[Waragainstsleep]

I don't really know much about Romney. I gather he isn't a wingnut of the calibre of Palin or Santorum but is he a semi-hardcore god botherer? I think someone in this thread said he was against abortion and/or birth control. Whether that is the case or not, I still think Obama gives a better impression of the US to the rest of the world. Most of you lot don't seem to care very much about that sort of thing, but GWB looked like an oaf. We all mocked him incessantly. And we mocked you for voting for him. Twice. Almost.

Either way, Obama is much more our idea of a proper politician than any of the GOP candidates, though lets face it anyone of us on this forum would have made a more sane choice than this years losing GOP candidates.

While Romney would probably represent a big improvement over GWB (I'm generously assuming he can string a worthwhile sentence together and might know where some other countries are. Or at least what they are), most of the civilised world prefers it when you elect democrats. We've all had enough war for the time being thanks and thats bound to be the republican goto move when they need to distract the punters voters from the economy.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

You have reason to be disappointed in yourself. Having access to the electronic technology which makes it possible to read books and news sources and watch film and videos which would inform and enlighten you, you persist in remaining uninformed about the dangers of Obama. Your three item list of "persuasive arguments" are obviously meant to be humorous. So, I will laugh with you as we both recognize there may be no good reasons to vote for Obama.

So you don't have an open mind.

What are the 'dangers' of Obama? He is a foreign born secret Muslim who is out to destroy America?

[subego]

Nope. Alien way of thinking.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't really know much about Romney. I gather he isn't a wingnut of the calibre of Palin or Santorum but is he a semi-hardcore god botherer? I think someone in this thread said he was against abortion and/or birth control. Whether that is the case or not, I still think Obama gives a better impression of the US to the rest of the world. Most of you lot don't seem to care very much about that sort of thing, but GWB looked like an oaf. We all mocked him incessantly. And we mocked you for voting for him. Twice. Almost.
Either way, Obama is much more our idea of a proper politician than any of the GOP candidates, though lets face it anyone of us on this forum would have made a more sane choice than this years losing GOP candidates.
While Romney would probably represent a big improvement over GWB (I'm generously assuming he can string a worthwhile sentence together and might know where some other countries are. Or at least what they are), most of the civilised world prefers it when you elect democrats. We've all had enough war for the time being thanks and thats bound to be the republican goto move when they need to distract the punters voters from the economy.

I think SOME (not all) people in the world who weren't lucky enough to have been raised in the USA think they know what is best for America.

Thank you for expressing your opinion of MY nation's politics.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I think SOME (not all) people in the world who weren't lucky enough to have been raised in the USA think they know what is best for America.
Thank you for expressing your opinion of MY nation's politics.

So then it follows that since you weren't raised in Canada you should STFU about its health care system, and since you weren't raised in Iraq or any of the countries we are at war with that you should STFU about what is best for them?

You can't have it both ways.

[subego]

If you weren't born here, get the **** out of the Tim Hortons!

Please.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I always find it so amazing to watch American politics from a distance - the two-horse race is quite a different beast, I must say.
People who 3 months ago were claiming Romney was a boatload of trouble, will now support him at any turn. Why? No other options except "the enemy", that's why. The good or bad, black or white, with us or agin us mentality of US politics is hard to grasp unless you see it in action, I think.

A fair observation IMO. I was definitely not in favor of a Romney bid, but the problem was the ones I appreciated most either weren't running at all or fell apart into old behaviors that alienated them from effective bids in prior attempts. I for one, will be plugging my nose while voting for Romney, but I maintain it's no different than under multiple party systems. You're still not going to get exactly what you want, most candidacies will fall down the line of more or less government, and neither will accomplish their goals to your liking. No matter what, you're going to pull the lever for the lesser of two evils. I give Romney some credit for managing to win an election as a Republican in a Democratic stronghold and legislating in a manner that most deemed moderately successful (in stark contrast to how most deem the US in "right-track/wrong-track" polling today), at least in dedicating the increased user fees on multiple services (lets not kid ourselves here -- tax increases) to the deficit, severely cut spending, cut income taxes in a flat income-tax state, and leaving office with a considerable surplus in the state coffers.

At the end of the day, I believe an unchecked second term for Obama would be far more destructive to this country than a severely checked first term for Romney. Romney leans left, Obama leaps left. One is more manageable than the other and one has a far more effective track record at motivating the business community. What does that mean? GO ROMNEY! YAYYYY!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you weren't born here, get the **** out of the Tim Hortons!
Please.

Hey there! Buffalo has a claim on Tim, too! (And didn't he play for other US teams, too? A bit before my time, I'm afraid.)




Anyway, I am not going to answer "Abe" because I'm not going to take the bait. Particularly in this election year, it seems like very little of public opinion about candidates is based on what they have actually done, and so much is based on public perception, which may or may not be true. (Edit: I just say ebuddy's post on how Obama "Leaps Left". There are far, far more liberal politicians in the US than Obama. It makes me wonder what he thinks "Centrist" looks like....)

