PDA

View Full Version : General Politics How can Barry keep his job?


RedNeckRaider
06-06-2011, 03:13 PM
I posted a thread a while back asking who if anyone could beat him. Well it was rather bleak as far as those who felt he could be beat and the Barry fans rushed in to celebrate. Well 1 out of 7 in our country is on welfare. The bailouts have been failures. We still have unemployment at over 9% and that is using wacky math because it is way higher than that even counting the under employed. This administration has spent more than every other administration before combined and produced nothing but a debt that gives our GNP a run. We are looking at needing 100% taxation at the rate we are going. So I ask how it possible this (IMO) the worst president in the history of our country is the favorite going into this election?

Bob Dole
06-06-2011, 03:15 PM
I posted a thread a while back asking who if anyone could beat him. Well it was rather bleak as far as those who felt he could be beat and the Barry fans rushed in to celebrate. Well 1 out of 7 in our country is on welfare. The bailouts have been failures. We still have unemployment at over 9% and that is using wacky math because it is way higher than that even counting the under employed. This administration has spent more than every other administration before combined and produced nothing but a debt that gives our GNP a run. We are looking at needing 100% taxation at the rate we are going. So I ask how it possible this (IMO) the worst president in the history of our country the favorite going into this election?

Never watched the movie Idiocracy, eh?

RedNeckRaider
06-06-2011, 03:16 PM
Never watched the movie Idiocracy, eh?

No shit! My son and I joked about that the other day~

ROYC75
06-06-2011, 03:35 PM
The Liberal left, left and moderates still have "HOPE" in their minds and " CHANGE" in their pockets.

The rest of us in the world really "HOPE" we see " CHANGE" in the way our government is run.

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2011, 03:38 PM
I posted a thread a while back asking who if anyone could beat him. Well it was rather bleak as far as those who felt he could be beat and the Barry fans rushed in to celebrate. Well 1 out of 7 in our country is on welfare...

That pretty much assures that one in seven will vote for him no matter what else happens.

CrazyPhuD
06-06-2011, 03:42 PM
Well we still have a year left and things can change quite a bit before then. As I said in the other thread it's all about the economy. Still if paul or palin were the Republican nominees then even with a shitty economy it would still be a toss up that Obama could win.

RedNeckRaider
06-06-2011, 03:48 PM
That pretty much assures that one in seven will vote for him no matter what else happens.

Yeah pretty much~

KILLER_CLOWN
06-06-2011, 03:59 PM
That pretty much assures that one in seven will vote for him no matter what else happens.

I would think most of them would not be happy about it.

RedNeckRaider
06-06-2011, 04:01 PM
I would think most of them would not be happy about it.

I hope you are right as the burden is close to more than this country can bear~

Bewbies
06-06-2011, 04:03 PM
I don't see how he wins, everything is moving back into the wrong direction again, and that's really, really bad news for him.

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2011, 04:03 PM
I would think most of them would not be happy about it.

Perhaps not happy, but dependent and compliant.

Brainiac
06-06-2011, 04:14 PM
I'm not the first person to say this, but the reason Obama has a very good chance to win is because the Republican party is so fractured.

The extremists in the Republican party will refuse to support an electable candidate like Mitt Romney. He's not the "right" kind of Christian, and he'll have the albatross of Romneycare hanging around his neck. Never mind that Romneycare was an experiment in a single state: they'll refuse to see the difference between that and a federal mandate, and they'll refuse to acknowledge that Romney may have learned something from it.

The Tea Partiers will just pat each other on the back, complain about RINOs, and insist that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman is the answer. To them, it's all about abortion, gay marriage, and minimizing taxes.

The other set of extremists will insist that Ron Paul is going to win for sure this time, and that as soon as we abolish the Federal Reserve and immediately withdraw all of our troops all over the world, everything will magically fall into place.

They'll all be dumbfounded when Obama is re-elected, they'll complain bitterly about the stupidity of the American people, and it will never occur to them that they are their own worst enemy.

Otter
06-06-2011, 04:21 PM
I'm not the first person to say this, but the reason Obama has a very good chance to win is because the Republican party is so fractured.

The extremists in the Republican party will refuse to support an electable candidate like Mitt Romney. He's not the "right" kind of Christian, and he'll have the albatross of Romneycare hanging around his neck. Never mind that Romneycare was an experiment in a single state: they'll refuse to see the difference between that and a federal mandate, and they'll refuse to acknowledge that Romney may have learned something from it.

“If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states,” Romney wrote. “Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.” - Mitt Romney

He's making his position on ObamaCare pretty clear. He's got a good chance to win on this alone and I say damn good. Keep throwing bums out every four years until someone is elected that can steer the ship. Obama is in wayyyyy over his head. I dread to get another 4 years of that incompetent, liberal boob.

If nothing else it will let them know that voters are watching if they want a second term.

alpha_omega
06-06-2011, 04:22 PM
With the help of the complicit MSM.

vailpass
06-06-2011, 04:31 PM
He can pardon Jonathan Pollard and re-capture the Jew vote. I wouldn't put this past bum-**** barry at all.

|Zach|
06-06-2011, 04:33 PM
He can pardon Jonathan Pollard and re-capture the Jew vote. I wouldn't put this past bum-**** barry at all.

lol. It isn't Obama who needs the Hail Mary.

RedNeckRaider
06-06-2011, 04:36 PM
lol. It isn't Obama who needs the Hail Mary.

Lets leave religion out of this~

vailpass
06-06-2011, 04:36 PM
lol. It isn't Obama who needs the Hail Mary.

Was reading an article in the ultra-liberal Arizona Republic where a guest writer, who is a Jew, suggested obama might pardon Pollard in an attempt to recapture the Jew vote. Sais they have voted strongly Dem since Hoover in 1928.

What any of this has to do with a Hail Mary is beyond me. Are y ou implying obama has 2012 solidly in his grasp?

|Zach|
06-06-2011, 04:38 PM
Are y ou implying obama has 2012 solidly in his grasp?

