[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by chas_m 

Rather than get political, I'll just answer the question literally.
In every measure except age, I'm substantially better off now than I was four years ago.
I also think that America is a LOT better off than they were four years ago, though I know that's a bit more "big picture" than it may be to some on an individual level. But I think that despite the lethargy of the economic recovery, the US as a whole is a lot better off now than four years ago.

23 Million Americans out of work.

Another TRILLION dollars added to the national debt every year since he's been in office.

The average annual family income is $4,000 lower than it was in 2008.

The President breaks the law when he so chooses and no one can stop him.

The govenment can now tell you what you have to buy...a violation of our Constitutional right.

The nightmare of socialized medicine.

Slowly sliding down the slippery slope of Socialism.

Small businesses deathly afraid of the new taxes Obama will levy in a second term.

A sinking economy, (think Greece)

A President who will not be "restrained" by any impending elections and will then be able to make any kind of deal with Vladimir Putin he wants.

A defense budget that is reduced by $500 Billion.

Someone who refuses to make a stand in the world for liberty and who makes allowances for our enemies and irritates or hinders our allies.

Someone who bows before Shieks and Kings but bannishes a bust of Churchill to the WH warehouse and has Benyamin Netanyahu wait unceremoniously in the basement until he can spare a moment to meet with him.

You can't be serious about things being better for this country.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

The average annual family income is $4,000 lower than it was in 2008.
The President breaks the law when he so chooses and no one can stop him.
The govenment can now tell you what you have to buy...a violation of our Constitutional right.
A sinking economy, (think Greece)
A President who will not be "restrained" by any impending elections and will then be able to make any kind of deal with Vladimir Putin he wants.

I'm confused ... *which* President are you talking about?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm confused ... *which* President are you talking about?

Obama.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

The average annual family income is $4,000 lower than it was in 2008.

There was a somewhat significant event in late 2008 that might skew the meaning of this information. Is today's average annual family income $4,000 lower than the *day before Obama took office*, or is it $4,000 lower than the *day before the financial collapse during Bush's Presidency*?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

When he wasn't fully vetted by the media and also failed to disclose all of his information about his past, it wasn't inconsequential, immaterial stuff he refused to disclose, like tax returns, it was important stuff and he is STILL getting away with not disclosing it because you Obama supporters want to ride bareback with him.
Even as he is perhaps irreversably endangering the 'health' of America.

Why isn't Fox saying all of this crazy stuff then?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Obama.

Ah. Because quite a few of those lines could describe several recent Presidents.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why isn't Fox saying all of this crazy stuff then?

I can only assume this means one of two things:
a) Fox *also* gave Obama a free ride.
b) Fox isn't very good at representing the interests of it's viewers.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

There was a somewhat significant event in late 2008 that might skew the meaning of this information. Is today's average annual family income $4,000 lower than the *day before Obama took office*, or is it $4,000 lower than the *day before the financial collapse during Bush's Presidency*?

From the day he took office, I guess.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

From the day he took office, I guess.

You "guess"? Seriously? At this point, you're projecting what you want to believe onto the un-vetted information you're being fed.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why isn't Fox saying all of this crazy stuff then?

You don't have a TV. How would you know anything about what Fox does or doesn't broadcast?

And, for the record, they have.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You "guess"? Seriously? At this point, you're projecting what you want to believe onto the un-vetted information you're being fed.

Prove me wrong. Show me the error of my ways.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

And, for the record, they have.

Then you can't say that Obama hasn't been vetted by the media.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then you can't say that Obama hasn't been vetted by the media.

They've broadcast many things AFTER he was inaugurated. But the LIBERAL media never pressed him for answers and just let him slide, presumably because he was Black and looked and sounded good. That was the same tactic the Salafi's used to sneak ninto an ofgicial black tie WH function. They looked the part and acted the part and though their names weren't on the guest list the gatekeepers looked the other way and let them in and they were ablebto get nto the inner circle of security and I think shook hands with the first couple.

The people responsible for the party crashing lost their jobs.

