Thing with Bush bashing is it's warranted. He was a terrible, terrible president. Obama hasn't been doing well either.

We can do much better than either of these guys.

Buah wasn't a "terrible, terrible" President. He was mediocre in my opinion. He did plenty of good while in office. I can't name two things Obama has done that I have liked. The only part of his plan I support is him not being a pussy in Pakistan, so far.

The guy is a bitch and he needs to go.

Jindal '12

sjmvsfscs08;379734 wrote:Buah wasn't a "terrible, terrible" President. He was mediocre in my opinion. He did plenty of good while in office. I can't name two things Obama has done that I have liked. The only part of his plan I support is him not being a pussy in Pakistan, so far.

The guy is a bitch and he needs to go.

Jindal '12

haha, not quite sure why that is so funny to me, but it is!
...........................................


Personally, the whole Bush-bashing thing is about as old and tired as "Git-R-Done" and all the God bashing threads.
Some people are catching on to that, though, so there is hope lol

So, can I take it that Obama is the problem? If we elect someone else in 2012 all of our problems will go away? That is certainly the impression I get, that if we remove Obama all will be well and good.

That's a nice thought, but we all know it simply won't happen that way. I guess my concern would be this:

Which Republican out there has the answers to our problems and can be elected in 2012? You'll notice I said Republican, because as much as the Ron Paul lovers on this site may promote him, he hasn't got a chance in hell of winning the nomination, much less the general election.

Obama might have more than just the GOP to worry about in 2012. If the economy keeps faltering and his ratings continue to drop I wouldn't put it past Hillary to enter the picture. As to the GOP IMO Romney is the best candidate on economic matters by some margin. Obama isn't the total problem, but too many people got swept up in his cult of personality to not notice that his real world economics experience is severely lacking, and his administration is acting well far to the left than his campaign indicated. Both of these are hurting private businesses, particularly small businesses that don't have a lot of political clout and aren't deemed important enough to be too big to fail.

Manhattan Buckeye;379828 wrote:Obama might have more than just the GOP to worry about in 2012. If the economy keeps faltering and his ratings continue to drop I wouldn't put it past Hillary to enter the picture. As to the GOP IMO Romney is the best candidate on economic matters by some margin. Obama isn't the total problem, but too many people got swept up in his cult of personality to not notice that his real world economics experience is severely lacking, and his administration is acting well far to the left than his campaign indicated. Both of these are hurting private businesses, particularly small businesses that don't have a lot of political clout and aren't deemed important enough to be too big to fail.

Two observations.

One, Obama will get no primary challenger (Hillary or otherwise) because it is the quickest way to divide your party and it would almost guarantee a Republican victory in 2012. The lesson of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter was learned from 1980 that all a strong primary challenge to the president does is tear your base apart.

Two, Romney sadly has zero chance at this point of the nomination because Romneycare is a carbon copy of Obamacare, and I don't think he can make it out of a GOP primary because of it. Kind of hard to run a campaign round repeal of and changing of Obamacare when you yourself imposed the very same plan on your citizens in Massachusetts. The White House actually used Romneycare as a template, and he will be savaged in the primary because of it.

The other strike Romney has against him is that he would be very easily demagogued as a Wallstreet type because of the way he made his money with Bain capital. There will be a flood of fired ex-employees of companies bought up and gutted by Bain before Romney floated out with a golden parachute a mile long, and no one does identity politics/ class warfare better than the Democrat party. It would be handing them a gift when they don't deserve one.

Manhattan Buckeye;379828 wrote:Obama might have more than just the GOP to worry about in 2012. If the economy keeps faltering and his ratings continue to drop I wouldn't put it past Hillary to enter the picturel.

Perhaps but I doubt it. Keep in mind that the 2008 nomination was pretty much a 100% certainty for Queen Hillary....until the media fell in love with an unknown by the name of Barrack Hussein Obama. I sincerely doubt the leftist "mainstream" media is quite ready to stop giving BHO hummers just yet.

Manhattan Buckeye;379828 wrote:As to the GOP IMO Romney is the best candidate on economic matters by some margin.

Romney is a decent choice but I'm not sure he has what it takes. Palin will never get the nod and Ron Paul is too much a boat rocker to get the party's elite to back him. The problem is there is no Republican in the current spotlight that has the right combination of qualities needed to knock off the fraudulent media darling currently occupying the WH. If the Republicans can't find that "special someone" the best the "R's" can hope for is controlling at least one of the houses of Congress. THAT is quite doable.