Abe's answer about Obama's "alien way of thinking" for instance. WTF is that? How does one even begin to refute that? You can't. "Abe" will think whatever he (or she? ) wants, and if reasonable counter-arguments ever do come up he will just dismiss them out of hand, without even addressing any merit they might have.

BTW, "Abe", Maybe you ought to have a word with these Foreign Agents. (It seems Romney was doing a bit more in London than insulting the Olympics....)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57480991-503544/on-foreign-trip-romney-makes-time-for-fundraisers/

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Actually, I am.
I likewise care enough about our relationship (such as it is) to be concerned you feel I've committed a transgression meriting this severe a response.
I'd like to defend myself, however I'm at a distinct disadvantage if you're not open to the possibility you've misjudged my motives.

I apologize for my half of this exchange subego. TFD sort of touched on the issue. I'm tired. I'm flummoxed at the lengths folks are willing to go in order to get their guy the leg up. My president's campaign to maintain office is actively slandering the opposing candidate for killing some guy's wife because he lost his job at a company Romney managed 7 years prior, left her to her own health insurance, and she eventually died of cancer as do thousands of unfortunate people a year. Dying of cancer or having a severe illness is not enough you see, instead of an honest plea for favorable legislation; exploit these personal tragedies for political gain. I see my President stand before the American public and openly lie, repeatedly, resulting in the buried needles of BS meters from fact-checkers of all sorts and on both sides of the aisle. You've got the House minority leader in full-on slander mode over tax-behaviors that he himself will not produce, and then I pop back in here to what I consider among the more sensible folks with no real motive for the slander... resort to it. It got to me.

The fact is, Romney gave this gentleman an extraordinary amount of his attention. Romney offered the man the only thing you really can offer a guy like that in this circumstance -- sympathy. The man responded with what can only be deemed a gotcha question, not founded on reality, and not holding Romney accountable for exactly what it was Romney opposed and because Romney eventually identified what was going in the exchange and decided not to participate any longer -- he's the asshole. I don't think that's good enough and I was displeased you went there. That's all.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I think SOME (not all) people in the world who weren't lucky enough to have been raised in the USA think they know what is best for America.
Thank you for expressing your opinion of MY nation's politics.

It never ceases to amaze me how MANY (not all) of the Americans who wield this sentiment ALSO seem to know what is best for MANY other countries and are more than willing to express their opinions of THOSE nations politics.

Some of the politics of YOUR nation are to interfere in the politics of OUR nations, which makes the rest of us VERY concerned about the politics of YOUR nation.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I apologize for my half of this exchange subego. TFD sort of touched on the issue. I'm tired. I'm flummoxed at the lengths folks are willing to go in order to get their guy the leg up. My president's campaign to maintain office is actively slandering the opposing candidate for killing some guy's wife because he lost his job at a company Romney managed 7 years prior, left her to her own health insurance, and she eventually died of cancer as do thousands of unfortunate people a year. Dying of cancer or having a severe illness is not enough you see, instead of an honest plea for favorable legislation; exploit these personal tragedies for political gain. I see my President stand before the American public and openly lie, repeatedly, resulting in the buried needles of BS meters from fact-checkers of all sorts and on both sides of the aisle. You've got the House minority leader in full-on slander mode over tax-behaviors that he himself will not produce, and then I pop back in here to what I consider among the more sensible folks with no real motive for the slander... resort to it. It got to me.
The fact is, Romney gave this gentleman an extraordinary amount of his attention. Romney offered the man the only thing you really can offer a guy like that in this circumstance -- sympathy. The man responded with what can only be deemed a gotcha question, not founded on reality, and not holding Romney accountable for exactly what it was Romney opposed and because Romney eventually identified what was going in the exchange and decided not to participate any longer -- he's the asshole. I don't think that's good enough and I was displeased you went there. That's all.

That makes about as much sense as blaming Obama for Tonya Reaves death at the hands of Planned Parenthood because of his decision to supply federal funds to local PPA's after states have defunded them

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I think SOME (not all) people in the world who weren't lucky enough to have been raised in the USA think they know what is best for America.
Thank you for expressing your opinion of MY nation's politics.

Actually I had already gathered that you weren't interested in hearing non-american opinions about american politics, which is why I steered clear of actually giving you an opinion of american politics. What I gave you was a foreigners perspective on what your country's choices say about its people to us foreigners. Or appear to say about them. I also pointed out that you probably wouldn't care.
I didn't come close to telling you what was best for America and its politics.

Most of what I said was actually opinions about your politicians rather than your politics. These people are public figures. They go on TV and say things which I hear. I form opinions. I certainly wouldn't begrudge you having an opinion on David Cameron or the Queen.