At this point? Yes.

vailpass
06-06-2011, 04:41 PM
At this point? Yes.

You feel the Rs are so disjointed barry can get re-elected even with his horrible track record, the failing economy and high unemployment or do you see things improving soon?

FWIW I don't see anyone yet materialized to unseat barack carter but still believe someone can. It wouldn't take much. I'm very dissapointed with the party that used to be the Republican party.

|Zach|
06-06-2011, 04:44 PM
You feel the Rs are so disjointed barry can get re-elected even with his horrible track record, the failing economy and high unemployment or do you see things improving soon?

FWIW I don't see anyone yet materialized to unseat barack carter but still believe someone can. It wouldn't take much. I'm very dissapointed with the party that used to be the Republican party.

I disagree with the bolded statement. But it seems the Republicans don't even have that horribly low standard you set for them wrapped up in the word "much".

It is sort of like football. You can talk shit about the other team until the sun comes up. It is really easy to do when you haven't trotted out your own team with their own flaws.

FishingRod
06-06-2011, 05:02 PM
Never watched the movie Idiocracy, eh?

That movie could have been great. It had an excellent premise but it fell very short in my opinion.

FD
06-06-2011, 05:07 PM
This administration has spent more than every other administration before combined

What??

KILLER_CLOWN
06-06-2011, 05:11 PM
Romney=Obama in just about every way including his own version of Obamacare, i could care less that he's a mormon. We keep pushing the same guy dressed in a different suit and nothing will change until we elect someone with a track record of doing the right thing, ie Ron Paul.

CoMoChief
06-06-2011, 05:12 PM
Sadly, BO will probably get re-elected because the republicans don't have anyone worth a shit that can beat him, Gov. Christie refuses to run for POTUS' office, don't really know anyone that can defeat BO at this time.

Really it's like comparing 2 bowls of shit, though. BO is the worst president we've had in the past 30 or so years, and the conservatives have ****ed this country sideways the last 5-10 yrs. Even though there would NEVER be a chance of this happening, the American Governmental system needs a complete overhauling. Clean house, start new, new policies, no more lobbying, corporate sponsors on campaign ads, no more backroom deals, favors etc. Government has gotten incredibly too large for itself, and is too powerful.....it's gotten out of hand.

And to be honest, regardless of record, if you really wanna get rid of the problem, all of the current people in congress, courts, and the executive branch have to go. That's really the only way things are going to change. Bring jobs back to the US, abolish the fed reserve. Govt should have only a few objectives....maintaining infastructure (roads, bridges, etc) and national defense.

|Zach|
06-06-2011, 05:13 PM
What??

There were some info thrown out in the original post that seemed shaky but I don't have the time or inclination to check on it.

vailpass
06-06-2011, 05:14 PM
I disagree with the bolded statement. But it seems the Republicans don't even have that horribly low standard you set for them wrapped up in the word "much".

It is sort of like football. You can talk shit about the other team until the sun comes up. It is really easy to do when you haven't trotted out your own team with their own flaws.

By "it wouldn't take much" I a solid if not spectacular candidate would handlily dispatch obama if unemployment and the economy stay as they are now.
You are correct, it reflectes EXTREMELY poorly on the Rs that they can't field a candidate to knock down such low hanging fruit.

|Zach|
06-06-2011, 05:19 PM
By "it wouldn't take much" I a solid if not spectacular candidate would handlily dispatch obama if unemployment and the economy stay as they are now.
.

I don't understand the candidate it would take to bring that voting block together. That mix of retard palin-nites, true fiscal conservatives, and moderate right leaning every day folks.

Even if you could sit and hand pick some fantasy candidate I have no idea what that would look like.

vailpass
06-06-2011, 05:38 PM
I don't understand the candidate it would take to bring that voting block together. That mix of retard palin-nites, true fiscal conservatives, and moderate right leaning every day folks.

Even if you could sit and hand pick some fantasy candidate I have no idea what that would look like.

Given your objective point of view in your search for the unbiased truth I find it very puzzling that you can't understand.

|Zach|
06-06-2011, 05:54 PM
Given your objective point of view in your search for the unbiased truth I find it very puzzling that you can't understand.

Alrighty.

Brainiac
06-06-2011, 06:22 PM
Romney=Obama in just about every way including his own version of Obamacare, i could care less that he's a mormon. We keep pushing the same guy dressed in a different suit and nothing will change until we elect someone with a track record of doing the right thing, ie Ron Paul.
What exactly is Ron Paul's track record of doing the right thing? I know he wrote a book and has been a congressman for a long time, but what has he actually accomplished?

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2011, 06:52 PM
What exactly is Ron Paul's track record of doing the right thing? I know he wrote a book and has been a congressman for a long time, but what has he actually accomplished?

He's voted time after time against doing the wrong thing, even when that vote has accomplished nothing. I'll give the man credit for that.

JonesCrusher
06-06-2011, 08:11 PM
B.O. was a rockstar the last election, people wore his shirts and passed out in his presence, people really believed he was different. Will that be the same this election?

HonestChieffan
06-06-2011, 08:17 PM
People now struggle day to day out of work, homes dropping in value, food skyrocketing, gas out of sight, and Barak plays golf, jets about the globe, and says its all someone elses fault while they cook the books on every move he has made.

The rockstar is a falling star.

Doubt we hear "Happy Days are Here Again" at the demo convention.

dirk digler
06-06-2011, 08:55 PM
As others have stated the Republican field is a joke but there is a reason for that. All the heavy hitters are sitting out and are waiting for 2016. They probably know something some you don't, like their internal polls showing the POTUS is pretty popular even with all the shit going on.

Throw in the factor that the Republicans have 2 really hated Governors in Ohio and Florida will make those states good for the picking again.

