(http://www.selfdefinition.org/images/obama-second-term.jpg)
It's Boehner's fault.
(http://www.1776coalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/john-boehner-thumbs-up.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on September 25, 2012, 10:38:57 AM
It's Boehner's fault.
(http://www.1776coalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/john-boehner-thumbs-up.jpg)
Maybe he and Romney can share bronzing tips. :)
Sent from my GNex with fat fingers
Quote from: Hoss on September 25, 2012, 11:13:56 AM
Sent from my GNex with fat fingers
I didn't know you got a Galaxy Nexus? You enjoying Jelly Bean?
He will certainly be more flexible for Putin.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6821642120_af91c66389.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 25, 2012, 11:56:09 AM
He will certainly be more flexible for Putin.
Leaning in?
He will give the righties lots of material and intensify tnf hard ons.
It will be great to watch the loons get crazier.
Detachment from stupid people is a good thing.
Science will once again gain favor.
Quote from: nathanm on September 25, 2012, 11:15:47 AM
I didn't know you got a Galaxy Nexus? You enjoying Jelly Bean?
Yes. Also enjoying no carrier inserted bloatware (unlocked phone).
Gitmo will actually be closed.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8460/8024018515_ae3deb0461.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 25, 2012, 01:23:30 PM
Gitmo will actually be closed.
I think you're forgetting the role Congress played in that...
Hoss, don't walk into a pool with your Gnex. Your cameras will quit working. :P
Ted will go to jail.
(http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0419-nuge/12317977-1-eng-US/0419-nuge_full_600.jpg)
Mexico will get Texas back.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8031/8024172726_dd81fd1407.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 25, 2012, 02:12:14 PM
Mexico will get Texas back.
I think the GOP believes that's already happened.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 25, 2012, 02:12:14 PM
Mexico will get Texas back.
The overall IQ of the US will go up, while the overall IQ of Mexico will go down. Sorry for Mexico....
Everything will continue to be someone else's fault and the debt will reach 20T.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7082/7187793511_53a31bba23.jpg)
When the Chinese cut us off, we can borrow money from the Saudis.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hntojuBOgo0/SwyulWMcHtI/AAAAAAAAJCg/3xSUeChOnmY/s1600/ObamaBow.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8316/8026317474_8082bc81bd.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hntojuBOgo0/SwyuZ-JgaKI/AAAAAAAAJCY/2bfIRhOqpkQ/s1600/ObamaBowstoSaudiKing)
Will congress ever get to work? Or will the house continue to think obstructionism is their lazy answer? I wonder if the house might go back to the dims as the Teapublicans continue to scapegoat the President.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 26, 2012, 08:08:26 AM
Will congress ever get to work? Or will the house continue to think obstructionism is their lazy answer? I wonder if the house might go back to the dims as the Teapublicans continue to scapegoat the President.
A leader is someone capable of working with people that he may disagree with. Some in congress will continue to offer budgets. Some will also continue to ask that the president's proposals and budgets go to the floor for a vote. There are a stead flow of bills that continue to flow from the house. There is strong disagreement between the leaders in the house and the leaders in the senate. It would be different if Harry Reid rallyed the troops and voted against things he disagreed with, but he is the immovable object. He has prevented nearly all bills, budgets and amendments from reaching the floor. Why the president hasn't sat down with Harry and said "Why won't you vote on my budget?", I don't know unless of course there never was a serious budget.
The primary responsibility that Congress has right now (and for the past 3 years) was settling on a budget that stops the hemorrhaging and waste. The president has not been very concerned about motivating either the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress, unless it offers some good publicity. His interactions with Boehner are well documented as adolescent at best. His interactions with Reid are wholly unproductive. He had two years with a sympathetic Congress, only to produce some of the most hated legislature ever passed, and, I might note, it did not actually contain his plan.
Congressional leadership is dysfunctional, and Executive leadership is non-existant. So the answer to your question is NO. Without inspiration there will be no perspiration.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2012, 08:53:53 AM
Without inspiration there will be no perspiration.
There is no aspiration to share your constipation either.
And Romney is the answer. ::)
This is really the best guy the Republicans have?
Quote from: carltonplace on September 26, 2012, 09:25:25 AM
And Romney is the answer. ::)
This is really the best guy the Republicans have?
He was the most photogenic who didn't come off as completely insane during the build up to the political circus.
Quote from: carltonplace on September 26, 2012, 09:25:25 AM
And Romney is the answer. ::)
This is really the best guy the Republicans have?
NO!