Also, I don't consider myself remotely unlucky at not being raised in the USA. People in less developed countries might envy you, those of us in the developed world really don't.

[OAW]

This pretty much sums it up ....

Mitt Romney’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul put her foot in her mouth yesterday when she invoked Romneycare as a defense against an outlandish attack ad. Or did she?

The ad, from Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama Super PAC, indirectly blames Romney for killing a woman, Ranae Soptic. The ad says that Bain Capital’s layoff of her husband led her to lose her health insurance and then die from pneumonia when she got sick.

Saul responded by noting that Romney has actually done a lot, personally, to help people get health insurance if they don’t get it through work. “If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” said Saul.

Most conservatives hate Romneycare, so this line was not well received on the right. Red State editor in chief Erick Erickson tweeted, “This might just be the moment Romney lost the election.” Ann Coulter called Saul a “moron” and said Romney’s donors should withhold their funds until Saul is fired.

But Saul’s line was actually a key component of the best defense Romney can offer of his business record and of the usefulness of private equity. Romney and his campaign need to find a way to comfortably make this argument without getting their heads bitten off.

Usually, Romney defends private equity by pretending it’s venture capital: the development of new businesses, not the restructuring and streamlining of existing ones. In fact, private equity very often involves laying people off, closing factories and otherwise shedding unnecessary labor costs.

If you concede that the purpose of a business is to provide well-paying jobs and solid benefits, then you cannot defend private equity. Private equity defenders must stand up for the idea that firms do not have a social obligation to retain and pay their employees; their function is to produce products and profits and getting them to do so more efficiently is good for consumers and for the economy as a whole.

But then that leaves the question of what to do about the workers who are on the losing side of economic shifts. If Bain Capital didn't have a moral obligation to provide health insurance to Ranae Soptic, who did? Did anyone?

As of 2006, Romney’s answer was that the government had that obligation, which is why he ushered in the country’s first program to provide near-universal health insurance. As Saul pointed out, Massachusetts residents get health insurance whether or not they are wealthy and whether or not they are covered through an employer.

That’s a straightforward neoliberal proposition: The government should provide a robust safety net so that employers can be left free to hire, fire, open and close at will. A dynamic private sector is important, but it needs a substantial welfare state to support the people who fall through its cracks.

The problem for Romney is that his base consists not of neoliberals but of conservatives. They do not want the government taking on increased safety net responsibilities. But if you don’t think the government should provide health insurance, what is there to say about Ranae Soptic?

The libertarian answer is that it was fine to leave Soptic on her own, and more broadly, that if economic changes make it harder for some people to get health care, so be it. That view is not likely to appeal to the median voter.

Another answer -- the one more commonly employed by conservatives -- is to deny the existence of a problem created by the free market. As this argument goes, a fast-growing and free private sector will make it easier for people to get jobs and health insurance; no government action is needed.

But even policies that do lead to aggregate job growth and GDP growth don’t benefit everyone. Creative destruction entails destruction, and there are always people like the Soptics, who lose out personally due to economic changes that make the country as a whole better off.

This is why lots of voters in the center are skeptical of trade, unregulated labor markets and economic change in general. Stressing the ability of government to smooth around the economy’s edges is important in getting the public comfortable with liberal capitalism. Romney needs to be able to tell a story about what he will do for people on the losing side of globalization and automation.

That’s not a message conservatives want to hear, which is why Romney confuses the issue by misrepresenting his experience at Bain Capital. It’s unlikely that the Obama campaign will let him get away with that for the next three months, so the campaign should try to find a way to make Saul’s pitch palatable to both the right and the center.

The Romney Private Equity Defense Conservatives Hate

1. Romney has a top-down, "private equity" mentality. And what's good for the "shareholder class" is not always good for the "middle class" and "working class". But what's good for the "middle class" and the "working class" is generally always good for the "shareholder class" because they are the engine of economic growth. And by "shareholder class" I don't mean people whose primary income is from a paycheck who have several thousands tucked away in a 401K. I mean people like Romney whose primary income is from capital gains.

2. Romney advocates the elimination of incomes taxes from capital gains and dividends. He actually says that with a straight face even thought that would essentially eliminate the income tax burden completely on guys like Romney. And for the life of me it boggles my mind how some of our good friends on the right who are solidly middle class can't seem to recognize the fundamental unfairness of this. Sorry but I simply don't buy the "capital gains income has already been taxed once as wage income" argument. That might be the case for somebody 9-to-5ing it ... but it is certainly NOT the case for guys like Romney. That guy 9-to-5ing it might save a few bucks on taxes when he makes a little money on a non-tax deferred stock trade. But guys like Romney will make MILLIONS because they will basically no longer be subject to income tax at all. And did I mention that this policy's negative impact of the deficit would be astronomical?