One last thing, IIRC Obama polls at 70% or higher in personal likeability which unless he pulls a Weiner (no pun intended :D) will make him that much harder to beat.

Ugly Duck
06-06-2011, 08:56 PM
unless he pulls a Weiner (no pun intended :D)

Yeah, right.....




Amazing thing is that in spite of an atrocious economy the President's approval rating is so high. The only poll that has him behind is the Republican poll (imagine that):


.........................................Dates Approve Disapprove Change
RCP Average........................5/18 - 6/5 50.5 44.0 +6.5
Gallup .................................6/3 - 6/5 49 43 +6
Rasmussen Reports...............6/3 - 6/5 48 51 -3
Pew Research......................5/25 - 5/30 52 39 +13
CNN/Opinion Research...........5/24 - 5/26 54 45 +9
Democracy Corps..................5/21 - 5/25 49 45 +4
National Journal/FD................5/18 - 5/22 51 41 +10

durtyrute
06-06-2011, 09:04 PM
What difference will it make. Do you guys think whoever gets in there will do anything thats worth a damn? It's the same ol song and dance with different canidates, but somehow every election people act like they didn't just go through this shit the last time.

DJJasonp
06-06-2011, 09:29 PM
FTW....I'm an independent....that pretty much hates the left and right.

That said, I have a lefty friend at my work....who is Obot (or whatever you call obama loyalists)....anyways....I've had several conversations with her about all the promises he made and how he really is no different than his predecessors (watch "Inside Job" and see how many responsible for the wall st/housing debacle were reinstated by Obama)....

Her response in each of these discussions...."Well, now with new healthcare laws....my 19 yr old daughter can stay on my insurance".

That's it....that is all she can hang her hat on this administration.....but because her daughter has health insurance....it's an A+ rating for this administration from her!

I've asked her....and without a response....what would be the "last straw" that would overshadow her "insurance" card?

Funny how a president/politician can take a dump on the constitution, send taxpayer money to offshore banks, etc. etc.....but because ONE thing occurred that helped them personally......everything else is forgiven.

I just cant be that myopic.

mlyonsd
06-06-2011, 09:40 PM
Why would anyone run when the people holding the cards (congress) are still the same good old boy crowd? Until congress understands their jobs are seriously at stake nothing of great consequence will happen.

This country is heading for a deep hard heartache. Only when that happens does a person with real convictions stand up. On either side. One that can make their mandate stick. And it won't be spend more and tax the rich. That ship has sailed.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2011, 09:51 PM
The Liberal left, left and moderates still have "HOPE" in their minds and " CHANGE" in their pockets.

The rest of us in the world really "HOPE" we see " CHANGE" in the way our government is run.

Some moderates not all.

dirk digler
06-06-2011, 09:55 PM
Why would anyone run when the people holding the cards (congress) are still the same good old boy crowd? Until congress understands their jobs are seriously at stake nothing of great consequence will happen.



It is always going to be like that as long as there is no term limits.

The main reason why some candidates aren't going to run is because they know they can't win.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2011, 09:58 PM
What exactly is Ron Paul's track record of doing the right thing? I know he wrote a book and has been a congressman for a long time, but what has he actually accomplished?

He's got the heat on the Federal Reserve currently and they're scared. I mean he must be a threat if the Texas GOP is seeking to re-district his district so that he has more minorities and union voters in order to unseat him. The GOP leadership is very dirty and very corrupt. Even if he doesn't get the Fed abolished, it could lead to more oversight of it. That's still a good thing and an accomplishment.

His contribution is ideas, and he is changing some of the argumenst and even some of the things some Republicans, at least, are willing to discuss again—like how interventionist versus how humble our FP should really be. This is much more in line with traditional conservativism. So that's
the beginnings of some change inside the GOP. Of course there's still too many on the wrong side including in bed with big banks like Boehner.

Just because the MSM isn't reporting the shifts at the idea level that Paul is responsible for doesn't mean there isn't some things happening.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2011, 09:59 PM
It is always going to be like that as long as there is no term limits.

The main reason why some candidates aren't going to run is because they know they can't win.

I don't see term limits as a panacea. Nope.

dirk digler
06-06-2011, 10:02 PM
I don't see term limits as a panacea. Nope.

Why is that?

alanm
06-06-2011, 10:20 PM
FTW....I'm an independent....that pretty much hates the left and right.

That said, I have a lefty friend at my work....who is Obot (or whatever you call obama loyalists)....anyways....I've had several conversations with her about all the promises he made and how he really is no different than his predecessors (watch "Inside Job" and see how many responsible for the wall st/housing debacle were reinstated by Obama)....

Her response in each of these discussions...."Well, now with new healthcare laws....my 19 yr old daughter can stay on my insurance".

That's it....that is all she can hang her hat on this administration.....but because her daughter has health insurance....it's an A+ rating for this administration from her!

I've asked her....and without a response....what would be the "last straw" that would overshadow her "insurance" card?

Funny how a president/politician can take a dump on the constitution, send taxpayer money to offshore banks, etc. etc.....but because ONE thing occurred that helped them personally......everything else is forgiven.

I just cant be that myopic.What happens when your job decides to drop your insurance in the next couple of years?
Provided of course they give you a raise when you do so you can afford to go independent carrier if you choose to do so.

alnorth
06-07-2011, 08:24 AM
How can Obama win? In order of probability:

1) The GOP nominates an unelectable idiot.

2) The economy doesn't improve, but he never falls below about a dead heat in the polls, and Obama rolls up his sleeves and manages to beat an electable republican straight-up with the magic of his oratory skill.

3) The economy suddenly improves at the beginning of next year, launching him into a near-landslide regardless of his opponent.

RedNeckRaider
06-07-2011, 10:43 AM
People now struggle day to day out of work, homes dropping in value, food skyrocketing, gas out of sight, and Barak plays golf, jets about the globe, and says its all someone elses fault while they cook the books on every move he has made.