He was governor of a state where nearly 80% of the legislators were liberal dems. He was very successful in working with them to the dismay of many conservatives. He is not the best candidate that the Republicans have! He is too willing to compromise his "conservative" principals to get things done. That makes him the best candidate any of us have. If elected, I am confident he will piss off more Republicans than Democrats because he will continue to engage in compromise just to get things done.
I will be delighted to see the Republicans sh!t, but I will be equally delighted to see Dems in the Senate get off the pot. Mitt lost the primary in '08 because he was not a true conservative. He won this year because he's compromising those principals again to save us from 4 more years of stagnation. He's a horrible Republican candidate, and therefore the best opportunity for leadership and growth we have.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2012, 09:34:23 AM
NO!
He was governor of a state where nearly 80% of the legislators were liberal dems. He was very successful in working with them to the dismay of many conservatives. He is not the best candidate that the Republicans have! He is too willing to compromise his "conservative" principals to get things done. That makes him the best candidate any of us have. If elected, I am confident he will piss off more Republicans than Democrats because he will continue to engage in compromise just to get things done.
I will be delighted to see the Republicans sh!t, but I will be equally delighted to see Dems in the Senate get off the pot. Mitt lost the primary in '08 because he was not a true conservative. He won this year because he's compromising those principals again to save us from 4 more years of stagnation. He's a horrible Republican candidate, and therefore the best opportunity for leadership and growth we have.
You HAVE to be dizzy after posting that...
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2012, 09:34:23 AM
NO!
He was governor of a state where nearly 80% of the legislators were liberal dems. He was very successful in working with them to the dismay of many conservatives. He is not the best candidate that the Republicans have! He is too willing to compromise his "conservative" principals to get things done. That makes him the best candidate any of us have. If elected, I am confident he will piss off more Republicans than Democrats because he will continue to engage in compromise just to get things done.
I will be delighted to see the Republicans sh!t, but I will be equally delighted to see Dems in the Senate get off the pot. Mitt lost the primary in '08 because he was not a true conservative. He won this year because he's compromising those principals again to save us from 4 more years of stagnation. He's a horrible Republican candidate, and therefore the best opportunity for leadership and growth we have.
He has most of the characteristics that the lefty talking heads always complain that they wish the Republican candidate had, that is until that person is the candidate, then they are the devil.
That and he is too rich.
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 10:27:04 AM
He has most of the characteristics that the lefty talking heads always complain that they wish the Republican candidate had, that is until that person is the candidate, then they are the devil.
Really, the lefty talking heads want a corporatist liar for President? Tell me more.
Gaspar, you might also check yourself, less than 20% of the US public debt is owned by the Chinese. The vast majority of it is owed to US persons. Keep making stuff up, though. It's fun.
Politico reports Ryan's nickname for Mitt is The Stench.
Perfect. Mitt's followers are fumes or in Gassies case "stinkers".
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
Really, the lefty talking heads want a corporatist liar for President? Tell me more.
Gaspar, you might also check yourself, less than 20% of the US public debt is owned by the Chinese. The vast majority of it is owed to US persons. Keep making stuff up, though. It's fun.
We were told that the Republican's needed a candidate that was more flexible and far less hard lined. What would you call Mitt?
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
Really, the lefty talking heads want a corporatist liar for President? Tell me more.
Gaspar, you might also check yourself, less than 20% of the US public debt is owned by the Chinese. The vast majority of it is owed to US persons. Keep making stuff up, though. It's fun.
48% of the debt is held by foreign investors, of which China is the largest. With domestic investment shrinking, foreign investment has grown. I know you don't think this is an issue, but it will be. Spending at this rate is not sustainable. Your Grand Messiah President Obama has even said that.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Composition_of_U.S._Long-Term_Treasury_Debt_2005-2010.PNG/800px-Composition_of_U.S._Long-Term_Treasury_Debt_2005-2010.PNG)
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 10:54:45 AM
We were told that the Republican's needed a candidate that was more flexible and far less hard lined. What would you call Mitt?
A tool of the radical right.
Gaspar, maybe next time try to find the graph that shows
all the debt. You might also note that China makes up only 22% of the foreign held long term debt, according to your chart.
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
A tool of the radical right.
What would you have called him 6 years ago?
I agree that Mitt is way to "pliable", that I will not disagree on, but we are talking about politicians, remember.
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 11:01:42 AM
A tool.
Nathan, is that really you. I've never seen you so spiteful.
What exactly did Romney do that was so terrible prior to running for the Republican nomination in 2008?
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 10:58:57 AM
What would you have called him 6 years ago?
I agree that Mitt is way to "pliable", that I will not disagree on, but we are talking about politicians, remember.
