. 44934. concerned - 11/5/2012 7:47:42 PM A *few* Republican politicians have said that their goal is to see that 0bama is not re-elected, which is no worse and not much different than the Democrats who say that they don't want to see (fill in the name) Republican elected. So why is it wrong for one party but not the other?
It certainly doesn't follow that Republicans have deliberately done anything to worsen the economy for this reason. That's just baseless partisan demagoguery. It's always been presented as an act of faith based on the idea that anything less than a lockstep support of the Democrat policies of the moment are proof of some sort of wrongdoing by Republicans such as this. That is just silly, and very illiberal. 44935. concerned - 11/5/2012 8:06:24 PM I would think it should be worth careful consideration that over 500 economists, including five Nobel Laureates, have signed a statement supporting the Romney economic platform and critiquing 0bama's.
These are actual, degreed economists among whom are five Nobel Laureates, so we are talking about some serious economic credibility, not school teachers, gender studies majors or whatever other degreed detritus the Left scrapes up to support their 'climate change' petitions & other propaganda. And there's hardly any economist who would dare publicly associate him or herself with the 0bama administration at this point.
If one says 'So what? I don't care.' to that, they're just not serious. 44936. winstonsmith - 11/5/2012 8:08:50 PM Why I don't want Romney:
1. He would enable a Republican Party that has moved too far toward the crazy (Bachman, Akin, etc) I agree with iiibbb about the republican party's need to return to the center. Even though Romney is not far right he would empower a Party that is currently too nutty. To be clear, I don't think Romney is a nut, I just don't want a republican president while the nuts hold so much sway in the party
2. The Supreme Court does not need more conservative justices.
44937. concerned - 11/5/2012 8:17:59 PM Re. 44993 -
I don't think Republicans are 'accepting the status quo' per se.
Fracking is very new (and opposed by Democrats, of course). T Boone Pickens is a big advocate of natural gas which is significantly boosting American energy production right now. There is a groundswell of support for newer safe design, pollution free nuclear energy.
Solar and to some extent, wind power, will play an increasing role, but they aren't projected to become major players for at least a couple of decades yet, no matter how many dollars are thrown at them.
It's ironic that 0bama is paying South American countries to develop their offshore drilling while doing his best to shut it down for US companies, and these foreign corporations are building rigs in the Gulf of Mexico without constraint while Canada is doing the same in the Great Lakes. That sounds like a very messed up agenda intended to suppress American economic activity to me. 44938. concerned - 11/5/2012 8:22:49 PM Even though Romney is not far right he would empower a Party that is currently too nutty.
Since the Republican 'nuts' don't stand a chance in hell of getting their agenda into place if Romney wins, so what? You've got no problems supporting a party composed of a much larger proportion of special interests, many of which are at least as 'nutty' as any Republican fundamentalist. 44939. concerned - 11/5/2012 8:24:08 PM Just my opinion of course. I'll probably be the only one here who will have cast a vote for Romney, so I am under no illusions. 44940. winstonsmith - 11/5/2012 8:49:39 PM Hey con'd, what part of the country are you in? 10 acres of forested land sounds nice. I was born and raised in one of the most liberal cities on the west coast. Which probably explains my political positions. 44941. winstonsmith - 11/5/2012 8:53:13 PM Actually, they are also plenty of libertarians where I live. Fundamentalist Republicans, not so much. 44942. concerned - 11/5/2012 8:59:24 PM I'm just outside of Cook County in Illinois, 30 miles from the Chicago Loop. If I didn't have an IDNR maintenance plan for the forest, I would be eaten alive by ~$15,000-$20,000/year in real estate taxes. I still pay more in real estate taxes than I'd like. So it is natural that I want to see some serious accountability from public servants, including politicians, something Democrats despise.
In Chicago, it's strictly 'what the market (suckers) will bear', which is why Chicago is losing about 400,000 residents a year which is crippling the tax base which means they are always cutting services and boosting taxes when they think they can get away with it. Such infrastructure breakdowns as yesterday's CTA train derailment are commonplace. Downtown parking is approaching $100/spot in many places and Mayor Daley decided not to run for re-electin partly because he put some ultra expensive parking meters downtown and then sold the rights to a foreign firm, so even in a corrupt burg like Chicago that got the lemmings p'o'd. 44943. concerned - 11/5/2012 9:01:46 PM Oops. 400,000 residents a decade, not year. Typing too fast while I eat lunch...
|