The rockstar is a falling star.

Doubt we hear "Happy Days are Here Again" at the demo convention.
The shocking stat to me is 1 out of every 7 on welfare. That is stunning to me. We had better do something fast or this country is going to fail. People act as if the government will figure it out and there is nothing to worry about. We print IOU’s to pay off IOU’s. The dollar is nothing more than a mirage and people are blind not to see the train wreck we are headed for. To pay off our debt every man woman and child would have to cough up around 50k. The situation we are in is absolutely terrifying to me~

ClevelandBronco
06-07-2011, 10:47 AM
The shocking stat to me is 1 out of every 7 on welfare. That is stunning to me. We had better do something fast or this country is going to fail. People act as if the government will figure it out and there is nothing to worry about. We print IOU’s to pay off IOU’s. The dollar is nothing more than a mirage and people are blind not to see the train wreck we are headed for. To pay off our debt every man woman and child would have to cough up around 50k. The situation we are in is absolutely terrifying to me~

I hope they're including those receiving "extended" unemployment benefits, which — I'll say it again — are really just welfare payments. If not, the one in seven figure might be understating the real number.

RedNeckRaider
06-07-2011, 11:06 AM
I hope they're including those receiving "extended" unemployment benefits, which — I'll say it again — are really just welfare payments. If not, the one in seven figure might be understating the real number.
It is and unemployment is not figured in to the number~

KC native
06-07-2011, 11:27 AM
He's got the heat on the Federal Reserve currently and they're scared. I mean he must be a threat if the Texas GOP is seeking to re-district his district so that he has more minorities and union voters in order to unseat him. The GOP leadership is very dirty and very corrupt. Even if he doesn't get the Fed abolished, it could lead to more oversight of it. That's still a good thing and an accomplishment.

His contribution is ideas, and he is changing some of the argumenst and even some of the things some Republicans, at least, are willing to discuss again—like how interventionist versus how humble our FP should really be. This is much more in line with traditional conservativism. So that's
the beginnings of some change inside the GOP. Of course there's still too many on the wrong side including in bed with big banks like Boehner.

Just because the MSM isn't reporting the shifts at the idea level that Paul is responsible for doesn't mean there isn't some things happening.

You are seriously deluded. The districts in Texas are being gerrymandered to reduce Hispanic influence on the elections. Second, the fed isn't worried about Ron Paul in the least. He can bloviate all he wants but we are not getting rid of our central bank.

Edit: ROFL @ the union member comment in Texas. Unions are almost nonexistent here with a possible exception for teachers.

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 11:33 AM
on paper i wouldn't mind voting republican when it comes to economic policies and big government reductions. but then they have to throw in the christian shit and it kinda falls apart

Amnorix
06-07-2011, 11:38 AM
I don't see how he wins, everything is moving back into the wrong direction again, and that's really, really bad news for him.

15 months before the election, right? That's a LONG time in politics. If the economy is trending the right way, especially unemployment, then that's a huge boost for the current Administration.

Amnorix
06-07-2011, 11:40 AM
The shocking stat to me is 1 out of every 7 on welfare. That is stunning to me. We had better do something fast or this country is going to fail. People act as if the government will figure it out and there is nothing to worry about. We print IOU’s to pay off IOU’s. The dollar is nothing more than a mirage and people are blind not to see the train wreck we are headed for. To pay off our debt every man woman and child would have to cough up around 50k. The situation we are in is absolutely terrifying to me~

What's the definition of "welfare" here in this calculation, that's the key.

RedNeckRaider
06-07-2011, 11:43 AM
What's the definition of "welfare" here in this calculation, that's the key.

“Food assistance”

vailpass
06-07-2011, 11:49 AM
The shocking stat to me is 1 out of every 7 on welfare. That is stunning to me. We had better do something fast or this country is going to fail. People act as if the government will figure it out and there is nothing to worry about. We print IOU’s to pay off IOU’s. The dollar is nothing more than a mirage and people are blind not to see the train wreck we are headed for. To pay off our debt every man woman and child would have to cough up around 50k. The situation we are in is absolutely terrifying to me~

X2. Scary state of affairs for the following generations.

ChiefsCountry
06-07-2011, 12:11 PM
X2. Scary state of affairs for the following generations.

Tell me about it. Now if my generation can get their head out of Obama's ass and see the right way it would be even better.

Amnorix
06-07-2011, 12:12 PM
“Food assistance”

cite/support?

Edit: Never mind, found it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/03/about-1-in-7-americans-receive-food-stamps/

Wow, that's ugly. A fair bit of it seems tied to the high unemployment figure, but still, that's a problem.

ROYC75
06-07-2011, 12:22 PM
How can Barry keep his job?


Continue to lie and deflect.
Tell the people how bad it really was after getting in office.
It wasn't his fault.
The European market is part of the problem.
The Japan earthquake is part of the problem.
Gas prices too high.
No jobs.

etc
etc
etc


Rinse & repeat.

Hey, he's used these excesses so far and it's working. (If it isn't broke, don't fix it. )

I really hope the American people wake up and see the crash that is coming with this POTUS and his staff is speeding towards.

ROYC75
06-07-2011, 12:25 PM
15 months before the election, right? That's a LONG time in politics. If the economy is trending the right way, especially unemployment, then that's a huge boost for the current Administration.

Ironically, yes it is, he's an incumbent. They are hard to beat if the economy is trending in the right direction.

But if the whole body of his work is taken into account, it's hard to vote for him.

ROYC75
06-07-2011, 12:27 PM
on paper i wouldn't mind voting republican when it comes to economic policies and big government reductions. but then they have to throw in the christian shit and it kinda falls apart

The stability of the government should always trump this topic when you select a POTUS. If you vote for Obama because of this, you are putting ideologue above the country's needs.

The_Doctor10
06-07-2011, 12:31 PM
I don't think Barrack Obama has done nearly as good a job as he was in a position to do after he was elected. The hope and change really haven't materialized, and it seems like business as usual.

