Politics

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I think we're better off with him dead than alive. No more gloating or taunting from Bin *****. The right call was made to kill him. I hope he burns in hell.

 

[BobD]

I don't know if someone has mentioned it already, but I've always thought (I don't know why) that the reason an ID wasn't required to vote, was to prevent people from being harassed, intimidated, threatened, or profiled etc?

 

[magogian]

Well, if we are talking about Obama and the Bin ***** raid, let me just toss another grenade in here.

This is a 22 min. criticism of the Obama administration's leaking of details of the Bin ***** raid, the Stuxnet virus, and other national security secrets. It was produced by a number of former SEAL operatives, Special forces soldiers and commanders, and CIA covert ops handlers. It is quite explosive.Dishonorable Disclosures - YouTube

 

[IrishMoore1]

A true one. Al-Qaeda was severly weakened and it wouldnt have been worth a war with Pakistan to find him.

I dont give Obama credit, other than having the balls to give the "yes" call, and i dont give Bush credit either. I give our military and intelligence agency 99% of the credit. They are top notch, and the President no creative input. They say yes and no to general strategies.

What if the raid failed and our guys got killed in the mission? Would you blame the military or would you put the blame on Obama? Given your strong rhetoric against Obama over the course of this thread, I'd say you would blame Obama without a second thought. Yet, you won't give him credit for the mission succeeding. The fact is that the responsibility of conducting the raid and giving the go on it primarily falls on the president shoulders, whether it succeeds or fails.

 

[mgriff]

I totally disagree about the foreign policy. He has completed botched everything in the Middle East. Egypt is going to be an enemy state with terrible consequences.

I wonder why Egypt may not like us! It has nothing to do with us propping up a dictator in Mubarak for decades... Giving him money so he could stay in power. Nope, has nothing to do with that at all.

Why would Iran dislike us?! Oh my goodness could it be because we forcefully threw out their duly elected leader and installed the Shah because previous leader wouldn't let an Anglo-American alliance rape Iran for their oil? Now we throw sanctions on a nation which drastically drive up prices and create an issue with the common people of Iran, who we are trying to win over? They have to pay more for **** and they are supposed to like us?

Our foreign policy is madness. To say it is only Obama is completely disingenuous. Our foreign policy has remained largely the same for the last several decades. It is not benign, it has consequences for us.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I totally disagree about the foreign policy. He has completed botched everything in the Middle East. Egypt is going to be an enemy state with terrible consequences. He promised to shut down Git-mo...then he didn't. He reduced our nuclear supply to make it clear to the whole world that we were no longer the world's super power. Obama took all the credit for finding Bin ***** even though it was Bush's policies that led to his assault. Plus, it was Obama's White House leaked classified information for political gain, that got the same Navy Seal's killed. There is more but Obama gets a big F!

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and do a little research. Don't watch the mainstream media - even Chris Mathews knows it's liberal.

There are three charges you make in the bolded part of this statement. The first two are pretty standard politcal lies that you would expect to hear. The third is a serious charge. Prove any of them.

The Obama haters have put together some pretty slick stuff tearing at Obama's successes at every turn. I am not going to do the research to dig it out point by point. But I will give a general summary of what I believe to be provable.

Redbar is correct. China is our enemy. And they have been for a very long time. Since the days Ho Chi Minh wanted to be his countries Thomas Jefferson, and he wanted American help to keep China from dominating his nation. I can think of at least five instances of direct American-Chinese military engagement since then.

There were mistakes since Obama has been in office, lord knows. But if you consider the amount of leaks, not just including the Plame affair, which was officially treason, lawbreaking by the highest members of the Bush adiministration, the Obama administration is a Sunday School staff.

Most of the "true story" of the hunt for ben 1aden is bull shiit. The corrected story telling what happened, refuting the original story is bull shiit, too. I wish I had a dollar for everyone who claimed to be a former "seal" that I exposed for what they really were, a pretender. Many were servicemen. But remember, something like one out of 10,000 applicants make it. And none of them talk. Any story with a seal sitting down for an interview about certain tactics or missions is suspect.