Manhattan Buckeye;379828 wrote:Obama isn't the total problem, but too many people got swept up in his cult of personality to not notice that his real world economics experience is severely lacking, and his administration is acting well far to the left than his campaign indicated.

While I agree that BHO is in over his head and his administration is too far left, his "cult of personality" is precisely what will help him retain office. Reagan was known in some circles as the Teflon President. BHO is no Reagan but nothing he does (or doesn't do) seems to stick either. He may not be made ofTeflon but let's hope that between now and the 2012 election SOMETHING even the leftist media can't ignore sticks to the slime.

Honestly I don't see a candidate for the GOP that could actually do well at the polls.

sjmvsfscs08;379734 wrote:Buah wasn't a "terrible, terrible" President. He was mediocre in my opinion. He did plenty of good while in office. I can't name two things Obama has done that I have liked. The only part of his plan I support is him not being a pussy in Pakistan, so far.

The guy is a bitch and he needs to go.

Jindal '12

Like what?

believer;379877 wrote:
Romney is a decent choice but I'm not sure he has what it takes. Palin will never get the nod and Ron Paul is too much a boat rocker to get the party's elite to back him.

When it comes to economic matters, there are very few Republican's that understand the business cycle like Ron Paul. I argue that the Republicans have to put up Ron Paul if they want to win. His following is huge, and unlike other Republican candidates, Ron Paul's following will NOT vote for a Republican if it's not him. Romney, Palin, and Gingrich followers would vote for Ron Paul over Obama/Hillary. Ron Paul followers will vote Libertarian if he's not the Republican candidate.

Exactly. There is not one Republican out there rgar has any more of a clue than Obama. The economic demise is ststemic and the issue transcends party politics. Until there is concerted effort in roadblocking the oursourcing of private sector jobs, the US will continue it's path to a government run nanny state.

And since both parties are run ultimately by the oligopoly centered corporatists, this runaway freight train will never be righted.

stlouiedipalma;379798 wrote:So, can I take it that Obama is the problem? If we elect someone else in 2012 all of our problems will go away? That is certainly the impression I get, that if we remove Obama all will be well and good.

That's a nice thought, but we all know it simply won't happen that way. I guess my concern would be this:

Which Republican out there has the answers to our problems and can be elected in 2012? You'll notice I said Republican, because as much as the Ron Paul lovers on this site may promote him, he hasn't got a chance in hell of winning the nomination, much less the general election.

Exactly. There is not one Republican out there that has any more of a clue than Obama. The economic demise is systemic and the issue transcends party politics. Until there is concerted effort in roadblocking the outsourcing of private sector jobs, the US will continue it's path to a government run nanny state.

And since both parties are run ultimately by the oligopoly centered corporatists, this runaway freight train will never be righted.

bigmanbt;380588 wrote:When it comes to economic matters, there are very few Republican's that understand the business cycle like Ron Paul. I argue that the Republicans have to put up Ron Paul if they want to win. His following is huge, and unlike other Republican candidates, Ron Paul's following will NOT vote for a Republican if it's not him. Romney, Palin, and Gingrich followers would vote for Ron Paul over Obama/Hillary. Ron Paul followers will vote Libertarian if he's not the Republican candidate.

Ron Paul has zero chance of being president any time in the foreseeable future. I'd take Romney's wisdom on the business cycle over Ron Paul's every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I've been a Romney fan for years now, but his (1) being Mormon and (2) being affiliated with "evil Wall Street" make it difficult for him to win the R nomination. I think he'd do well in a general election with his appeal to moderates/centrists, but good luck with his winning the nomination.

Ron Paul won't win the nomination because he's too old and his libertarian views doesn't fit with the current direction of the more center oriented modern republican party. Do I think if he somehow got the nomination that he would unseat Obama in 2012? Absolutely no question 100% sure. But the fact is that he's not going to get that chance, and even if he ran as an independent he would have a Perot/Nader effect (maybe a little more since he has more support that either of those two did) but no where near enough to win. It's a nice thought but given the status of the GOP he won't get the opportunity.

ccrunner609;380639 wrote:As soon as Obama is gone, the economy will rebound. He mere appearance scares the shit out of anyone in this country that has $ or owns a business. People are being really tight right now because he is a crazy son of a bitch.