Pliable indeed
QuoteIn all, the Treasury owes foreigners and foreign governments $4.514 trillion dollars
But Americans own most of their own country's $14,342,909,569,328.74 of debt.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7?op=1#ixzz27ampQEjv
QuoteIf you ever try comparing the debt situation in the US and Japan, someone will invariably say: Well, Japan can afford a lot more debt because it's all domestically owned, whereas US debt is owned by the Chinese.
It turns out this isn't really true, though unfortunately this destructive myth continues to dominate political/economic debates.
Yes, China holds a lot, but they're not dominant, and when you add it up, most debt is actually domestically held, just like in Japan.
QuoteChina
Total Holdings of Treasuries: $1.16 trillion
Percent of US Debt that they own: 8%
Source: US Treasury
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7?op=1#ixzz27anUUJKb
Quote from: carltonplace on September 26, 2012, 11:07:25 AM
Pliable indeed
You make my point. What is it that Romney did prior to running for the Republican nomination (and proceeding to pretend to be a hard liner) that has offended so many lefties?
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 11:03:53 AM
What exactly did Romney do that was so terrible prior to running for the Republican nomination in 2008?
We've been through all this before. I guess we can revisit it if you really want to. Besides, how am I to know which is the sincere Romney? He's telling everyone as loud as he can that the present Tea Partyist Romney is the real Mitt Romney and all those other Mitt Romneys are just imitating so will the real Mitt Romney please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
We've been through all this before. I guess we can revisit it if you really want to. Besides, how am I to know which is the sincere Romney? He's telling everyone as loud as he can that the present Tea Partyist Romney is the real Mitt Romney and all those other Mitt Romneys are just imitating so will the real Mitt Romney please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.
I asked a pretty direct question. What, prior to 2008, did Romney do that was so offensive?
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 11:26:30 AM
I asked a pretty direct question. What, prior to 2008, did Romney do that was so offensive?
If the Romney in those debates is the real Romney and not someone who was trading his true beliefs to be Governor of MA then I can see my self supporting him. But instead I think that he is a Cypher and changes to be what he expects that people want him to be.
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 11:26:30 AM
I asked a pretty direct question. What, prior to 2008, did Romney do that was so offensive?
I'm not offended but I fear the people who used to be against him who are now supporting him.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23878219.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2012, 08:53:53 AM
A leader is someone capable of working with people that he may disagree with. Some in congress will continue to offer budgets. Some will also continue to ask that the president's proposals and budgets go to the floor for a vote. There are a stead flow of bills that continue to flow from the house. There is strong disagreement between the leaders in the house and the leaders in the senate. It would be different if Harry Reid rallyed the troops and voted against things he disagreed with, but he is the immovable object. He has prevented nearly all bills, budgets and amendments from reaching the floor. Why the president hasn't sat down with Harry and said "Why won't you vote on my budget?", I don't know unless of course there never was a serious budget.
The primary responsibility that Congress has right now (and for the past 3 years) was settling on a budget that stops the hemorrhaging and waste. The president has not been very concerned about motivating either the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress, unless it offers some good publicity. His interactions with Boehner are well documented as adolescent at best. His interactions with Reid are wholly unproductive. He had two years with a sympathetic Congress, only to produce some of the most hated legislature ever passed, and, I might note, it did not actually contain his plan.
Congressional leadership is dysfunctional, and Executive leadership is non-existant. So the answer to your question is NO. Without inspiration there will be no perspiration.
It's almost as if he does nothing but play Tetris on his Blackberry all day. ;D
In my opinion, a true moderate is someone who can see and empathize on both sides of an issue. You can call that flip-flopping, others might consider it being open-minded.
Gaspar makes very good points about true leadership requiring the ability to compromise. Unfortunately, our constituency has steadily veered in a direction that either the right ideology must be the solution for all problems or the left ideology is. I suspect a great deal of that has to do with how large the theater has become for partisan political pundits to broadcast their views via the TV, radio, and all over the internet. People who only follow liberal blogs and TV hosts start believing that anything to the right is evil and worthless and those who follow the conservative media start to believe that any thing to the left is evil and worthless.
That pretty well has set in the mind of legislators that their voters want only the most extreme views represented in the houses of Congress. The goal in Washington has become power, not solutions or true progress, therefore no one cares about compromise anymore. Legislators are afraid to stray from the party line because they want to keep their cushy job and they want to do the bidding of their largest contributors.