That said, it was not a directive of the mission to kill ben 1aden. That was a contingency. This would have been verified before the go ahead would have been given for the mission. We have others that traditionally kill targets covertly.

Money motivates our foreign policy. That is all. There is no other rhyme or reason. Not even a hint of encouraging democracy elsewhere. We have allowed attrocities, if we felt we had the right guard dog to do the job we wanted done. Thus the big joke in Washington in years past: "We know Sadam has chemical weapons, we have the receipts to prove it."

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Just saw Rudy Guiliani on Meet the Press. Every time I see him, I can't help to think that he married his cousin (1st wife).

 

[Buster Bluth]

What if the raid failed and our guys got killed in the mission? Would you blame the military or would you put the blame on Obama? Given your strong rhetoric against Obama over the course of this thread, I'd say you would blame Obama without a second thought. Yet, you won't give him credit for the mission succeeding. The fact is that the responsibility of conducting the raid and giving the go on it primarily falls on the president shoulders, whether it succeeds or fails.

Do you know what a fact is? That is not a fact.

If the raid ended up as an abysmal failure, we would never had heard about it in such a context. "President Obama gave the go ahead on a 50/50 chance to kill ***** Bin *****," wouldn't have come out. It would have been "Five US special forces soldiers died in Pakistan during a raid to find a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, sources report." It would not have ended up like the Bay of Pigs.

And regardless I can still respect having the balls to roll the dice on such an important matter, so please know that your assumption is false.

I think you're being silly in not recognizing our CIA and Co had been on the specific trail that ended up in Abbottabad since 2002. And because under Obama they get the breakthrough, he gets some made up credit? WTF? That's like saying Harry Truman gets the credit for winning World War II because he gave the yes order on the atom bombs.

And furthermore, if Obama gets 100% of the credit...how does that impact the election? It's not like killing him is some sort of awesome policy that'll carry into 2012-2016.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Just saw Rudy Guiliani on Meet the Press. Every time I see him, I can't help to think that he married his cousin (1st wife).

 

[Rizzophil]

First time ever the Navy Seals have put together a documentary. This is all out in the open but the main stream media is not covering it. Do a little investigation. Seek the truth.

Dishonorable Disclosures - YouTube

 

[Bogtrotter07]

First time ever the Navy Seals have put together a documentary. This is all out in the open but the main stream media is not covering it. Do a little investigation. Seek the truth.

Dishonorable Disclosures - YouTube

Already quoted. This is a political dirty trick. There is no stamp of the DOD on it. I don't believe the "Seals" had anything to do with it. I was at a speak by a "special warfare operator". I asked him about three questions. He was either not able to answer them or he answered them incorrectly. I then asked him to produce his DD-214. He would not. He was decrying the Obama administration and he was not a "Seal."

This is more swiftboat political theatrics. For example, hypothetically, if a Seal team were sent on a mission that was a bust, with terribly wrong intelligence, do you think they would complain? Do you think they would even say a word?

 

[mgriff]

Money motivates our foreign policy. That is all. There is no other rhyme or reason. Not even a hint of encouraging democracy elsewhere. We have allowed attrocities, if we felt we had the right guard dog to do the job we wanted done. Thus the big joke in Washington in years past: "We know Sadam has chemical weapons, we have the receipts to prove it."

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.

Iraq had the second largest oil reserves of any country in the world after our homeboys, Saudi Arabia. Iraq has increased production of oil and turned into the second largest producer in ze vorld! Well, why are your gas prices high? Well, that's because OPEC trades is forced to trade in dollars, but you think they are dumb enough to let us inflate our money supply and devalue their product? The only thing giving our money value is the amount in circulation. No backing anymore, so they cleverly tied the price of gold to their oil. I ****ing love this guy, he does videos on **** I've been talking about forever, giving a wonderfully concise video of **** I would have to type out over three+ pages.