I highly doubt that. I highly doubt the President is that influential over the economy. The economy is so complex with so many different variables, that one man will not help or hurt it.
I actually think no one has any idea what is going to happen in the next few months around the world and are just holding on to their capital right now.

As many people stated on here in November 08, well on the other site back then, that the economy is cyclical and it will rebound when all the different variables improve over time. It will take time, several years, but we'll be fine.

bigmanbt;380588 wrote:When it comes to economic matters, there are very few Republican's that understand the business cycle like Ron Paul. I argue that the Republicans have to put up Ron Paul if they want to win. His following is huge, and unlike other Republican candidates, Ron Paul's following will NOT vote for a Republican if it's not him. Romney, Palin, and Gingrich followers would vote for Ron Paul over Obama/Hillary. Ron Paul followers will vote Libertarian if he's not the Republican candidate.

I will not deny Ron Paul's understanding of economics, but he will NEVER get the Republican nomination for a lot of reasons. If he decides to run as an independent again, he will only help insure Obama's re-election by pulling votes away from the eventual Republican candidate.

As Footwedge always points out we have a 2-party "oligopoly centered corporatist" political system.

The bright side is we still get the chance to choose which "corporatist" we'd prefer to be in office; a socialist one or a somewhat less socialist one. Ron Paul would simply take votes away from the slightly less Big Government corporatist in much the same manner as he did in 2008. Now witness the result.

ptown_trojans_1;380946 wrote:I highly doubt that. I highly doubt the President is that influential over the economy. The economy is so complex with so many different variables, that one man will not help or hurt it.
I actually think no one has any idea what is going to happen in the next few months around the world and are just holding on to their capital right now.

As many people stated on here in November 08, well on the other site back then, that the economy is cyclical and it will rebound when all the different variables improve over time. It will take time, several years, but we'll be fine.

Ha....no way, dude! Everyone with a modicum of common sense knows full well that George Bush single-handedly destroyed the economy of this great nation.


Actually, I'll be surprised if the economy hasn't improved enough by 2012 to drag Bam across the line for a 2nd term. On the down side, he'll unfortunately have some ammo to try and spin the idea that flushing almost a trillion dollars down the crapper had anything to do with it.

believer;381037 wrote:I will not deny Ron Paul's understanding of economics, but he will NEVER get the Republican nomination for a lot of reasons. If he decides to run as an independent again, he will only help insure Obama's re-election by pulling votes away from the eventual Republican candidate.

As Footwedge always points out we have a 2-party "oligopoly centered corporatist" political system.

The bright side is we still get the chance to choose which "corporatist" we'd prefer to be in office; a socialist one or a somewhat less socialist one. Ron Paul would simply take votes away from the slightly less Big Government corporatist in much the same manner as he did in 2008. Now witness the result.

Oh I agree, I don't think he will get the Republican nominee, but damnit he needs to. But if he doesn't, honestly I think that means the Republican party loses. As bad as Obama has been, we don't need more corporatists in office to expand the federal government. Ron Paul followers, Libertarians, will not vote for a corporatist in the Republican party, and honestly, there are more Ron Paul followers who are registered Republican than there are registered Democrat. It is in the interest of the Republican party to nominate him, but I agree, they sadly won't.

^^^As Bill Clinton used to say, "I feel yer pain."

As an aside...

Looks like there's a great potential for job creation after the primaries in other states yesterday.
Point of interest: Most of the Palin endorsed electives won their primaries.
Hmmm.....

Psychotic!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/

How the fuck do unemployment checks create jobs? That bitch is bat shit crazy.

QuakerOats;408016 wrote:Psychotic!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/

Crap Quaker...you beat me to it. I tried to start a separate thread on this but I have a hunch LJ will nix it because my "opinion" simply said "Pelosi's a fruitcake." lol

[video=youtube;WUAG3Fqz56s][/video]

believer;408360 wrote:Crap Quaker...you beat me to it. I tried to start a separate thread on this but I have a hunch LJ will nix it because my "opinion" simply said "Pelosi's a fruitcake." lol

We need to double down on efforts to keep President Obama and Vice President "Bite Me" separated. In fact maybe we should just lock the Vice president in a secure bunker deep in the bowels of the earth. This women is 2nd in line for the presidency.

"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."
Pelosi said the aid has the "double benefit" of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a "job creator" on the side.

What?