My personal opinion is our current president is far too consumed with campaigning to be bothered with making difficult decisions. It simply amazes me he blows off other world leaders to appear on TV talk shows to polish his personal image. Perhaps he realizes how poor his job performance is so he needs to keep inflating the cult of personality which surrounds him.
Jon Stewart: ''The Closer We Get To The Election, The Dumber Mitt Romney Appears To Be Getting''
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-25-2012/democalypse-2012---every-which-way-but-lucid (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-25-2012/democalypse-2012---every-which-way-but-lucid)
Watch the end for the examples as to why Mitt Romney is now the Republican candidate for president.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2012, 12:02:24 PM
Gaspar makes very good points about true leadership requiring the ability to compromise.
Is funny. Lefties are damn near refusing to vote for him because he compromises too much, yet you maintain that he doesn't.
Quote from: Townsend on September 26, 2012, 11:36:33 AM
I'm not offended but I fear the people who used to be against him who are now supporting him.
Ironically, there are people (if they were thinking straight) who would have supported him in the past, but now can't stand him. Perspective is everything I guess. Politics is insane.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2012, 12:02:24 PM
My personal opinion is our current president is far too consumed with campaigning to be bothered with making difficult decisions. It simply amazes me he blows off other world leaders to appear on TV talk shows to polish his personal image. Perhaps he realizes how poor his job performance is so he needs to keep inflating the cult of personality which surrounds him.
I understand some will call it playing politics when the side being criticized is being forced to do something or make a decision that may be unpopular in an election year (see Congress calling it quit for the year). And it is. But it does not mean that since that's the case, it absolves them of making said decision.
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 12:27:20 PM
Is funny. Lefties are damn near refusing to vote for him because he compromises too much, yet you maintain that he doesn't.
Some say...
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 11:26:30 AM
I asked a pretty direct question. What, prior to 2008, did Romney do that was so offensive?
I posted many things Romney did in his past that offended me. I was offended by the way he nonchalantly jokes about the time he crated his dog on his car for a long trip. I didn't like the stories of him as a student bullying a kid and cutting his hair. I don't like the way he lied about being poor while owning a broad stock portfolio and being born to the President of American Motors Corporation. I also don't like him for lying about saving the Olympics when all he did was get $400 million in federal bailouts. He has been lying about that for a decade, long before he decided he was running for president.
I don't like the way he made his money. Some people don't like lawyers, some people don't like car salesmen, I don't like venture capitalists. Buying and closing companies for profit without regard to the lives of the workers or the health of the company town just irks me.
Yeah, I was offended with Romney before 2008. Now that he is the poster child for flip-flopping on positions I like him even less. Those who know me from posting on TulsaNow know that I am not a big Obama fan. I like his words, but often argue against his policies and priorities. I wish he would get our troops out of Afghanistan, close Gitmo, meet with the Prime Minister of Israel, and put together a jobs package with vision. He has disappointed me on each of these things.
But I can't vote for Romney. He is unlikable, unsympathetic to poor Americans, and untrustworthy with his words. He deserves to lose this election.
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
Some say...
Yes, some people whom I have spoken with (not in Oklahoma). I think those who live in the in-play states may yet be persuaded to vote against Romney by voting for Obama, but there are a number of people who insist they will be voting Green this year.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 26, 2012, 12:38:35 PM
But I can't vote for Romney Obama. He is unlikable, unsympathetic to poor Americans, and untrustworthy with his words. He deserves to lose this election.
Just saying.
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
Some say...
He must be talking about Michael Moore and Bill Maher.
:D
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 12:39:32 PM
Yes, some people whom I have spoken with (not in Oklahoma). I think those who live in the in-play states may yet be persuaded to vote against Romney by voting for Obama, but there are a number of people who insist they will be voting Green this year.
You know I would have gotten hammered on here for saying something like that.
But, how many people do you really think will not vote for Obama because he gave in too much to the Republicans? Someone who says that would have to be to the left of what Obama has actually done. So you think they will just abstain from voting? For real?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 26, 2012, 12:38:35 PM
I wish he would get our troops out of Afghanistan, close Gitmo
Are these things more likely to happen under an Obama free and clear of re-election indebtedness, or under Romney?
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 12:48:09 PM
But, how many people do you really think will not vote for Obama because he gave in too much to the Republicans? Someone who says that would have to be to the left of what Obama has actually done. So you think they will just abstain from voting? For real?
No, I think they'll vote for Jill Stein. Despite Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's protestations, Obama is not very left wing at all. If he were, we might have gotten a public option and might have required the banks to give up some equity to get the government financing they got. Nor would he be engaged in a drone war, killing US citizens without due process. There's a reason why old guard Republicans like David Frum and Bruce Bartlett are shaking their heads at the thought of Obama being some far left winger.
