- Joined
- Jul 1, 2009
- Messages
- 297
- Reaction score
- 194
- Location
- Texas, the coastal bend
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Obama would slaughter Newt.
That's a ridiculous assertion to make. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Obama would slaughter Newt.
You really think the right would support a guy who pushed for universal health care in his state
You liberals don't get it. The fact that so many of you like Romney and Huntsman is the very reason why neither will win the nomination. Both are barely conservative when you take into consideration the totality of their policies.
Really? You think Conservatives would come out in droves to vote for a man with no character who cheated on his wife?Obama would slaughter Newt.
That's a ridiculous assertion to make. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Really? You think Conservatives would come out in droves to vote for a man with no character who cheated on his wife?
You liberals don't get it. The fact that so many of you like Romney and Huntsman is the very reason why neither will win the nomination. Both are barely conservative when you take into consideration the totality of their policies. With that said, any republican will beat BO, even these guys since the repubs will go to the polls in huge numbers.....many holding their noses closed when they vote.
He repeatedly calls me a political hack, I tell him his comments aren't working and you flag me. Really?
Moderator's Warning: |
Reminder, do not comment on moderator actions. If you disagree with a mod action, use PM's, the Contact Us button, or Binky. |
That would be a "yes," Conservatives would come out in droves to vote for a man with no character who cheated on his wife.No, but I bet they'll come out in droves to vote against a man that has repeatedly exhibited his willingness to do harm to the country and it's citizens.
The last president was very conservative
Highly arguable, and if you go by the requirements of how many liberals attempt to proclaim Obama as simply being a "moderate" and not even a liberal then there'd be no argument at all.
Your second paragraph says it all Rob. That really is what our main political system has come down to.From a social conservative vantage Bush was all that and a bag of chips. Fiscally, he spoke the game of one but only provided the tax cuts and no spending cuts. Actually increased spending. Obama however, if he were to actually put some regulations and/or restrictions or taxes on derivatives or wall street speculation in one way or another I'd look at him more as a liberal. But his not doing that along with his war policies, kind of keeps him in the hawkish and more conservative stance for my tastes.
To me it all looks like two former parties racing, not to the center, but off the political line into corporatist territory. Both seeing who can get the biggest fund raising bucks from the exact same sources. Along with securing lobbying jobs for themselves and/or family. It's all rather disgusting.
At best: under Obama our economic downturn has only stagnated . . . "Our shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as we thought - laugh laugh" :shrug:
He did get through his Obama Care - but woopie - how are people suppose to be able to cover insurance when they don't even have a job?
You guys are putting Obama on some sort of a pedestal as if he's golden boy of the century or something - I don't get it. The guys an idiot and he's continually proven himself as such. If you don't think that's quite true you can't deny he's made little positive progress in anything he's put his foot in since his presidency began. He's more of a figurative head like the Queen of England.
Look: brain for brain - Newt dominates Obama in many ways: overall political savvy and knowledge, a long track record of getting things done when he sets his mind to it, a solid and unmoving knowledge of the economy and how it works. . . and so forth.
Between these two - Newt is superior - Obama could learn a thing or two. . . and apparently so could a lot of people - if they'd listen to the guy for two seconds. And when people instantly bash him with their personal bias it really shows that they don't follow Newt's progress in politics *at all* and know nothing about his knowledge and experience.
He - of all the nominees on that side this year - is the only solid individual who has a proven history of making significant change and a clean ability to comprehend politics, our economy and how to fix problems. . . Thinking back to when things crashed in 2008 - he was the only figure out there who understood how and why things happened and had good solutions and wasn't afraid to criticize Bush and Obama both for their inabilities and failures while citing - not only - what they've done wrong but what they should do right instead.
The budget got balanced?Newt did manage to get himself run out of the House of Representatives. And what exactly has he gotten done in the last 20 years? Other than promote Newt? Can you say nothing?
The budget got balanced?
I voted for Obama. He has done pretty good given the horrible economic crisis handed to him by Bush and the repubs. I am very distrustful of the repubs, since they got the US in an expensive war in Iraq we did not need to fight, they blew up the housing bubble and they failed to regulate the banking environment adequately to prevent the solvency crisis in the banks. Then they passed medicare prescription drug coverage that now costs us $70 billion a year without ANY tax to pay for it, while the law requires medicare to pay LIST PRICE for the drugs.
.
Right, the budget got balanced thanks to spending cuts and tax hikes, which Newt opposed, and because of the dotcom bubble. But the question was, what has Newt done in the *LAST* 20 years except endlessly promote himself and beg for donations?
Barney Frank?? Barney Frank was in the minority party during 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 when the bulk of the toxic loans were being written. Republicans were in charge and Republicans should have passed oversight. As far as Barney Frank, in early 2007 when Democrats were in charge, Barney Frank sponsored oversight and got it passed in the House. So why the hell are you blaming Barney Frank?LMAO. Where were the democrats while this was going on? Who signed the bill that blew up the housing market? Who coddled and protected the democrats running Fannie and Freddie for decades? Geez, BArney Frank was sleeping with a top Fannie exec (excuse the pun). If you think the drug benefit was bad, you just not have read anything about the looming disaster called BOCare that is funded with nothing and will cost trillions......the biggest joke is the democrats claim they will cut medicare by $500,000,000,000 over the next ten years to help pay for BOCare. I could have sworn most democrats voted for the Iraq war and I don't remember them crying about the lack of funding.
Regarding war .....how's it working out for BO in Afghanistan. How many soldiers have died under his failed strategy? Any chance they are going to have free and open elections there in the near term?
Suuure ... too bad for you, the economy was already improving before the Internet really took off.The budget was never balanced and the economy was barely moving after BJ Clenis and the libs jacked up the taxes. BJ had to back peddle on those rates to stimulate the economy. The dot.com ponzi scheme jacked up cap gains tax revenues ..... wow, let's do that again.