The people responsible for allowing Obama into the White House have doubled down on their 2008 bets. They are trying to get away with it again so they can escape criticism for not vetting him or pressing him to fully disclose his junk in 08.

[besson3c]

I need a new conspiracy here Abe, hit me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

They've broadcast many things AFTER he was inaugurated.

So, you're say Fox gave him free ride during the election. And you still trust their ability to deliver quality news?

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

But the LIBERAL media never pressed him for answers and just let him slide,

In much the same way that the CONSERVATIVE media let McCain and Palin slide and are letting Romney and Ryan slide. You really don't expect the Liberal media to do the Conservative media's job for them, do you? Well, I guess if you really believe that Fox let Obama slide during the 2008 election, then I guess they aren't capable of doing the job that Conservatives need from them.

[Shaddim]

I'm better off today, but I wasn't bad off to begin with. Barry talks a big game about "sticking it to the wealthy" but he hasn't and he won't. Like I said in the other thread, it's all hot air to keep the masses off his back. When he had both houses of congress behind him he could have closed the tax loopholes and repealed the cuts and subsidies, but he didn't even make a proposal. He did the same with the Patriot Act, Gitmo, foreclosure prevention, etc. etc.. Here, look for yourself, it's over 4 pages long.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

Fact is, he talks more (has spent more time on TV than the last three presidents combined) and that allows him to do less. Just claiming that he's going to do something seems to make a lot of people happy, but that simply means those supporters are sheep.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm better off today, but I wasn't bad off to begin with. Barry talks a big game about "sticking it to the wealthy" but he hasn't and he won't. Like I said in the other thread, it's all hot air to keep the masses off his back. When he had both houses of congress behind him he could have closed the tax loopholes and repealed the cuts and subsidies, but he didn't even make a proposal. He did the same with the Patriot Act, Gitmo, foreclosure prevention, etc. etc.. Here, look for yourself, it's over 4 pages long.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
Fact is, he talks more (has spent more time on TV than the last three presidents combined) and that allows him to do less. Just claiming that he's going to do something seems to make a lot of people happy, but that simply means those supporters are sheep.

I agree with this, but I disagree with your conclusion that this means that his supporters are sheep. I think this is right in some cases, but in other cases it is the notion that Romney wouldn't deliver on these things either due to Republican ideology. It sucks that the choices are between empty promises and disagreeable ideology, but it is what it is, I guess.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

You really don't get it' do you?
Here's an example for you.
Were you proud when Obama won the Nobel Prize?
Yes?
Why? Because he was Black? There have been Black Nobel winners before but you felt no special pride in them.
Were you proud that Obama won the Nobel because he is American?
Yes?
But there have been other American Nobel winners and you didn't feel any special amount of pride in them.
Well, maybe you were proud because he was our first Black POTUS and he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes?
Well, you are a racist.

Proud that Pres. Obama won the Nobel Prize?

I don't really care because it doesn't affect me in any way and I don't know Pres. Obama personally.

Not sure why Republicans seem to care about it so much.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm better off today, but I wasn't bad off to begin with. Barry talks a big game about "sticking it to the wealthy" but he hasn't and he won't. Like I said in the other thread, it's all hot air to keep the masses off his back. When he had both houses of congress behind him he could have closed the tax loopholes and repealed the cuts and subsidies, but he didn't even make a proposal. He did the same with the Patriot Act, Gitmo, foreclosure prevention, etc. etc.. Here, look for yourself, it's over 4 pages long.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
Fact is, he talks more (has spent more time on TV than the last three presidents combined) and that allows him to do less. Just claiming that he's going to do something seems to make a lot of people happy, but that simply means those supporters are sheep.

Lots of good liberal ideas.

Too bad Pres. Obama turned out to be too much of a moderate and didn't have the courage keep many of the promises fearing Republicans would label him as some sort of far left-leaning liberal. That wouldn't stop the Republicans from label him a far left-leaning liberal. Actually, Republicans went even further by calling Pres. Obama a secret muslim foreign born un-American social communist who is out to destroy America.

Pres. Obama was too chicken to go with public option or universal healthcare. Instead we have ObamaCare, a largely Republican idea. Republicans now calling ObamaCare, based largely on conservative ideas, a socialist idea.