3. Obama has a bottom-up, "labor/consumer" mentality. And by "labor" I don't mean labor unions. What I mean is that when the government implements policies that strengthen and expand the "working class" and "middle class" ... the overall economy booms because the wages they earn for their "labor" provides them with enough disposable income to be the "consumers" that are the engine of economic growth. But when the government implements policies that primarily target and benefit the "shareholder class" ... the overall economy stagnates because their incomes increase but the incomes of the "working class" and "middle class" flatlines or declines. Why? Because the mentality of the "shareholder class" (i.e. guys like Romney) is oriented around maximizing profit .... not maximizing employment. And the "shareholder class", despite it's wealth, doesn't spend enough to offset the decreased demand of the "working class" and "middle class". Why? Because "wealth" is not determined by how much you spend but by how much you keep.

Bottom line? If you are a fan of the "trickle down economics" that has been the GOP mantra since Reagan then vote for Romney. We had 8 years of that during the Bush Administration and Romney is essentially advocating a return to those policies. So if you think the economy did well during those years then you have your man. If OTOH you are a fan of "bottom up" policies then vote for Obama. We had 8 years of that during the Clinton Administration and Obama is essentially advocating a return to those policies. As far as I'm concerned, the economic numbers with respect to those two Administrations speak for themselves.

OAW

PS. 4. Any guy who was a Bishop in church that barred African-Americans from joining its priesthood until 1978 ... a church whose positions with respect to race have a long and ongoing history of being "troubling" at best ... is simply not suited to be the President of a country that is as increasingly diverse as ours IMO. This isn't to say that Romney harbors racist views because I've not seen anything to suggest that (his "culture" comment to Israelis with respect to the Palestinians notwithstanding). I'm just saying that nothing in his backgrounds suggests that he would in any way be attuned to issues of diversity in America. Like ... not even a little bit.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

OAW
PS. 4. Any guy who was a Bishop in church that barred African-Americans from joining its priesthood until 1978 ... a church whose positions with respect to race have a long and ongoing history of being "troubling" at best ... is simply not suited to be the President of a country that is as increasingly diverse as ours IMO. This isn't to say that Romney harbors racist views because I've not seen anything to suggest that (his "culture" comment to Israelis with respect to the Palestinians notwithstanding). I'm just saying that nothing in his backgrounds suggests that he would in any way be attuned to issues of diversity in America. Like ... not even a little bit.

At least Romney can say he was born into the faith. Harry Reid and his wife joined the LDS while in college. Reid was in college during the 1960's, so he joined long before 1978. Has anyone asked Harry Reid why he joined a church that openly barred blacks from the priesthood?

As far as spokespeople go, Obama's has some splainin to do. Cutter flat out lied on CNN about knowing Joe Soptic and his story. There is a recorded conference call from earlier in the year where Joe turns the floor back over to Cutter after telling his story. He was also featured in an official Obama ad as well

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Actually I had already gathered that you weren't interested in hearing non-american opinions about american politics, which is why I steered clear of actually giving you an opinion of american politics. What I gave you was a foreigners perspective on what your country's choices say about its people to us foreigners. Or appear to say about them. I also pointed out that you probably wouldn't care.
I didn't come close to telling you what was best for America and its politics.
Most of what I said was actually opinions about your politicians rather than your politics. These people are public figures. They go on TV and say things which I hear. I form opinions. I certainly wouldn't begrudge you having an opinion on David Cameron or the Queen.
Also, I don't consider myself remotely unlucky at not being raised in the USA. People in less developed countries might envy you, those of us in the developed world really don't.

More's the pity.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

More's the pity.

Oh, ok then. I'll begrudge you having an opinion about Cameron and/or the Queen. If you really want me to.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I apologize for my half of this exchange subego. TFD sort of touched on the issue. I'm tired. I'm flummoxed at the lengths folks are willing to go in order to get their guy the leg up. My president's campaign to maintain office is actively slandering the opposing candidate for killing some guy's wife because he lost his job at a company Romney managed 7 years prior, left her to her own health insurance, and she eventually died of cancer as do thousands of unfortunate people a year. Dying of cancer or having a severe illness is not enough you see, instead of an honest plea for favorable legislation; exploit these personal tragedies for political gain. I see my President stand before the American public and openly lie, repeatedly, resulting in the buried needles of BS meters from fact-checkers of all sorts and on both sides of the aisle. You've got the House minority leader in full-on slander mode over tax-behaviors that he himself will not produce, and then I pop back in here to what I consider among the more sensible folks with no real motive for the slander... resort to it. It got to me.
The fact is, Romney gave this gentleman an extraordinary amount of his attention. Romney offered the man the only thing you really can offer a guy like that in this circumstance -- sympathy. The man responded with what can only be deemed a gotcha question, not founded on reality, and not holding Romney accountable for exactly what it was Romney opposed and because Romney eventually identified what was going in the exchange and decided not to participate any longer -- he's the asshole. I don't think that's good enough and I was displeased you went there. That's all.

