Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
hahahah you're joking right?

The French President is a socialist. At least there they are open about it. An endorsement from a socialist is not a good thing.

A pure socialist like Hugo chavez endorsing him is not a positive boost, but an foreign policy ally's endorsement is a good plus id say, even if hes a democratic socialist
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
I lived overseas earlier this year. Most everyone I talked with who liked Obama didn't know jack about him. They just thought he was this cool dude.

Opinion of him changed drastically when I answered their questions they asked about him. :)
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
It isn't just France and the socialists...

Global Poll: Obama Overwhelmingly Preferred to Romney - World Public Opinion

Looks like everywhere but Pakistan.

Canada has 66% Obama, only 9% Romney.

Obviously us canadians believe in more of a liberal approach, but id like to ask this question, How much do you think the absence of 4 years of republicans rhetoric plays into this?( Im not trying to bash R's because they have done an incredible job of demonizing everything Obama touches, would just like some opinions?)


EDIT: Wanna add that canadians get to know mostly everything importing going on in US politics, just without the polarizing perspectives...
 
Last edited:

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
I lived overseas earlier this year. Most everyone I talked with who liked Obama didn't know jack about him. They just thought he was this cool dude.

Opinion of him changed drastically when I answered their questions they asked about him. :)

I have a hunch that I would answer the same questions slightly differently. ;)
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Just spoke facts. All were appalled that almost 50% of Americans don't pay the federal income tax.

I think this is crazy, your clearly a Republican, but yet you want to raise taxes on those who can least afford it? What about my man Norquist?


Annnnnd then Romney himself says he wants to eleminate capital gains taxes, making him pay 0% income taxes, wheres the rational broooooo
 
Last edited:

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
I wouldn't drop capital gains taxes to zero, but to like 10%.

I I know that tax rate isn't Obama's fault,but I have a nice list of reasons to not vote for him.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
Just spoke facts. All were appalled that almost 50% of Americans don't pay the federal income tax.

You realize that about 30-35% of that is accounted for by people who are either a)students, b) retired or c) deployed, right? Actually about 80-85% of the population pays federal income tax at some point in their life. And that doesn't include things like payroll taxes, sales tax, postage, tolls, etc... The fact is that virtually everyone pays something into the system.
 

RubberSoul

Banned
Messages
283
Reaction score
59
Hearing that its Bob Menendez and hookers. I guess what makes it worse for him is that he was calling on those secret service guys who were being serviced by those hookers to be fired.
 

ohara831

Well-known member
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
25
Hearing that its Bob Menendez and hookers. I guess what makes it worse for him is that he was calling on those secret service guys who were being serviced by those hookers to be fired.

That is what the report I hear is saying also. Sen. Nenendez paying for sex in the Dom. Rep. Have not read the entire article, but not thinking it will affect the race for the WH at all. Not like Romney has a shot at NJ anyway. Had to edit. Put him from NY, and he is Sen. from NJ.
 
Last edited:

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,376
Reaction score
5,802
That's odd I don't see Bush on the ballot.

Check again.


I'm pretty confident a full o crap republican who campaigns on smaller government and less spending would find himself with a red congress and spending more, not even blinking when they raise the debt ceiling, and expanding government in ways that they want.

Look back about a decade.

For the record, I don't much like the other guy either. However, I would agree that Romney is more of a Kerry than a Bush.

You decide!
 

Irish8248

Well-known member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
880
If we have a red Congress than you can expect the policies similar to what's been proposed but rejected in the senate... So that means we will tackle the debt, cut spending, repeal then replace obamacare, and focus on job growth... I'm completely cool with that
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
If we have a red Congress than you can expect the policies similar to what's been proposed but rejected in the senate... So that means we will tackle the debt, cut spending, repeal then replace obamacare, and focus on job growth... I'm completely cool with that

Tackle the debt BY cutting spending -- exclusively -- which means that a dramatic cut in programs that are needed by poor people to survive. Can't make Grover mad by raising taxes.

Cutting and repealing Obamacare would mean that millions who are now covered by health insurance would no longer be covered.

Obama put a jobs plan on the table more than a year ago, and like everything else he has tried to accomplish for the past two years, it was rejected by republicans in the House.