So Pres. Obama went from being a promising liberal to a moderate. Mitt Romney went from a moderate to a far-right conservative.

Hmm.. who should a liberal vote for? A moderate or a far-right conservative.

[Shaddim]

Obama was bought and paid for, so was Romney, so was everyone. Except for Ron Paul, but he isn't completely sane. You aren't going to find anyone who will change the status quo. That's why national elections are a farce. If you want to see changes and make a difference, really focus on local and state races. If my councilman or state rep pisses me off, I go to their office and tell them, I've done it a number of times. Also, they're your neighbors and if they don't do their jobs you can lob water balloons at them when they drive by. Not that I make a habit of it, I've only done it once, but they got the message.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Obama was bought and paid for, so was Romney, so was everyone. Except for Ron Paul, but he isn't completely sane. You aren't going to find anyone who will change the status quo. That's why national elections are a farce. If you want to see changes and make a difference, really focus on local and state races. If my councilman or state rep pisses me off, I go to their office and tell them, I've done it a number of times. Also, they're your neighbors and if they don't do their jobs you can lob water balloons at them when they drive by. Not that I make a habit of it, I've only done it once, but they got the message.

I agree with you, but I kind of weigh this the opposite way. I see Obama and Romney as bought out, but fairly and relatively benign since they also have a little more incentive to make a difference in order to claim a positive political legacy. I see Congress as largely bought out, and overall less interested in being productive in making a difference, as you say. They also have a great deal of power in that they can render a president virtually powerless.

Therefore, same conclusion, but I perhaps have bigger grievances with state governments than you do.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree with this, but I disagree with your conclusion that this means that his supporters are sheep. I think this is right in some cases, but in other cases it is the notion that Romney wouldn't deliver on these things either due to Republican ideology. It sucks that the choices are between empty promises and disagreeable ideology, but it is what it is, I guess.

This has nothing to do with Romney, nothing at all. Obama talks but it doesn't mean anything, it's the "Fireside Chat" of this generation. He's been talking bullshit for 6+ years and it's made him one of the wealthy people that he claimed to be fighting against. Wake up, that's what he wanted all along.

So, yes, if you believed him, you're a sheep. The choices are: the rich white guy who has an obvious agenda, or the TV evangelist/known liar who only wants to be like the rich white guy. Choose your poison. I absolutely do not care either way, as long as the government is gridlocked I'm happy.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This has nothing to do with Romney, nothing at all. Obama talks but it doesn't mean anything, it's the "Fireside Chat" of this generation. He's been talking bullshit for 6+ years and it's made him one of the wealthy people that he claimed to be fighting against. Wake up, that's what he wanted all along.
So, yes, if you believed him, you're a sheep. The choices are: the rich white guy who has an obvious agenda, or the TV evangelist/known liar who only wants to be like the rich white guy. Choose your poison. I absolutely do not care either way, as long as the government is gridlocked I'm happy.

Aren't you also a sheep if you believe Romney?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Prove me wrong. Show me the error of my ways.

It's YOUR data. If YOU'RE going to present it, you should be aware of what it says. What is your source for this information? Before someone attempts to prove you wrong, why don't you try proving yourself right?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

(has spent more time on TV than the last three presidents combined)

Is this some kind of bad thing? For one thing, his predecessor was notoriously camera shy (let alone his VP).

[andi*pandi]

One might even say it was one of his goals, to be more transparent and accessable to the people than his predecessor.

(exceptions withstanding)

[kimosABE]

The Hill Poll: Voters say second term for Obama undeserved, country is worse off By Sheldon Alberts - 09/04/12 05:00 AM ET

A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.

Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.

Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247263-hill-poll-voters-think-second-term-undeserved

Those here who feel the country is better off than it was four years ago are in the minority.

Food-Stamp Use Climbs to Record, Reviving Campaign Issue

By Alan Bjerga September 04, 2012 2:24 PM EDT

Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million people in June, the government said, as Democrats prepare to nominate President Barack Obama for a second term with the economy as a chief issue in the campaign.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/food-stamp-use-climbed-to-record-46-7-million-in-june-u-s-says.html

[kimosABE]

$16,015,769,788,215.80 $5.4 trillion added under Obama.