He'll probably win because the Republicans can't get their shit together by selecting a reasonable candidate. Obama is PRAYING that Palin or Rand Paul gets the nomination; he barely needs to campaign if they run against him; he just needs to let the media pounce on the many fuckups they inevitably have.

Now, if the Republicans nominated someone who was a legitimate fiscal conservative who had the good sense to admit that evolution exists and said point blank he doesn't give a shit about boys kissing, then they might actually stand a chance. But Republicans have done this to themselves, and the way they've run things since the midterms and in states like Wisconsin haven't helped their national image.

vailpass
06-07-2011, 12:32 PM
cite/support?

Edit: Never mind, found it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/03/about-1-in-7-americans-receive-food-stamps/

Wow, that's ugly. A fair bit of it seems tied to the high unemployment figure, but still, that's a problem.

A huge problem and one of the reasons we in the border states are pleading for a solution to the illegals who make up part of that number. The burden on all states is becoming too much to bear; its time to cut the rolls.

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 12:46 PM
The stability of the government should always trump this topic when you select a POTUS. If you vote for Obama because of this, you are putting idea log above the country's needs.

i agree, but its the people on the right that put it ahead of whats really important to me

ClevelandBronco
06-07-2011, 12:48 PM
i agree, but its the people on the right that put it ahead of whats really important to me

Hey, everybody on the right: a leftist wants to join temporarily. Quit acting in ways that scare him.

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 12:55 PM
it doesnt scare me but it is costing the republican party millions of votes im sure

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 01:02 PM
i wouldnt call myself a leftist either. like i said, i tend to agree with the basic principles like lower taxes, less government, stronger personal liberties (i own several guns) but then they choose to make abortion, stem cell research, evolution, anti-drug laws, anti-gay marriage the key topics and it leaves a bad taste. not to mention it seems to contradict many of the stronger civil liberties that they try so hard to fight for in the first place.

alnorth
06-07-2011, 01:16 PM
The stability of the government should always trump this topic when you select a POTUS. If you vote for Obama because of this, you are putting ideologue above the country's needs.

well, lets not go to hyperbole. We have a liberal president and a divided congress with a bad economy, and we recently had some major reforms passed, this time in health care. Its happened before.

The "stability of the government" is not in danger. I know the radio talk show hosts all talk about the End of Days if (insert name of democrat here) wins, but that is complete nonsense.

It is absolutely legitimate for someone to vote on social issues ahead of fiscal issues. My priorities are a little different, but the GOP absolutely loses votes and occasionally elections because of the social christian nut wing of the party.

RedNeckRaider
06-07-2011, 01:27 PM
cite/support?

Edit: Never mind, found it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/03/about-1-in-7-americans-receive-food-stamps/

Wow, that's ugly. A fair bit of it seems tied to the high unemployment figure, but still, that's a problem.

I was honestly shocked by this along with the math per person to pay our national debt. I am honestly concerned about this country going into a full blown bottom falling out depression. Many people seem oblivious to the dire situation we are in. I’m certain we need a change in leadership and wish there was a candidate out there that I had faith in. At this point I’m willing to settle for anyone who will seriously take steps to cut spending. We need much less government as it has grown into a huge incompetent and corrupt monster that has an insatiable appetite for power and spending. The GOP has morphed into the tea party and I am sorry I just don’t buy it. After having their ass handed to them by what amounts to an American idol candidate they scrambled to regroup. What appeared to me to be a huge group of people that are sick of both parties suddenly was swallowed by the republican party. Maybe the leopard has changed its spots we will see~

patteeu
06-07-2011, 01:54 PM
on paper i wouldn't mind voting republican when it comes to economic policies and big government reductions. but then they have to throw in the christian shit and it kinda falls apart

What are some examples of "christian shit" that Republicans in the Federal government have succeeded in the passing over the last couple of decades? The only things I can think of are laws that seek to prevent federal funding of abortions and some types of embryonic stem cell research (the latter having been reversed by the Obama administration). Are those small steps toward the christian idea of morality really enough to turn you away from the economic and small government ideas that you find attractive?

Edit: Oh, I forgot DOMA. But then, it's forgettable because it's done almost nothing to slow down the inevitable advance of gay marriage. The bottom line is that there's a lot of talk about Christian values, but it's mostly just lip service. There aren't enough devout social conservatives to make sweeping changes.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 02:02 PM
i wouldnt call myself a leftist either. like i said, i tend to agree with the basic principles like lower taxes, less government, stronger personal liberties (i own several guns) but then they choose to make abortion, stem cell research, evolution, anti-drug laws, anti-gay marriage the key topics and it leaves a bad taste. not to mention it seems to contradict many of the stronger civil liberties that they try so hard to fight for in the first place.

This sounds more like an emotional response to rhetoric than a response to what Republicans actually do. What's happened with evolution? What did Obama and his democratically controlled Congress do about drug laws or gay marriage? Other than DOMA and a very mild restriction on embryonic stem cell research, what did Bush and his Republican controlled Congress do to fulfill the wishes of social conservatives? The answer to all of these questions is either "nothing" or "very little".

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 02:31 PM
The bottom line is that there's a lot of talk about Christian values, but it's mostly just lip service. There aren't enough devout social conservatives to make sweeping changes.

so what you're saying is republicans say stuff that they don't really mean.

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 02:34 PM
This sounds more like an emotional response to rhetoric than a response to what Republicans actually do. What's happened with evolution? What did Obama and his democratically controlled Congress do about drug laws or gay marriage? Other than DOMA and a very mild restriction on embryonic stem cell research, what did Bush and his Republican controlled Congress do to fulfill the wishes of social conservatives? The answer to all of these questions is either "nothing" or "very little".

maybe its just me but it appears that inserting their own moral causes seems to be at the top of the republican priority list. perhaps it is all just bs, but it's bs that i dont like.

why can't there be a republican who happens to be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-stem cell research? i'd probably vote for that guy

patteeu
06-07-2011, 02:41 PM
so what you're saying is republicans say stuff that they don't really mean.