Slander's a pretty strong accusation. If I'm guilty of that, I imagine I should be doing the apologizing.

By what's implied in your post, I gather the charge is my original statement was intended to help Obama in some way. If that was my intent, I wouldn't disagree with your analysis. However that wasn't my intent, so I must therefore take issue with the analysis.

To assist in clarifying my intent, I'd like to read the following prepared statement:

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, VOTE FOR OBAMA.

The extent to which he's trampled civil liberties is appalling. Torture, warrantless wiretapping, military detention for American citizens writ into law, SOPA, PIPA, continuation of the Patriot Act, busting medical marijuana clinics.

How many of these things did he explicitly promise not to do?

Has Romney committed these crimes (and I do consider them crimes)? No, he hasn't. One can point to his lack of consistency, but I haven't seen examples of that inconsistency in the shape of soul-crushing Federal law.


All that said, there are positions one can take which I find morally reprehensible, and one of those is to be against medical marijuana.

I'm baffled by your claim sympathy is all that could be offered in the situation faced by Romney. Why not start with rejecting the barbaric policy he supports? You're damn right "I'm wasting away because of a policy you support" is a "gotcha". Sometimes, people deserve to get "got".

I have passionate opinions about this. Passionate enough to recall the exchange in a more self-serving way than it actually happened. While I posted a retraction with the clip, an apology is still due. I misrepresented his position, and that was a huge mistake on my part. Mea culpa

However, and this is why I chose to phrase my initial retraction the way I did, I see the position he actually takes as no less deplorable than my faulty recollection.


I want to make clear my passion is rooted in never hearing an even remotely good argument against medical marijuana. Perhaps it exists and I have yet to hear it. I don't want the intensity of my statements to imply I don't have an open mind. I'm willing to reassess my position.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think the next economic boom in the US will be from legalizing a lot of narcotics, starting with pot, and this economic stimulus will be enhanced by the resources freed up from fighting the drug war, and of course the prison costs. Then we'll have the drugs bubble, crash and recession following, but until then it will be pretty great. We've been successful enough in the past that we can stupidly throw away the entire "getting high" market, but it's getting to be about time we can no longer afford to do that.

After the "getting high" boom comes and goes, it will have paved the way for other economic booms that are socially frowned upon now, like physical enhancements both mechanical and biological. The cyborg boom.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hey, between your "robot cars" bandwagon and these new economic stimulus ideas.....you've really been trolling this place hard recently, huh?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Trolling is arguing what you don't believe just to get a reaction. I think both these predictions are accurate. Don't you? Also I don't care what reaction they produce.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

...My president's campaign to maintain office is actively slandering the opposing candidate for killing some guy's wife...

To be clear, that was a super PAC ad, not endorsed by the President. Did you watch it? I bought into the outrage and thought it was a dirty, low blow. But then I watched it and got the exact opposite impression. I didn't hear "Mitt Romney killed my wife." I heard "I don't think Mitt Romney understands what he's done to anyone, And furthermore, I don't think Mitt Romney is concerned." But that has always been my impression of Mitt Romney, anyway. I think this ad is a pretty good example of how both sides can point at the same "fact" and try to steer you towards two different conclusions. I just always seem to end up turning left.

If you always turn right, I can't give you YOUR 3 reasons, but I'll give you mine:
1) I do not at all agree with the Republican vision for America. God in, logic out; the needy are leeches; corporations first, people second; etc.
2) I believe that strengthening the middle class and the infrastructure of our country will strengthen our society as a whole. Start from the inside and work out; not from the top down. The more we all put in, the more we all get out. (And, no I'm not just talking about money.)
3) Our global image sucks. Are other countries jealous of us? Don't understand us? Or is it because we're the bully on the block? **** the apology debate. The fact is, a large portion of the planet hates America for one reason or another and we need to address the issues instead of deafly chanting "USA! USA!" in their faces.
4) Mitt Romney is an asshole.

[Chongo]

Joe Soptic's wife was not covered by his insurance. She had insurance from her employer, until she lost her job. Laying her loss of insurance on Romney is stretch.

[The Final Dakar]

From what I've heard it's not even applicable. Of course in typical Romney campaign fashion, they didn't do themselves any favors when they went on TV and said she'd have been fine if she had lived under Gov. Romney in MA.

[andi*pandi]

did he really? ha.

Maybe it's more of an ad for Universal Health Care...

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Joe Soptic's wife was not covered by his insurance. She had insurance from her employer, until she lost her job. Laying her loss of insurance on Romney is stretch.

Oh my dear Chongo, it's more than a stretch. It's God-damnedly dishonest. Obama will do or say ANYTHING to stay in power so he can fundamentally CHANGE America...for the worse.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So you don't have an open mind.
What are the 'dangers' of Obama? He is a foreign born secret Muslim who is out to destroy America?