Video: Debbie Wasserman Schultz lies to Fox News


The United States Treasury reports that the total public outstanding debt is: $16,015,769,788,215.80. This is the first time in American history debt has eclipsed the $16 trillion mark.

The debt has increased approximately $5.4 trillion since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

Here's a chart, from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee detailing the increase in national debt over the last dozen years:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1601576978821580_651649.html

[Chongo]

CNN Fact Check: About those 4.5 Million jobs

While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date.

According to a study released last week by the liberal-leaning National Employment Law Project, low-wage fields such as retail sales and food service are adding jobs nearly three times as fast as higher-paid occupations.

Conclusion:

The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession.

[The Final Dakar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_cr...eation_by_term

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Those here who feel the country is better off than it was four years ago are in the minority.

Not according to your poll here on MacNN.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Aren't you also a sheep if you believe Romney?

He's a rich white guy acting like rich white guy. You missed the part where I said he has an "obvious agenda"? Besides, I'm not voting for him either. Say what you want about him or his supporters, no skin off my nose. *shrug*

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is this some kind of bad thing? For one thing, his predecessor was notoriously camera shy (let alone his VP).

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

One might even say it was one of his goals, to be more transparent and accessable to the people than his predecessor.
(exceptions withstanding)

Let me try this again.

If you keep talking with someone, feeding them your "heart-felt condolences" every day, you can do, or not do, anything you want. It's a proven fact that folks believe what they hear. Especially when it's delivered with confidence by someone cloaked in the guise of authority. See, a successful canine shepherd constantly makes his presence known and keeps the flock aware of his voice and its different qualities. It's eerie, but before long they actually form a near-telepathic bond. He moves in and barks sharply, and they all tightly cluster together, he circles back to the perimeter and yips encouragingly, while staying in view, and they all spread out and graze. At that point, he's no longer their jailer, he's their protector, seeing and hearing him gives them comfort. The shepherd no longer has to chase stragglers, they rely on him, they won't munch a blade of grass or get a moment's sleep unless he gives his approval.


I normally don't give advice on the interweb, but right now I'll hand out the secret to success, completely free of charge*.

You want something? Express your will with perfect clarity. Stand up, speak and perform what you will, without flinching, and refuse to back down. Get knocked on your ass? Get back up. Someone bloody your nose? Wipe it off. Sure, you'll get hurt, you'll feel pain, your pride will get bruised. Bury it, none of that matters. After a while, you'll be tougher and stronger than you ever imagined, and your will becomes a physical force. Things that were unlikely become commonplace, basic desires no longer control you, and manipulation by others becomes impossible.

Commit completely and you'll either succeed or die, and the good news is that dying happens much less frequently nowadays. I know this is all elementary, and most everyone has heard it, but they don't apply it. Belief comes by hearing, will sharpens by application, and success follows focus. Do what you will.


93 93/93



(*minus possible telco and/or ISP charges)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Not according to your poll here on MacNN.

What if the respondents believe they're personally better off because they used to feel compelled to work for a living, but have come to find out they really don't have to?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is this some kind of bad thing? For one thing, his predecessor was notoriously camera shy (let alone his VP).

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

One might even say it was one of his goals, to be more transparent and accessable to the people than his predecessor.
(exceptions withstanding)

Let me try this again.

If you keep talking with someone, feeding them your "heart-felt condolences" every day, you can do, or not do, anything you want. It's a proven fact that folks believe what they hear. Especially when it's delivered with confidence by someone cloaked in the guise of authority. See, a successful canine shepherd constantly makes his presence known and keeps the flock aware of his voice and its different qualities. It's eerie, but before long they actually form a near-telepathic bond. He moves in and barks sharply, and they all tightly cluster together, he circles back to the perimeter and yips encouragingly, while staying in view, and they all spread out and graze. At that point, he's no longer their jailer, he's their protector, seeing and hearing him gives them comfort. The shepherd no longer has to chase stragglers, they rely on him, they won't munch a blade of grass or get a moment's sleep unless he gives his approval.