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S8WReKlUFP4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Turns out, Afghanistan has a huuuuuuge deposit of rare earth metals, a market which is dominated by China and a headache to our booming tech sector. We need those rare metals to make all of our cool gadgets. China monopolizing and controlling their release and price can't be allowed. Forget about leaving Afghan until we can make certain we are going to be controlling those Earth metals.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Saw on CNN that the seals group that has been criticizing Obama shares offices with republican consulting firms.

 

[irishog77]

Already quoted. This is a political dirty trick. There is no stamp of the DOD on it. I don't believe the "Seals" had anything to do with it. I was at a speak by a "special warfare operator". I asked him about three questions. He was either not able to answer them or answer them incorrectly. I then asked him to produce his DD-214. He would not. He was decrying the Obama administration and he was not a "Seal."

This is more swiftboat political theatrics. For example, hypothetically, if a Seal team were sent on a mission that was a bust, with terribly wrong intelligence, do you think they would complain? Do you think they would even say a word?

Not saying this didn't happen, Bog, but your paragraph above is quite vague. What questions did you ask him? And your statement, "He was either not able to answer them or answer them incorrectly," doesn't necessarily mean anything...in the above context you provided. And as far as DD-214's go, well, uhm, I don't know anybody that actually carries them around. That'd be like asking a person on the street whom you were having a conversation with to produce his actual college transcript to you to prove his point of view/credentials. Don't have it? Oh well, he therefore must be lying to you. And besides, a DD-214 not only provides a summation of your entire military career, but also has personal and medical information on it. So, again, the fact that somebody wouldn't share that with you doesn't mean anything...in the context you provided.

 

[ACamp1900]

My father in law is a former Army Ranger, current brother in law is active duty and my other in law is Lt. Col. In the Marines. Each of them struggle with the idea of being critical of the President but each openly bemoan our current lack of leadership at minimum... I haven't verified their IDs though as each may being lying sbout their service or may have been mind jobbed by those hate filled republicans, you know those people that lie about everything.... Always... I'll get right on it though and let you all know what I find on these bitter clingers.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Not saying this didn't happen, Bog, but your paragraph above is quite vague. What questions did you ask him? And your statement, "He was either not able to answer them or answer them incorrectly," doesn't necessarily mean anything...in the above context you provided. And as far as DD-214's go, well, uhm, I don't know anybody that actually carries them around. That'd be like asking a person on the street whom you were having a conversation with to produce his actual college transcript to you to prove his point of view/credentials. Don't have it? Oh well, he therefore must be lying to you. And besides, a DD-214 not only provides a summation of your entire military career, but also has personal and medical information on it. So, again, the fact that somebody wouldn't share that with you doesn't mean anything...in the context you provided.

A) I kept srewing my post up. It is correct now. The point is I suspected this guy was ex-military, but not special ops. So I asked him three questions about his training, "what, where" questions; three things that I have every reason to believe haven't changed since I was in the Corps, and had familiarity with some of the training locations and procedures for special warfare. He failed miserably. The answers would have been matter of fact for someone who made the grade.

B) No it is not. With conversations like these Viet Nam era vets, and vet protesters of the war have carried a copy of their DD-214 to rallies and engagements. Or they know where it is and can provide a fax copy to back up their claims. I have provided mine before. I just keep a few numbers off the photocopy.

C) That I asked for his DD-214 was only because he couldn't pass the smell test. And the questions I asked him were easer than the length of an M16A1a1: 39 cm; Dry weight: 6.9 lbs; loaded with a standard clip, 7.6 lbs., etc. The questions were even easier than knowing that you never loaded a 20 round clip with 20 rounds, you would over compress the spring.

D) I didn't ask to inspect it. Just to see enough of it to verify his story. You could tell if I am telling the truth about the very few military stories I have shared from my DD-214.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

My father in law is a former Army Ranger, current brother in law is active duty and my other in law is Lt. Col. In the Marines. Each of them struggle with the idea of being critical of the President but each openly bemoan our current lack of leadership at minimum... I haven't verified their IDs though as each may being lying sbout their service or may have been mind jobbed by those hate filled republicans, you know those people that lie about everything.... Always... I'll get right on it though and let you all know what I find on these bitter clingers.