Love him. Hate him. You don't know him. 'Him' be B.O.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Love him. Hate him. You don't know him. 'Him' be B.O.

This is one of those occasions where it is appropriate to laugh at yourself for being ridiculous.

We know at least as much about him as we have any other president. In this information age if there was all of this crazy damning information about him it would have surfaced by now by his political opponents. What do you possibly need to know about him that you feel like you don't? Please don't say his birth certificate, because this is laughable too, I hope you realize.

I know that you're sort of a paranoid conspiracy theory type of guy, maybe you should stop to consider that maybe this is just you and a very small minority of people that are mostly nut jobs (e.g.the birther queen et all) that feels the way you do?

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Obama will do or say ANYTHING to stay in power so he can fundamentally CHANGE America...for the worse.

Dishonest? The man told his story. You may not agree with the conclusions Soptic drew from his misfortune, but there were no lies in the commercial.

And furthermore, regardless of whatever murder accusations a particular viewer may or may not read into the ad, Obama had nothing to do with it. This is just more super PAC crap that we don't need muddying the waters. THAT is where the dishonesty lies.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by pottymouth 

Dishonest? The man told his story. You may not agree with the conclusions Soptic drew from his misfortune, but there were no lies in the commercial.
And furthermore, regardless of whatever murder accusations a particular viewer may or may not read into the ad, Obama had nothing to do with it. This is just more super PAC crap that we don't need muddying the waters. THAT is where the dishonesty lies.

You don't mean to tell me BO has outsmarted you enough to make you really believe he has nothing to. do. with this scurrilous kind of campaign tactic.

He could repudiate it. He hasn't.

Why?

Because he knows the undecided voters (who may decide this election) is only going to catch the major tag lines and key words from this ad controversy.

BO LIE: Romney was responsible for this man losing his job.

ROMNEY TRUTH: Romney left Bain years before Optic lost his job.

BO LIE: Romney was responsible for this man's wife's demise.

ROMNEY TRUTH: She was employed and with her employer she had medical insurance.

Barack Obama KNOWS this and now YOU know this.

So, will you continue to deny BO isn't allowing this misinformation by his PAC to continue in order to intentionally mislead voters?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I can think of three good reasons to vote for either one. Maybe one good reason to vote for either one.

For Obama- vote for him because he should take the full blame for the mess he's created, not instantly shift all the blame to the Republicans the instant the office changes hands. Let Obama have 4 more years of absolute dismal failure, and reap the full blame for it, so that electing a clueless ideologue with no real world experience doing anything never happens again.

For Romney- he's at least got business experience and isn't clueless about everything like Obama. But that's about all he really has going for him. It'd be different if it were a choice between the clueless leftist and a strong Reagan style conservative, but Romney's really closer to a RINO and will probably end up pulling a "Schwarzenegger" on the entire country if elected.

Basically, hold your nose and vote either way. Either way it's a poo-sandwich.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In this information age if there was all of this crazy damning information about him it would have surfaced by now by his political opponents.

Apparently, this is not true.

The media fell in love with the narrative of BO as THE FIRST BLACK POTUS and then they proceeded to make it happen. They failed to do their due diligence on our behalf. They did it intentionally and knowingly. They ignored the warning signs. They took for granted their own role in making sure we did not get someone such as BO in the position of vying for the office of POTUS. I suspect they may even have wanted to see if they could use their considerable power to sell the voters a pig in a poke. They discounted the damage the wrong person in the White House could do to this country. Maybe they thought to themselves, 'hell, if a lame brain like W could be POTUS then ANYBODY, certainly a Harvard educated, non-ghetto sounding, nice looking, affable guy like BO could be AT LEAST as good a POTUS as Bush was.'

(What they failed to take into account was that Bush loved America and LOVED what made America great...whereas BO doesn't even know what made America great. BO thinks America's greatness comes from the Federal Government!)

So the media ignored stuff. They didn't follow up on nagging background questions about his ties and links to criminals and well known Communists and America haters and bigots and Muslims. They did all of this and more. They prevented the voters from knowing about any thing that might harm BO's chances to be the first black POTUS.

And now they want us to believe they did a good job of vetting him in 2008 and so we shouldn't be dragging out all of these 'conspiratorical' theories about him.

He isn't who you think he is. He's fooled you once (2008). Shame on him.

He's fooling you twice.

Shame on YOU!

Even W knew better than that.

George W. Bush said, "we won't get fooled again!"