I normally don't give advice on the interweb, but right now I'll hand out the secret to success, completely free of charge*.

You want something? Express your will with perfect clarity. Stand up, speak and perform what you will, without flinching, and refuse to back down. Get knocked on your ass? Get back up. Someone bloody your nose? Wipe it off. Sure, you'll get hurt, you'll feel pain, your pride will get bruised. Bury it, none of that matters. After a while, you'll be tougher and stronger than you ever imagined, and your will becomes a physical force. Things that were unlikely become commonplace, basic desires no longer control you, and manipulation by others becomes impossible.

Commit completely and you'll either succeed or die, and the good news is that dying happens much less frequently nowadays. I know this is all elementary, and most everyone has heard it, but they don't apply it. Belief comes by hearing, will sharpens by application, and success follows focus. Do what you will.


93 93/93



(*minus possible telco and/or ISP charges)

Ahhhhhh. Thelema, right? 'Ol Aleister?

[The Final Dakar]

I think Mark Cuban sums up the basic logic pretty well.

http://blogmaverick.com/2012/09/05/a...rs-ago-part-1/

Everyone is going to answer that question differently based on their own personal situation. But what I can tell you as a business person trying to look at the big picture, I don’t remember 4 years ago as being a good time for business. As a starting point of reference, here is a reminder of what the stock market was going through in the fall of 2008

Out of the top 10 point declines in the Dow Industrials, 5 of them occurred in the fall of 2008

Oct 22nd 2008 514 pts 5.7pct
Oct 9th 2008 679 pts 7.3pct
Dec 1 2008 680pts 7.7pct
Oct 15th 2008 733 7.9pct
Sept 29th 2008 778 7pct

Is that what we liked better ?
I bring this up because I’m sick of slogan marketing of candidates. Four years ago we were worried about whether or not our financial system would fail. We were worried about whether the auto industry would fail. We were worried about whether or not housing would drop to zero and we were concerned with whether or not it would ever come back. We were concerned with what the bottom in job losses would be and whether or not there even was a bottom.

Four years ago we were looking around and describing our situation as “The Great Recession”. Just the fact that we are no longer saying “We are in the midst of a Great Recession” by definition means that as a country we are better off financially and psychologically than we were 4 years ago. Can we please put that slogan to bed already ?

(His bolding)

The rest of the post he indicts the current political process and criticizes Obama on a few issues.

[subego]

I don't really disagree with his observation, but I ultimately think the whole "are you better" argument is pretty spurious in recent contexts.

To put it another way, I'm not necessarily willing to pin how shitty things were in 2008 on the Republicans.

OTOH, Republicans are choosing to ask the question rhetorically as if it's providing insight. I can pin that on them.

[Chongo]

My tin foil antenna told me that the NWO crashed the market so McCain wouldn't win

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

My tin foil antenna told me that the NWO crashed the market so McCain wouldn't win

If anything, the crash should have worked in FAVOUR of a fiscal conservative platform. It's unfortunate that the Repuublicans decided to place such a strong focus in 2008 on social conservatism instead.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If anything, the crash should have worked in FAVOR of a fiscal conservative platform. It's unfortunate that the Republicans decided to place such a strong focus in 2008 on social conservatism instead.

McCain was ahead in the polls before the market was crashed.

The Democrats strong focus on tax payer funded abortion on demand up until birth and violating the 1st amendment, is a good thing? (throwing Jerusalem/G*d under the bus and the amendment vote and reaction as well)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

McCain was ahead in the polls before the market was crashed.

It could have been the crash that hurt his polling. The other thing that was happening at that time was Palin gaining steam, doubling down on many of her most over-the-top claims and taking over the campaign.

[Chongo]

What about the Democrats strong focus on tax payer funded abortion on demand up until birth, violating the 1st amendment, throwing Jerusalem/G*d under the bus, and the platform amendment vote/reaction? Good/bad?