Yeah, just like democrats. What I'm really saying is that you're hung up on some pretty meaningless nonsense.

ClevelandBronco
06-07-2011, 02:47 PM
maybe its just me but it appears that inserting their own moral causes seems to be at the top of the republican priority list. perhaps it is all just bs, but it's bs that i dont like.

why can't there be a republican who happens to be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-stem cell research? i'd probably vote for that guy

That's great, but a considerable fraction of Republicans wouldn't. Gaining your vote probably isn't worth losing the election.

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 02:47 PM
What are some examples of "christian shit" that Republicans in the Federal government have succeeded in the passing over the last couple of decades? The only things I can think of are laws that seek to prevent federal funding of abortions and some types of embryonic stem cell research (the latter having been reversed by the Obama administration). Are those small steps toward the christian idea of morality really enough to turn you away from the economic and small government ideas that you find attractive?

Edit: Oh, I forgot DOMA. But then, it's forgettable because it's done almost nothing to slow down the inevitable advance of gay marriage. The bottom line is that there's a lot of talk about Christian values, but it's mostly just lip service. There aren't enough devout social conservatives to make sweeping changes.

Don't forget the UIGEA....playing poker online in your own home with your own hard earned money is evil. Children will be corrupted and the moral fiber of this nation will be torn asunder. Focus on the Family says so.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 02:48 PM
maybe its just me but it appears that inserting their own moral causes seems to be at the top of the republican priority list. perhaps it is all just bs, but it's bs that i dont like.

why can't there be a republican who happens to be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-stem cell research? i'd probably vote for that guy

Don't bother telling us how much you are attracted to Republican economic positions if your vote is entirely dependent on social issue concerns. It's like saying that you sure like Mitt Romney's hair and if he'd agree with you on all the issues that are important to you you'd vote for him.

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 02:49 PM
That's great, but a considerable fraction of Republicans wouldn't. Gaining your vote probably isn't worth losing the election.

its a shame because i believe that "considerable fraction" is moving the party farther and farther away from the majority.

ClevelandBronco
06-07-2011, 02:52 PM
its a shame because i believe that "considerable fraction" is moving the party farther and farther away from the majority.

Crazy fuckers trying to do the thing they think is best.

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 02:52 PM
Don't bother telling us how much you are attracted to Republican economic positions if your vote is entirely dependent on social issue concerns. It's like saying that you sure like Mitt Romney's hair and if he'd agree with you on all the issues that are important to you you'd vote for him.

its not entirely dependent at all. but how come there are no republicans like that which i described? obviously these social issues must be pretty important to the party if there isn't one prominent person who disagrees with them.

ClevelandBronco
06-07-2011, 02:55 PM
its not entirely dependent at all. but how come there are no republicans like that which i described? obviously these social issues must be pretty important to the party if there isn't one prominent person who disagrees with them.

There are unquestionably Republicans like that. They're the guys who can't get nominated because there's very little chance they can win.

Except in California and New England and shit.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 02:57 PM
Don't forget the UIGEA....playing poker online in your own home with your own hard earned money is evil. Children will be corrupted and the moral fiber of this nation will be torn asunder. Focus on the Family says so.

Yeah, that one slipped under my radar it was so important. And btw, it appears to have passed with almost unanimous support from democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006).

L.A. Chieffan
06-07-2011, 03:03 PM
that UIGEA bill is a prefect example. there should be zero laws to gambling online, this seems like it would be a republican viewpoint from the standpoint of civil liberties. however the moral standpoint won out anyways.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:07 PM
its not entirely dependent at all. but how come there are no republicans like that which i described? obviously these social issues must be pretty important to the party if there isn't one prominent person who disagrees with them.

There are many prominent people who disagree with them. Is Dick Cheney prominent? He supports gay marriage. Is Rudy Guiliani prominent? He's said that while he personally opposes abortion, he favors letting women decide. There are many prominent Republicans who support the idea that the states should each decide on the abortion and gay marriage issues. Are George W. Bush and Orrin Hatch prominent? Orrin Hatch was an advocate of embryonic stem cell research and GWBush favored limited federal funding of such research.

Given the evidence, if your decision isn't entirely based on social issues, it's at least based on a misunderstanding of the positions of various candidates on those social issues.

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 03:10 PM
Yeah, that one slipped under my radar it was so important. And btw, it appears to have passed with almost unanimous support from democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006).

It was slipped in by Bill Frist and attached to a must pass piece of legislation, regarding port security if I recall, so it was not voted on on its own merits. Hell, most Republicans even oppose online poker (poker, a game of skill, not horse racing or gambling or online slots, etc.) in a scenario where it can be taxed and regulated, which would enhance government revenues. What sense does that make, given our current fiscal situation?

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:10 PM
that UIGEA bill is a prefect example. there should be zero laws to gambling online, this seems like it would be a republican viewpoint from the standpoint of civil liberties. however the moral standpoint won out anyways.

And it was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by a vote of 409-2 in the House. Why do you blame Republicans for that?

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:13 PM
It was slipped in by Bill Frist and attached to a must pass piece of legislation, regarding port security if I recall, so it was not voted on on its own merits. Hell, most Republicans even oppose online poker (poker, a game of skill, not horse racing or gambling or online slots, etc.) in a scenario where it can be taxed and regulated, which would enhance government revenues. What sense does that make, given our current fiscal situation?

I'm not endorsing the ban, but it's pretty small potatoes if you ask me. It's certainly not the kind of thing I base my choice for POTUS on. I'll vote for the biggest advocate of banning internet gambling or the biggest supporter of internet gambling if they're right on most economic and foreign policy issues. I'm certainly not going to vote for a Barack Obama's economic agenda or a Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda just because they got internet gambling right (whatever "right" might be).

that UIGEA bill is a prefect example. there should be zero laws to gambling online, this seems like it would be a republican viewpoint from the standpoint of civil liberties. however the moral standpoint won out anyways.