ACamp, I just saw a comercial bemoaning how unemployment has risen to 8.3 percent under Obama. Is that the truth, a lie, or a damned lie?

 

[ACamp1900]

ACamp, I just saw a comercial bemoaning how unemployment has risen to 8.3 percent under Obama. Is that the truth, a lie, or a damned lie?

I saw a commercial that Romney killed someone..... And it's a lie, it has risen to far more than 8 under obama....

But you're right, any opinion against Obama is a lie any opinion for him is a fact ( regardless of what some partisan study says one way or the other) and thanks to you I'll now be voting with Donald duck and pull the lever for bamer... So I can sleep at night knowing those more intelligent than I approve on some wind bag message board thread....

Cheers.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I saw a commercial that Romney killed someone..... And it's a lie, it has risen to far more than 8 under obama....

But you're right, any opinion against Obama is a lie any opinion for him is a fact ( regardless of what some partisan study says one way or the other) and thanks to you I'll now be voting with Donald duck and pull the lever for bamer... So I can sleep at night knowing those more intelligent than I approve on some wind bag message board thread....

Cheers.

Actually the point is there was a compressed graphic which intimates a "rise" of unemployment to above 8 percent from something that looks like 4.5 per cent. Here is the true graphic:

If you run from February 2009 to The last figure shown, 8.3 percent you see the overall increase in negligble - Oh, wait it is actually a decrease. But if the American electorate looks at these figures and puts their thinking cap on, it is easy to see how this high unemployment and job stagnation was caused by Bush Administration policy. Can you imagine how bad it would have been if Henry Paulson had been alowed to remain in charge, instead of Summers and Obama's team taking over the bailout passed under the Bush Administration early?

When Paulson left the top job at Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary in 2006, his big concern was whether he'd have an impact. He ended up almost single-handedly running the country's economic policy for the last year of the Bush Administration. Impact? You bet. Positive? Not yet. The three main gripes against Paulson are that he was late to the party in battling the financial crisis, letting Lehman Brothers fail was a big mistake and the big bailout bill he pushed through Congress has been a wasteful mess.

Read more: Hank Paulson - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME #ixzz241fwOgco

If you want to see a recap of the falure of the Bush Administration, poster child of trickle-down economics, check out the left-wing rants and raves of this fly-by-night publication:

Full List: Bush's Economic Mistakes

Bush's Budget Blunders Bush's Budget Blunders - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME
The Return to Deficits The Return to Deficits - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME
Iraq Iraq - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME
Tax Cuts for the Rich Tax Cuts for the Rich - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME
Financial Regulation Financial Regulation - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME
Telling Us to Go Shopping Financial Regulation - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME
Energy Policy Energy Policy - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME
A State of Denial A State of Denial - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME
The Muddled Bailout The Muddled Bailout - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME

Read more: Full List - A Look Back at Bush's Economic Missteps - TIME

This is a fairly unbiases set of assessments dating back some four years. The "A State of Denial" still pertains to the Republican party. I am not a big Obama backer. I got a call from their machine, and the person said something about likening him to a later day FDR. I let them have it. They have never called back.

And did I tell you that I know Joe the Plumber? Joe isn't a plumber, he is an idiot; just like he appears in his house campaign. In fact, if the Presidents motorcade had taken one right turn instead of a left, he (POTUS) would have ended up in my neighborhood that day, and Joe would have remained an unknown handyman, instead of becoming the major Republican operative he is today.

 

[ACamp1900]

Lol,... Good times, And,... More wasted posts, Thats something like twenty in a row aren't we grand???