[subego]

First Amendment?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What about the Democrats strong focus on tax payer funded abortion on demand up until birth, violating the 1st amendment, throwing Jerusalem/G*d under the bus, and the platform amendment vote/reaction? Good/bad?

What about the Republicans strong focus on tax payer funded killings of babies after birth, violating the 1st amendment, violating the 4th amendment, and violating the voter rights act? Good/bad?

[subego]

Where's the "unrelated" option?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What about the Republicans strong focus on tax payer funded killings of babies after birth, violating the 1st amendment, violating the 4th amendment, and violating the voter rights act? Good/bad?

You forgot polluting the air and water.


Allowing babies to die after failed abortions, violating the 1st amendment, indefinite detention, cutting $700+ billion dollars from Medicare etc is Obama's gig.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

23 Million Americans out of work.

Blame greedy American businesses, they are off shoring the work or automating the work. The drive for maximum profits means less workers

Another TRILLION dollars added to the national debt every year since he's been in office.

No comment on this one

The average annual family income is $4,000 lower than it was in 2008.

Again blame greedy American businesses, they are paying less and less to maximize profits. Consolidation of business through purchases, take overs and bankruptcies has produced less market capacity, less choice for consumer and worker and that has driven down wages.

The President breaks the law when he so chooses and no one can stop him.

This is typical of all US Presidents. Bush should have been arrested in Canada for war crimes but some how gets away with not being arrested.

The govenment can now tell you what you have to buy...a violation of our Constitutional right.

Um perhaps you thought you had a choice for Airbags and Seatbelts in your car. Government has been telling you what you had to buy for a very long time this isn't new.

The nightmare of socialized medicine.

You don't even know what socialized medicine is. Those TV ads you see about how bad it is, all garbage and lies. Ask some one who lives with "socialized" medicine for real opinions on it and what is preferred.

Slowly sliding down the slippery slope of Socialism.

Right.....

Small businesses deathly afraid of the new taxes Obama will levy in a second term.

Oh NO the idea of paying taxes oh my

A sinking economy, (think Greece)

That started with Bush

[/quote]
A President who will not be "restrained" by any impending elections and will then be able to make any kind of deal with Vladimir Putin he wants.
[/quote]

Huh?

A defense budget that is reduced by $500 Billion.

Could stand to lose even more then that

Someone who refuses to make a stand in the world for liberty and who makes allowances for our enemies and irritates or hinders our allies.

You dont know what liberty is. The World does not Want the US of A meddling in anywhere else. Seriously this is not a bad point this is a good point. Your kind is not wanted.

Someone who bows before Shieks and Kings but bannishes a bust of Churchill to the WH warehouse and has Benyamin Netanyahu wait unceremoniously in the basement until he can spare a moment to meet with him.

Benyamin Netanyahu is a idiot, should be arrested for stupidity. If I was the president I wouldn't bother with him either.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

throwing Jerusalem/God under the bus,

How was Jerusalem and God tossed under a bus.....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Blame greedy American businesses, they are off shoring the work or automating the work. The drive for maximum profits means less workers.

Can any entity, not driven by profits (life's blood of sustaining any entity) survive insolvency? That's the question. You either have a government that creates an environment more favorable to businesses or it will lose businesses to environments that are. Or, the government can do all the hiring and without the profit-motive will run amok in expenditure and face later cut-backs. Austerity, that's what you see and that has little to do with greedy businesses and everything to do with solvency.

No comment on this one

You wouldn't. Those expenditures are the cost of maintaining an expensive government.

Again blame greedy American businesses, they are paying less and less to maximize profits. Consolidation of business through purchases, take overs and bankruptcies has produced less market capacity, less choice for consumer and worker and that has driven down wages.

Poor Federal legislation has caused market uncertainty across the board. So much for the oversight authority of the Federal agencies we pay to enforce anti-trust. Not unlike the NHTSA waiting through 8 years of reports of Toyota's careening off the highway before action or the SEC asleep at the wheel during market meltdown, or the MMS in their wink-nod relationship with BP, or the FHA through housing crash, or... any other expensive bureacracy pedaled to the masses to address this travesty or that -- an apparent waste of money and only makes the ones willing to pay by the rules less apt to want to conduct business here.