In my opinion, it's a perfect example of making a mountain out of a molehill. Or, alternatively, of finding an excuse not to vote for the economic policies that you say you prefer.

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 03:14 PM
And it was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by a vote of 409-2 in the House. Why do you blame Republicans for that?

Because of the backdoor way the Republicans attached it to "must-pass" legislation. A vote against the port security bill was viewed by and large as a vote to weaken the security of the United States. Now I like to play poker as much as the next guy, but do you think anyone would really put the security of the country at risk? The R's knew this, and they also knew it would not stand on its own merits, so they snuck it in a back door. The D's do that all the time....just look at health care. The R's played by the rules and got the law they wanted, even though it would not stand up to an up or down vote by itself. Sound familiar?

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 03:16 PM
I'm not endorsing the ban, but it's pretty small potatoes if you ask me. It's certainly not the kind of thing I base my choice for POTUS on. I'll vote for the biggest advocate of banning internet gambling or the biggest supporter of internet gambling if they're right on most economic and foreign policy issues. I'm certainly not going to vote for a Barack Obama's economic agenda or a Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda just because they got internet gambling right (whatever "right" might be).

For the record, I am not, and would not encourage anyone to base their vote for POTUS on this one issue. But it is a one instance where the religious right flexed their muscle within the Republican party and got what they wanted.

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 03:17 PM
I'm not endorsing the ban, but it's pretty small potatoes if you ask me. It's certainly not the kind of thing I base my choice for POTUS on. I'll vote for the biggest advocate of banning internet gambling or the biggest supporter of internet gambling if they're right on most economic and foreign policy issues. I'm certainly not going to vote for a Barack Obama's economic agenda or a Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda just because they got internet gambling right (whatever "right" might be).



In my opinion, it's a perfect example of making a mountain out of a molehill. Or, alternatively, of finding an excuse not to vote for the economic policies that you say you prefer.

Also, the deterioration of freedom usually starts with the small potatoes, for what it is worth.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:18 PM
Because of the backdoor way the Republicans attached it to "must-pass" legislation. A vote against the port security bill was viewed by and large as a vote to weaken the security of the United States. Now I like to play poker as much as the next guy, but do you think anyone would really put the security of the country at risk? The R's knew this, and they also knew it would not stand on its own merits, so they snuck it in a back door. The D's do that all the time....just look at health care. The R's played by the rules and got the law they wanted, even though it would not stand up to an up or down vote by itself. Sound familiar?

The democrats had 2 years of control (more than 1 year of filibuster-proof control) of Congress and the WH, but they didn't bother to reverse this travesty. They're either just as blameworthy as Republicans for destroying our internet gambling freedoms or they agree with me that it's a pretty trivial issue at the moment.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:19 PM
Also, the deterioration of freedom usually starts with the small potatoes, for what it is worth.

That sounds like what a "true conservative" might say as he insisted that Ron Paul be elected POTUS or he'd take his vote and go home.

I've heard of one issue voters before, but basing your vote on internet gambling seems pretty ridiculous to me even if it represents what might be the leading edge of a total loss of all freedom.

Edit: I realize you're probably not a one issue voter of the type I've described above, but if that's right I'm not sure what your argument is.

Saul Good
06-07-2011, 03:21 PM
For the record, I am not, and would not encourage anyone to base their vote for POTUS on this one issue. But it is a one instance where the religious right flexed their muscle within the Republican party and got what they wanted.

So when the far right gets thrown a bone, internet gambling remains illegal. When the far left does, we don't get to drill for oil. Is that a push?

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:32 PM
I don't see how he wins, everything is moving back into the wrong direction again, and that's really, really bad news for him.Do you think Obama will get the Democrat nomination this time?

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:33 PM
I'm not the first person to say this, but the reason Obama has a very good chance to win is because the Republican party is so fractured.

The extremists in the Republican party will refuse to support an electable candidate like Mitt Romney. He's not the "right" kind of Christian, and he'll have the albatross of Romneycare hanging around his neck. Never mind that Romneycare was an experiment in a single state: they'll refuse to see the difference between that and a federal mandate, and they'll refuse to acknowledge that Romney may have learned something from it.

The Tea Partiers will just pat each other on the back, complain about RINOs, and insist that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman is the answer. To them, it's all about abortion, gay marriage, and minimizing taxes.

The other set of extremists will insist that Ron Paul is going to win for sure this time, and that as soon as we abolish the Federal Reserve and immediately withdraw all of our troops all over the world, everything will magically fall into place.

They'll all be dumbfounded when Obama is re-elected, they'll complain bitterly about the stupidity of the American people, and it will never occur to them that they are their own worst enemy.You are wrong.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:35 PM
It's all about the economy stupid. That is all anyone on the republican side is going to talk about. I doubt you will hear anything about abortion in this campaign. Funny thing lately, the only people talking about abortion are left wingers.

RedNeckRaider
06-07-2011, 03:37 PM
Do you think Obama will get the Democrat nomination this time?

I get jokes~

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 03:43 PM
The democrats had 2 years of control (more than 1 year of filibuster-proof control) of Congress and the WH, but they didn't bother to reverse this travesty. They're either just as blameworthy as Republicans for destroying our internet gambling freedoms or they agree with me that it's a pretty trivial issue at the moment.

I blame Democrats as well, make no mistake on that. Barney Frank has done very little good in his time in Congress, but I will giving him credit for trying to pass a bill when he was the committee chairman.