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I can think of three good reasons to vote for either one. Maybe one good reason to vote for either one.
For Obama- vote for him because he should take the full blame for the mess he's created, not instantly shift all the blame to the Republicans the instant the office changes hands. Let Obama have 4 more years of absolute dismal failure, and reap the full blame for it, so that electing a clueless ideologue with no real world experience doing anything never happens again.
For Romney- he's at least got business experience and isn't clueless about everything like Obama. But that's about all he really has going for him. It'd be different if it were a choice between the clueless leftist and a strong Reagan style conservative, but Romney's really closer to a RINO and will probably end up pulling a "Schwarzenegger" on the entire country if elected.
Basically, hold your nose and vote either way. Either way it's a poo-sandwich.

America, this is a defining election.

If BO is re-elected this country will cease to be the country we all grew up with. It will be worse and worse off.

We can not afford another four years of Barack Obama.

100 Million Americans currently receive government financial assistance (excluding those receiving Social Security and Disability payments) and BO wants to INCREASE the numbers of Americans getting welfare payments! Why is he doing this? To buy voters allegiance and maintain power so he can 'fundamentally CHANGE' this country and make it more reminicient of what his deceased Socialist father thought it should be.

He dreamed of a LESS powerful America.

And now his son, BO, is making this happen.

And you are not able to see this????

We can't afford another four years of BO.

Romney isn't a RINO. He won't be one, either.

But, just for shit n grins, let's suppose he was. Could he be any worse than BO???

Hell, I'd vote for Bill Clinton before giving BO another minute to (as he said) "rule." (Did you know you elected a "ruler" in 2008? I'll bet the answer is no.)

I would even vote for Hillary Clinton before voting for BO. The Clintons may be Democrats but they understand what it means for America to remain great. I believe they both love America and American values.

In the book of the same name Bill Clinton said that BO is an "amateur."

Are you getting the picture?

Edit: Barack Obama wasn't even a Harvard Law Professor. Bet you didn't know that!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

So the media ignored stuff. They didn't follow up on nagging background questions about his ties and links to criminals and well known Communists and America haters and bigots and Muslims.

He isn't who you think he is. He's fooled you once (2008). Shame on him.

He's fooling you twice.

Who is he?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I can think of three good reasons to vote for either one. Maybe one good reason to vote for either one.
For Obama- vote for him because he should take the full blame for the mess he's created, not instantly shift all the blame to the Republicans the instant the office changes hands. Let Obama have 4 more years of absolute dismal failure, and reap the full blame for it, so that electing a clueless ideologue with no real world experience doing anything never happens again.
For Romney- he's at least got business experience and isn't clueless about everything like Obama. But that's about all he really has going for him. It'd be different if it were a choice between the clueless leftist and a strong Reagan style conservative, but Romney's really closer to a RINO and will probably end up pulling a "Schwarzenegger" on the entire country if elected.
Basically, hold your nose and vote either way. Either way it's a poo-sandwich.

America, this is a defining election.

If BO is re-elected this country will cease to be the country we all grew up with. It will be worse and worse off.

We can not afford another four years of Barack Obama.

100 Million Americans currently receive government financial assistance (excluding those receiving Social Security and Disability payments) and BO wants to INCREASE the numbers of Americans getting welfare payments! Why is he doing this? To buy voters allegiance and maintain power so he can 'fundamentally CHANGE' this country and make it more reminicient of what his deceased Socialist father thought it should be.

He dreamed of a LESS powerful America.

And now his son, BO, is making this happen.

And you are not able to see this????

We can't afford another four years of BO.

Romney isn't a RINO. He won't be one, either.

But, just for shit n grins, let's suppose he was. Could he be any worse than BO???

Hell, I'd vote for Bill Clinton before giving BO another minute to (as he said) "rule." (Did you know you elected a "ruler" in 2008? I'll bet the answer is no.)

I would even vote for Hillary Clinton before voting for BO. The Clintons may be Democrats but they understand what it means for America to remain great. I believe they both love America and American values.

In the book of the same name Bill Clinton said that BO is an "amateur."

Are you getting the picture?

Abe for president! Abe for ruler!

[kimosABE]

Anyone who says Mitt Romney is an a-hole doesn't know what an a-hole is. And should we pay attention to someone like that?

No.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Abe for president! Abe for ruler!

As they say, 'the acorn (nut) doesn't fall far from the tree' does it? America doesn't elect 'rulers. Americans elect a President. You should understand this by now.

[besson3c]

Besides, Obama doesn't have a valid US birth certificate.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who is he?

It's impossible to answer that question in a single or even a ozen posts. But to get started in finding out who BO is it helps to know a little about his youthful mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Frank Marshall Davis is another of those radical associations in Obama’s past. There are so many, and so unusually bad, that Obama, if he were a typical citizen, probably wouldn’t get a security clearance for an entry-level government job.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-exclusive-see-this-clip-about-obamas-relationship-with-communist-frank-marshall-davis-from-dinesh-dsouzas-new-2016-film/

Imagine having so many associations with people who are so unsavory and/or deemed such a danger to the United States that YOU would be denied a civil service job because of just hanging around these folks.