 

[Redbar]

To be fair, when people (or least most Americans) say "Democracy," I think they mean something more akin to "Constitutional Liberalism." In other words, 50% + 1 (little "d" democracy) isn't the end all. Rather, it is a democratic voting process in the context of system that provides for rule of law, protection of minority rights, freedom of speech, religion, and the press, etc.

While democracy is an important component of Democracy, it is perhaps not even as important as rule of law, freedom of . . . , etc. In other words, if you have to choose the former or the latter, many would say the latter is more important. The former, however, is of course an important component to usually creating the rule of law and freedoms and generally necessary to perpetuate that system. But to conflate democracy with Democracy/Constitutional Liberalism is to miss the forest for a tree, albeit an important tree.

In other words, I don't think people who decry the "democracy" in Egypt are being inconsistent.

(Sorry that this post is somewhat awkwardly worded.)

Great post Magog, IMO there are some very good reasons for people who claim they are for Democracy/Constitutional Liberalism to downplay the importance of democracy and I think it has a lot to do with the scary subject of factions. But I ask you in all seriousness given that power seeks absolute power can you have Democracy without democracy. That is one big tree you are trying to chop down.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'd like to say this...

Obama had a democratic congress for two years. That is true. However, he only had 59 votes. In reality, with filibuster rules as they are, he didn't really have a majority. That's because the first proclamation of the Republican congress (see Mitch McConnell) was that they intended to make Obama a one-term president. Any progress, therefore, would be bad. It doesn't further that goal.

Obama tried to play ball. The stimulus was something like 33% tax cuts. Much of the Affordable Care Act is Republican. Obama proposed a rather centrist bill that utilized republican ideas in order to garner republican votes. The individual mandate, for example, was a Republican, free market, alternative to single payer. Once passed, however, it suddenly became a socialist plot to kill your grandmother.

Any Republican that tried to work with the president was "tea partied" in the primary (see Utah).

The economic downturn was the worst since the depression. It's going to take years to recover. We only hit bottom about 3 years ago. From where I sit, that's just the reality.

Buster and others have scoffed at the idea that this president has been moderate. I think the Reagan years, the tea party, and a media that has tried to prove that they aren't liberal have made it seem that way.

I want the best for our country...gay, straight, liberal, conservative...everyone.

 

[Redbar]

I'd like to say this...

Obama had a democratic congress for two years. That is true. However, he only had 59 votes. In reality, with filibuster rules as they are, he didn't really have a majority. That's because the first proclamation of the Republican congress (see Mitch McConnell) was that they intended to make Obama a one-term president. Any progress, therefore, would be bad. It doesn't further that goal.

Obama tried to play ball. The stimulus was something like 33% tax cuts. Much of the Affordable Care Act is Republican. Obama proposed a rather centrist bill that utilized republican ideas in order to garner republican votes. The individual mandate, for example, was a Republican, free market, alternative to single payer. Once passed, however, it suddenly became a socialist plot to kill your grandmother.

Any Republican that tried to work with the president was "tea partied" in the primary (see Utah).

The economic downturn was the worst since the depression. It's going to take years to recover. We only hit bottom about 3 years ago. From where I sit, that's just the reality.

Buster and others have scoffed at the idea that this president has been moderate. I think the Reagan years, the tea party, and a media that has tried to prove that they aren't liberal have made it seem that way.

I want the best for our country...gay, straight, liberal, conservative...everyone.

Agreed. And Given that Obama has maintained a fairly moderate tack , more often than not proposing ideas that were just a few years before, Republican ideas, you mentioned individual mandate, cap and trade also comes to mind, and given that McConnell said this immediately after the election before most of Obama's plans were even proposed, I think it is safe to say that he along with many others have placed politics and prejudice, before their country and countrymen. In these dire times that is almost criminal, but certainly unpatriotic.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Actually the point is there was a compressed graphic which intimates a "rise" of unemployment to above 8 percent from something that looks like 4.5 per cent. Here is the true graphic:

That's not a "true graphic" because that is only one measurement of the unemployment, and a very untrue one at that. To add up the number of people without jobs (and have given up hope and aren't looking), and to add the number of underemployed, is a scary statistic.