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 12:53:58 PM
No, I think they'll vote for Jill Stein. Despite Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's protestations, Obama is not very left wing at all. If he were, we might have gotten a public option and might have required the banks to give up some equity to get the government financing they got. Nor would he be engaged in a drone war, killing US citizens without due process. There's a reason why old guard Republicans like David Frum and Bruce Bartlett are shaking their heads at the thought of Obama being some far left winger.
Personally, I would consider many of the actions this administration have been partaking in pretty left wing. It's just that the previous administration was partaking in those same left wing policies and I seriously doubt there will be a major course change if Romney were to get elected.
The federal government has been in favor of "big banks" and "the war machine" for some time. This weekend I saw the former FDIC chairwoman slamming Geithner and have heard similar things from the TARP inspector as well. The government is not for the people, well at least not all the people. They may pretend to be, but only to get just enough permission to do what they really want to do.
Think about it. What major direction changes has the current administration taken since 2008?
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 12:59:04 PM
Think about it. What major direction changes has the current administration taken since 2008?
That's precisely the point. Nearly everything that has been a change from previous policy has been done in a center-right manner, while many of the right winger policies Bush brought in have been left to continue. Problem is that everything looks left wing to a Tea Party supporter, just like everything looks right wing to the far lefties. That's the problem with being a radical.
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2012, 12:27:20 PM
Is funny. Lefties are damn near refusing to vote for him because he compromises too much, yet you maintain that he doesn't.
Obama's idea of a compromise is sticking an un-palateable tax increase (to the Teahadists) into a proposal.
If he really was that concerned about the deficit and debt, he had the opportunity to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. Instead, he's spent the last two years telling everyone how the rich are screwing the poor and paying too little in taxes.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2012, 01:57:10 PM
Obama's idea of a compromise is sticking an un-palateable tax increase (to the Teahadists) into a proposal.
You have a strange definition of compromise. One that seems to comport well with the right winger radio personalities. Compromise takes two parties. If one is saying "give me everything I want and nothing I don't want," they're not demanding compromise, they're demanding capitulation.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2012, 01:57:10 PM
If he really was that concerned about the deficit and debt, he had the opportunity to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010.
He agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because he was able to get republicans to agree to extensions of the earned income tax credit, a $1,000 per child additional tax credit and a one year, 2% Social Security tax reduction. The bill he signed also extended unemployment benefits for 13 months.
Obama compromised and was able to get something done. How dare he.
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 12:45:14 PM
Just saying.
Just look through my old posts when RM was just lambasting Obama, calling him a liar back in 2008. Then take a look at RM views of moral failings of candidates he dislikes in 2012. Seriously Michael, you dislike Romney because he is untrustworthy with his words? That is the most shameless and utterly brazen flip I can recall at TNF.
Guido doesn't know what he is saying.
My problems with Obama before the election were not at all related to what he was changing his mind about. I didn't like his friends in Chicago and didn't think he had paid his dues in the party nor had proven that he could work with the other side of the aisle.
Your posts and logic have been suffering lately. Maybe you should rest a little.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 26, 2012, 03:14:51 PM
Guido doesn't know what he is saying.
My problems with Obama before the election were not at all related to what he was changing his mind about. I didn't like his friends in Chicago and didn't think he had paid his dues in the party nor had proven that he could work with the other side of the aisle.
Your posts and logic have been suffering lately. Maybe you should rest a little.
You also thought he was a lier and obstructionist fueled by big oil and special intrest money. . .and you said he was stealing delegate votes by changing the rules.
I personally didn't like his friends in Chicago either, but some of them are in Jail now and the rest have been marginalized. . .Also by delivering the mayoral seat to Rahm we've had an excellent opportunity to watch the Peter Principal in action. :D
Never let a crisis go to waste!
Quote from: erfalf on September 26, 2012, 12:59:04 PM
Personally, I would consider many of the actions this administration have been partaking in pretty left wing. It's just that the previous administration was partaking in those same left wing policies and I seriously doubt there will be a major course change if Romney were to get elected.
The federal government has been in favor of "big banks" and "the war machine" for some time. This weekend I saw the former FDIC chairwoman slamming Geithner and have heard similar things from the TARP inspector as well. The government is not for the people, well at least not all the people. They may pretend to be, but only to get just enough permission to do what they really want to do.
You spin so much it's making me dizzy.
If you think this has been left wing, you need to invert to normal flight and take a few minutes to look around you to regain your bearings. You are in an inverted flat spin....