Look, I ain't trying to slam the R's, or to say one should not vote that way....but I do think that the party has some issues it needs to deal with. The ultra-social conservatives have to be willing to endorse someone whom they only agree with 80% of the time if we want Obama out. I like Michele Bachmann in general, although I do disagree with her on gambling. (I lived in the Twin Cities for about ten years, and while we lived close to her congressional district, we were not it in it, so I could not vote for her...but I would have if I could. You would too if you saw some of the crazy liberals they have run for Congress up there).

The prevailing perception of many is that the ultra-social conservatives will not vote for anyone they don't agree with 99.9% of the time, and I think that line of thinking is going to lead to defeat. Social issues need to be put on the back burner....the economy and getting this country back on its feet need to be in the forefront.

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 03:44 PM
So when the far right gets thrown a bone, internet gambling remains illegal. When the far left does, we don't get to drill for oil. Is that a push?

I guess....it is a push that frankly screws us all. I would just assume have internet gambling...and drill for oil like there is no tomorrow.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:52 PM
Look, I ain't trying to slam the R's, or to say one should not vote that way....but I do think that the party has some issues it needs to deal with. The ultra-social conservatives have to be willing to endorse someone whom they only agree with 80% of the time if we want Obama out. I like Michele Bachmann in general, although I do disagree with her on gambling. (I lived in the Twin Cities for about ten years, and while we lived close to her congressional district, we were not it in it, so I could not vote for her...but I would have if I could. You would too if you saw some of the crazy liberals they have run for Congress up there).

The prevailing perception of many is that the ultra-social conservatives will not vote for anyone they don't agree with 99.9% of the time, and I think that line of thinking is going to lead to defeat. Social issues need to be put on the back burner....the economy and getting this country back on its feet need to be in the forefront.

We're in lockstep on all of that. I have a lot of differences with social conservatives, from gay marriage to the war on drugs to bans on internet gambling, but this is no time to hold out for a 100% candidate. I'd gladly vote for a candidate who is "wrong" on all of those issues if I agree with 80% of their economic and foreign policy issues. Maybe even less than 80% given the alternative.

vailpass
06-07-2011, 04:01 PM
For the record, I am not, and would not encourage anyone to base their vote for POTUS on this one issue. But it is a one instance where the religious right flexed their muscle within the Republican party and got what they wanted.

You think religion is the only faction that doesn't want online gambling? Seriously?

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 04:04 PM
You think religion is the only faction that doesn't want online gambling? Seriously?

Religion is not the only faction, but they are the most vocal, and the most powerful of the factions. Focus on the Family spent major $ and political capital to get this done. Also, among those that oppose, the religious ones are the ones that have voiced no desire to compromise. Most of the other factions (those wanting to protect Brick and Mortar facilities, Indian Gaming, etc.) are willing to endorse the concept of online gaming if the right bill comes along.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 04:08 PM
We're in lockstep on all of that. I have a lot of differences with social conservatives, from gay marriage to the war on drugs to bans on internet gambling, but this is no time to hold out for a 100% candidate. I'd gladly vote for a candidate who is "wrong" on all of those issues if I agree with 80% of their economic and foreign policy issues. Maybe even less than 80% given the alternative.You see, the media and the Liberal machine would have us pick a candidate that is liberal on social issues, and make deals with the liberals on economic and foreign policy.

So the stress the social issues to try to divide us. They succedded by picking that piece of shit McCain. What I find most offensive by the whole process of picking a nominee, is that a half a dozen corn shuckers, and 2 dozen pedigreed yankees in NH get to pick, the rest of us had better get in line.

Saul Good
06-08-2011, 07:36 AM
I guess....it is a push that frankly screws us all. I would just assume have internet gambling...and drill for oil like there is no tomorrow.

So, in your view, internet gambling and drilling for oil are of equal importance?

go bowe
06-08-2011, 10:42 AM
So, in your view, internet gambling and drilling for oil are of equal importance?

well, i think that internet gambling is far more impoprtant than drilling for oil...

my son used to enjoy internet gambling and then they took it away, causing grief and general distress...

not drilling for oil hasn't affected him yet...

besides, you can win at gambling while drilling won't solve our energy problems...

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2011, 10:53 AM
well, i think that internet gambling is far more impoprtant than drilling for oil...

my son used to enjoy internet gambling and then they took it away, causing grief and general distress...

not drilling for oil hasn't affected him yet...

besides, you can win at gambling while drilling won't solve our energy problems...

You are right because of our inability to process crude. It would take 10 to 15 years to be able to...the same thing people were saying around 10 or 15 years ago~

ROYC75
06-08-2011, 11:31 AM
You are right because of our inability to process crude. It would take 10 to 15 years to be able to...the same thing people were saying around 10 or 15 years ago~

I said back in the late 70's when the oilfield boom really tailed off, gas was going to go through the roof. To be honest, it slowed down 50% in the late 60's, then the late 70's we had the gas wars due then we can thank OPEC for shooting us.

We got what we deserved ....... Now look at the shape we are in.

mnchiefsguy
06-08-2011, 03:35 PM
So, in your view, internet gambling and drilling for oil are of equal importance?

I do not think they are of equal importance, but I think that prohibiting both screw us. If I had to pick one to restart, I would pick drilling for oil first. I think both internet gambling and oil drilling would have an effect on tax revenue and the economy, but their is no doubt that drilling for oil would have a much larger and much more immediate impact.

Barak Obuttocks
06-17-2011, 06:30 AM
Michelle and I want to bring a fresh, alive new attitude to the White House, where hip hosts invite in rapper poets bold enough to urge that action be taken against racist police and George Bush. In this regard, I will be meeting more Americans from every walk of life on the golf links than any past American president, and Michelle will be reminding Americans of the great vacation opportunities that they need to explore in Costa del Sol, Martha’s Vineyard, and Vail. America, under my leadership, once more will be a downright kind country!

Chief Faithful
06-17-2011, 01:25 PM
I still haven't figured out how America could elect this guy the first time.

durtyrute
06-17-2011, 01:33 PM
Save the world from the boogieman