If you run from February 2009 to The last figure shown, 8.3 percent you see the overall increase in negligble - Oh, wait it is actually a decrease.

It's practically impossible to move unemployment from 2% to 1%, or even 4% to 3%. It not hard to get it from 18% to 17%. Obama's situation is somewhere between those extremes, and the closer you get to 0% the more exponentially difficult it is to do so. I can recognize that.

Still, I do not think the unemployment improvement--if there has been some--under Obama is anywhere near acceptable. Of course, he said that too; and I don't think he's a particularly arrogant man, simply a naive amateur and his quote of "if I don't have this thing figured out in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition..." is quite telling. He was pretty confident his academia-instilled psuedo-economic classes would have easily paid off. He found it didn't have anywhere near the right answer, in my opinion.

I mean look they said that if we passed the stimulus, unemployment would be ~5.7% right now. And if we did nothing it would be at ~6.4%. HA!

The drastic miscalculation is, to me, a testament of the economic amateurism happening in the White House right now.

And, we haven't even taken into account how much of the job growth is due to something that this administration and environmentalists detest--shale oil and cheap energy. How ironic is it that fossil fuels are powering a good deal of the Obama "recovery?" I mean that's funny stuff.

Double and, we haven't taken into account that we are living in an artificially low low interest bubble. That too will burst with time. We have traded a dotcom bubble for a housing bubble and a housing bubble for an interest bubble. It's all a mess.

But if the American electorate looks at these figures and puts their thinking cap on, it is easy to see how this high unemployment and job stagnation was caused by Bush Administration policy.

1) Bush sucked, and was a somewhat of an amateur himself.

2) I don't see that, at all. Hell even your TIME article says this:

He inherited an inevitable recession in 2001, and even last year's financial collapse was to some extent the result of unsustainable trends in place long before he moved to Washington.

and this:

...the popular Democratic refrain that "Bush-era deregulation" is to blame for our troubles is a little hard to square with the evidence.

and most importantly, this:

Bush didn't cause the financial regulatory breakdown, but he didn't jump in to fix it either.

He didn't fix it because Bush was in over his head, too. He was a jokester who surrounded himself with GOP stars of the 1980s, for good or for bad. More bad than good.

And did I tell you that I know Joe the Plumber? Joe isn't a plumber, he is an idiot; just like he appears in his house campaign. In fact, if the Presidents motorcade had taken one right turn instead of a left, he (POTUS) would have ended up in my neighborhood that day, and Joe would have remained an unknown handyman, instead of becoming the major Republican operative he is today.

The Mexican Border comment a few days ago should have stuck a fork in him. He's done.

 

[magogian]

But I ask you in all seriousness given that power seeks absolute power can you have Democracy without democracy. That is one big tree you are trying to chop down.

It is very difficult.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Review & Outlook: The Romney Hood Fairy Tale - WSJ.com

A good read.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Review & Outlook: The Romney Hood Fairy Tale - WSJ.com

A good read.

A totally non-partisan perspective. Here's another perspective.

Romney’s budget plan is a fantasy

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'd like to say this...

Obama had a democratic congress for two years. That is true. However, he only had 59 votes. In reality, with filibuster rules as they are, he didn't really have a majority. That's because the first proclamation of the Republican congress (see Mitch McConnell) was that they intended to make Obama a one-term president. Any progress, therefore, would be bad. It doesn't further that goal.

He said it was his top political goal, a bit different. But, for this discussion I'll grant you that, the GOP wasn't going to do Obama any favors. But then again that would assume that Obama was playing dirty tricks too, by putting stuff in bills the GOP normally loves that is tied to things that are very bad.

But what you've said would be true, in regards to the 59 votes, if it weren't for a few things: 1) Obamacare was unpopular in polls from all Americans, the Republicans weren't blocking an immensely popular, or even remotely popular, bill. 2) I haven't seen about actively engage the Republicans and calling on them for meetings. I have seen quite the opposite, in my honest opinion.