This is typical of all US Presidents. Bush should have been arrested in Canada for war crimes but some how gets away with not being arrested.

Bush should've been arrested in Canada for war crimes? What types of war crimes has he committed that your own leadership wouldn't find itself behind bars or the current US Administration for that matter?

Um perhaps you thought you had a choice for Airbags and Seatbelts in your car. Government has been telling you what you had to buy for a very long time this isn't new.

Certainly you can appreciate how the two are not directly connected, but yes -- a desire for nanny-state legislation does create the environment for more nanny-state legislation and the line of limited government becomes more blurry.

You don't even know what socialized medicine is. Those TV ads you see about how bad it is, all garbage and lies. Ask some one who lives with "socialized" medicine for real opinions on it and what is preferred.

Ask a child who regularly receives free chocolate bars from their teacher what they think of their teacher. Otherwise, health care remains at the top of the list of voting concerns in Canada just as it does in the US. The Canadian Health Care system is not solvent and the incessant whining of your provinces for more money to keep up with increasing health care costs isn't fixing anything. It's hardly a revelation that people would come to love free sh!t.

Oh NO the idea of paying taxes oh my

Paying taxes is certainly necessary, but studies on jello wrestling in Antarctica is not. It's what they're spending the money on and how that bothers most taxpayers.

That started with Bush

Greece didn't start with Bush. Greece's financial disarray is not Bush's fault. You've been watching too many TV ads where virtually all the worlds ills can somehow be attributed back through Bush.

A President who will not be "restrained" by any impending elections and will then be able to make any kind of deal with Vladimir Putin he wants. Athens - Huh?

He's referring to Obama's open-mic gaffe with Medvedev regarding what Obama can't do until after the election... because they'd be so unpopular as to hurt his chances of reelection.

You dont know what liberty is. The World does not Want the US of A meddling in anywhere else. Seriously this is not a bad point this is a good point. Your kind is not wanted.

Your "kind"? That's an odd way to put it unless you're quoting from Star Wars. Is he the same "kind" as Netanyahu? I'll remember the world's distaste for US meddling when we're being accused of criminal negligence for not amassing our wealth of resources to address the human rights abuses and atrocities in this country or that.

Benyamin Netanyahu is a idiot, should be arrested for stupidity. If I was the president I wouldn't bother with him either.

Considering all of the dignitaries a President is responsible for visiting with, what is so idiotic about Netanyahu that Obama should not meet with him?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by kimosABE

23 Million Americans out of work.

Originally Posted by Athens

Blame greedy American businesses, they are off shoring the work or automating the work. The drive for maximum profits means less workers.

Can any entity, not driven by profits (life's blood of sustaining any entity) survive insolvency? That's the question. You either have a government that creates an environment more favorable to businesses or it will lose businesses to environments that are. Or, the government can do all the hiring and without the profit-motive will run amok in expenditure and face later cut-backs. Austerity, that's what you see and that has little to do with greedy businesses and everything to do with solvency.

I disagree.The only thing government did that poisoned the business environment was in action in a couple areas. Banking regulations and controls which allowed for the subprime mess and import duties on dissimilar countries.

Im actual for Milton Friedman true capitalistic and free market with some modifications and some limitations on some areas. One of them is import bans. The only way his concepts would work is if trade was done between similar economies. If Canada, UK, and the US went to true free markets then trade between the 3 markets would be viable with out given any one country a serious advantage (assuming laws where similar as well). But as long as you have states like China and India in the way of providing impossible disadvantages in trade, import rules need to be in place to protect American Jobs. The only other option is to allow for the same kind of labor market in the US that is in India to better compete. Thanks to globalization and modernization and the technology age we have lost more good paying jobs that can be created with new markets. Company greed has lead to jobs moving over seas into terrible conditions for workers. Large companies have taken over control over the government and use government to create even better slave markets out side of the US while inside the US prevent competition and create government sponsored minoplies. Has nothing to do with surviving insolvency.