THAT is a clue to who BO is.

[besson3c]

Every election can't be more defining than the last one.

This is one of the least defining elections. Obama is the least of this country's problems. No president will be terribly effective with a lobby seduced congress like we have, not beholden to our interests, and one that makes us believe that our enemies are the other party rather than the system itself that is counter productive by design. American politics have always been relatively counter productive by design, but its motivations have devolved.

[kimosABE]

That's old news, dear boy.

[kimosABE]

besson3c, this is in response to your last post in this thread.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-exclusive-see-this-clip-about-obamas-relationship-with-communist-frank-marshall-davis-from-dinesh-dsouzas-new-2016-film/

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

It's impossible to answer that question in a single or even a ozen posts. But to get started in finding out who BO is it helps to know a little about his youthful mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-exclusive-see-this-clip-about-obamas-relationship-with-communist-frank-marshall-davis-from-dinesh-dsouzas-new-2016-film/
Imagine having so many associations with people who are so unsavory and/or deemed such a danger to the United States that YOU would be denied a civil service job because of just hanging around these folks.
THAT is a clue to who BO is.

Who cares about Frank Marshall Davis, won't somebody think of the children?? And Obama's birth certificate?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who is he?

It's impossible to answer that question in a single or even a ozen posts. But to get started in finding out who BO is it helps to know a little about his youthful mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Golly! How did you ever learn about all this without the help of The Media?

Imagine having so many associations with people who are so unsavory and/or deemed such a danger to the United States that YOU would be denied a civil service job because of just hanging around these folks.

Tell me about it! That's why I was rejected for so many government jobs: my association with all the people who post on MacNN

THAT is a clue to who BO is.

THAT guilt by association? That's a clue to who America is.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

obamas-relationship-with-communist-frank-marshall-davis
Imagine having so many associations with people who are so unsavory and/or deemed such a danger to the United States that YOU would be denied a civil service job because of just hanging around these folks.

You have a point. All communists should be a) forced to admit it, and then forced out of their jobs. Anyone with a trace of a connection to communism must be rooted out! They are evil and will deliver Amerika to the Red Menace!

McCarthy for President!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Oh my dear Chongo, it's more than a stretch. It's God-damnedly dishonest. Obama will do or say ANYTHING to stay in power so he can fundamentally CHANGE America...for the worse.

What, exactly, did Obama say?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You have a point. All communists should be a) forced to admit it, and then forced out of their jobs. Anyone with a trace of a connection to communism must be rooted out! They are evil and will deliver Amerika to the Red Menace!
McCarthy for President!

Please don't jump to the conclusion that simply because I want everyone to know about the fact of and the possible problems with his associations that I would favor a witch hunt. However, let me ask you, do you favor Comunists in the White House?

Why would BO et al feel the need to conceal this information unless they (correctly) believed it would harm his campaign?

[andi*pandi]

Big C or little c? Which meaning of the word? A lot of words get thrown around without anyone really knowing the meaning, and then the feeling is the word is an insult.

Twilight Zone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuvHBgHyHh0&feature=related

I don't believe Obama is the Red Menace reborn to bring us to the apocalypse.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What, exactly, did Obama say?

We can only go by what his spokespeople have said, as 'dear ruler' has kept quiet on the subject.

Sununu blasted Obama aides for denying knowledge of the case.

"First of all they craft a despicable ad full of lies," Sununu said. "And then Stephanie Cutter and Robert Gibbs and Jay Carney lie to the press that they didn't know anything that was in that ad."

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt stressed Wednesday, in response to the criticism, that "we can't coordinate with super PACs and didn't produce" the ad.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/09/romney-asks-where-hope-and-change-went-amid-furor-over-ad-obama-aides-response/

BO could have and should have known about the ad. BO should and could repudiate the ad.

In any leadership position you are expected to take responsibility for those actions and people you lead, good or bad.

He's an Amateur.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

In any leadership position you are expected to take responsibility for those actions and people you lead, good or bad.

I see. So, you believe that Bush needs to be held accountable for the actions of the people he lead at Abu Ghraib.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Big C or little c? Which meaning of the word? A lot of words get thrown around without anyone really knowing the meaning, and then the feeling is the word is an insult.
Twilight Zone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuvHBgHyHh0&feature=related
I don't believe Obama is the Red Menace reborn to bring us to the apocalypse.

Well! It seems you have a soft spot in your heart or a blind spot in your vision for Communism and/or Communists. And whether you parse the spelling of words or resort to 60+ year old anti Communist efforts or 50+ year old anti Communist efforts the fact is that Communism is responsible for more than 100+ million deaths since WWII and it saps the essence of what propels humans toward greater achievement and happiness. Freedom is at stake. Capitalism is at risk. And you are blind to threat of Communism?