Obama tried to play ball. The stimulus was something like 33% tax cuts. Much of the Affordable Care Act is Republican. Obama proposed a rather centrist bill that utilized republican ideas in order to garner republican votes. The individual mandate, for example, was a Republican, free market, alternative to single payer. Once passed, however, it suddenly became a socialist plot to kill your grandmother.

I think Obama tried to play ball for a grand total of about five minutes. He invited a few Republicans to be on his cabinet, and it ended up not working out.

You say things are "Republican," as if being suggested by a Republican at one point makes it Republican (or Democrat) forever. 33% tax cuts...Republican. Oh yeah? Tell Jack Kennedy that. Even Obama said it would be a fool to raise taxes (until he sold his soul and decided to run a class-warfare bullsh*t campaign). ..And I should add that even tax cuts in the same party aren't equal. 1986's tax cuts were nothing like Bush's, in effect or design. Each policy is different and can't be assigned to a party.

I don't think that bill is centrist at all, and even if it is it's moot because it's FEDERAL. Don't you see the problem?! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, it's the level or government that's in charge! A Federal program will be a disaster like all of their other programs are.

The economic downturn was the worst since the depression. It's going to take years to recover. We only hit bottom about 3 years ago. From where I sit, that's just the reality.

Fair enough, but who do you trust with that recovery? The guy who hasn't accomplished a whole lot (in terms of the recovery), who opposes America's key natural resources being utilizes, and whose regulations have already cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.....or do you trust the heralded genius whose job it was to 1) buy malfunctioning and underperforming companies and rebuild them to be successful in a global economy 2) reorganize an entire Olympic games and being to it unheard of levels of efficiency and financial success, 3) solve one of the worst budget problems in Massachusetts history by reorganizing the government and reevaluating fees and WITHOUT raising taxes.

You can pick the cool guy who never had a record of economic success and hasn't done much to show he will do better, or the stiff Mormon who is known throughout the business world as somewhat of a genius. It's really not that hard of a question.

Buster and others have scoffed at the idea that this president has been moderate. I think the Reagan years, the tea party, and a media that has tried to prove that they aren't liberal have made it seem that way.

I want the best for our country...gay, straight, liberal, conservative...everyone.

I'm not really certain what your first paragraph is getting at.

I don't think this administration has been centrist, or conducive to working with Republicans (whereas Romney spent his time in Massachusetts and actually worked with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat); and the Clinton's not-so-subtle disapproval of much of Obama's policies only solidifies that. Clinton is a centrist, Obama is a liberal.

 

[Buster Bluth]

A totally non-partisan perspective. Here's another perspective.

Romney’s budget plan is a fantasy

I like the "Romney, who has never released the specific cuts that would make his numbers add up" followed by "Romney’s budget plan is a fantasy, and it will never happen." Quite a claim for something you know very little about hahah

We should all recognize that campaigns never release specific cuts. But I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Mitt Romney is a helluva lot smarter than that writer. But yes, let's assume that it Romney isn't being perfectly honest (in a campaign...what are the odds).

But Romney does has a history of solving budgets. Not only with the myriad of companies Bain Capital bought and restructured for success, but he saved the Olympics and Massachuseets too. The Salt Lake City games went from the $379mil in the hole to $100mil in the black. In fact it was such a great turn around that Dems from Massachusetts came to him and asked him to solve their budget problems. He took a $3Bil shortful there and within a year had a $700mil surplus. And again, he did that while working with a state legislature of Democrats and even inviting Democrats to serve on his cabinet effectively.

I mean we need an economy to be turned around, the budget to be solved, and a more efficient government....and someone who can do it while actively working bipartisanly...and I'm supposed to believe that there's a better chance with someone other than Mitt Romney? I find that to be nearly impossible and is why I've said that Romney would be the best President since JFK.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

If elected, Romney will balance the federal deficit by 2040.