Almost everything "rejected" by the Senate was via filiabuster to ensure that Obama didn't make any progress ("Our number 1 goal is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president" has been the mantra of the GOP). In every case, your choice will favor the rich over the poor and middle class. But, as you said, you are completely cool with that.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,376
Reaction score
5,802
If we have a red Congress than you can expect the policies similar to what's been proposed but rejected in the senate... So that means we will tackle the debt, cut spending, repeal then replace obamacare, and focus on job growth... I'm completely cool with that

I've got some great ocean front property here in Iowa that you might be interested in!

If Congress goes red and Mittens goes in, Dems become the quit spending party and the GOP blows the purse.

If congress is blue and Obama is in, GOP is the quit spending party and the dems blow the purse.

It's a numbers game. :Insert rhetorhic here:
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,376
Reaction score
5,802
Tackle the debt BY cutting spending -- exclusively -- which means that a dramatic cut in programs that are needed by poor people to survive. Can't make Grover mad by raising taxes.


You're forgetting that you have to cut spending by that much more than the defense budget increases that they don't need ( by their own cuts), but keep the defense welfare industry going. Plus, it sounds suh-weet n' patriotic to throw more money at the troops (except the troops won't see a dime of it).
 
Last edited:

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Tackle the debt BY cutting spending -- exclusively -- which means that a dramatic cut in programs that are needed by poor people to survive. Can't make Grover mad by raising taxes.

Cutting and repealing Obamacare would mean that millions who are now covered by health insurance would no longer be covered.

Obama put a jobs plan on the table more than a year ago, and like everything else he has tried to accomplish for the past two years, it was rejected by republicans in the House.

Almost everything "rejected" by the Senate was via filiabuster to ensure that Obama didn't make any progress ("Our number 1 goal is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president" has been the mantra of the GOP). In every case, your choice will favor the rich over the poor and middle class. But, as you said, you are completely cool with that.


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So overdramatic. Because poor people and those not covered by the ACA were just dropping dead in the streets before Obama came along and saved them all?? gimmie a damn break. My God.

And Obama had TWO F*CKING YEARS to do as he pleased. Yet he made a health care bill, that nobody read and is going to cost us way more than he predicted, a priority. Not the economy.

So yeah. I can live without 4 more years of that idiot.


And then he sells out our own guys in Benghazi. Nice icing on the cake. But I'm sure you'll find a way to blame someone else for that as well??
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
774
Tackle the debt BY cutting spending -- exclusively -- which means that a dramatic cut in programs that are needed by poor people to survive. Can't make Grover mad by raising taxes.

Cutting and repealing Obamacare would mean that millions who are now covered by health insurance would no longer be covered.

Obama put a jobs plan on the table more than a year ago, and like everything else he has tried to accomplish for the past two years, it was rejected by republicans in the House.

Almost everything "rejected" by the Senate was via filiabuster to ensure that Obama didn't make any progress ("Our number 1 goal is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president" has been the mantra of the GOP). In every case, your choice will favor the rich over the poor and middle class. But, as you said, you are completely cool with that.

You just proved everyone's point that knows he did not do the job he was voted in to do.
His #1 priority was the economy and as you stated he waited to year 3-4 to start working on it. If you were hired to do a job and you waited that long to start on the task at hand, you would not have made it to year four. He put himself, his ego, and his need to create a legacy with Obama Care before the Country. Oh and by the way, I just had to enroll in my companies health care plan and the new cost is a joke. The company now has to provide (of which the cost are now passed on to us) breast feeding classes (I don't think we have a woman under 45 in the company) and contraceptive training (most people in the company are married) starting next year. The cost are supposed to rise another 20 percent in 2014.

I also attended a manufacturer's conference this week and the picture that was painted for the next few years makes 2007-2009 look like the glory days. One of the companies that has over 1,200 employees today in California alone said by the end of next year if things do not change would definitely not have that many and more than likely not be having any employees based in California (the other 49 states should learn from Cali's liberal mistakes). The spokesman for this company also said that there is a great possibility they would not be doing any manufacturing at all in the US. If there are 1,200 employees in just CA, I am not sure how many people would be affected if they stopped operations in the US altogether.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
haha... irishpat. No offense homie, but your last three posts read like someone desperately grasping at straws. Pointing out every talking point you can think of in efforts to make some point that doesn't exist.

Just another time where I read your posts and actually see the guy in your avatard saying it. lol.
 
Top