O-Trap;1224086 wrote:I'm more around 0% - 0% - 0.1% ... the last one being contingent on some of the Republican movers and shakers being ACTUAL budget cutter conservatives, not the high-spending Republicans that currently make up most of the houses' crop.

If only the Rs would have nominated Paul...

And no, I'm not a "Paulbot" that would vote for him now as a 3rd party as I do not want to waste my vote. However, I do wise he had won the nomination and then picked a VP that could challenge him on some of his foreign policies.

jmog;1224092 wrote:If only the Rs would have nominated Paul...

And no, I'm not a "Paulbot" that would vote for him now as a 3rd party as I do not want to waste my vote. However, I do wise he had won the nomination and then picked a VP that could challenge him on some of his foreign policies.

Ultimately, it probably wouldn't matter as much if he'd gotten the nomination, since he'd basically have a Congress dedicated to preventing the change he's campaigned on for decades. Technically, that would be Congress working together, but not in a good way, I don't think.

Ron Paul has gotten little support in Congress not because he's the lone enlightened one but because many of his policies/beliefs are draconian and/or archaic (like returning to the gold standard).

More people in Congress like Ron Paul to shape the debate would be a good thing, but he's not pragmatic enough to be a leader (hence why he has such little support).

obama has added $64,000 in debt to every taxpayer ---- CRIMINAL!

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64000-question-how-much-has-debt-increased-taxpayer-under-obama


Change we can believe in ...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/12/usda-uses-spanish-soap-operas-to-push-food-stamp-participation-among-non-citizens-citizens/


Liberal democrats: keeping people dumb and dependant, for decades.

What a legacy.

Change we can believe in ....

QuakerOats;1224402 wrote:obama has added $64,000 in debt to every taxpayer ---- CRIMINAL!

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64000-question-how-much-has-debt-increased-taxpayer-under-obama


Change we can believe in ...

From the article:

Since the Republican-majority in the House effectively gained its constitutional veto over federal spending, the federal government has been funded under a series of spending deals negotiated between the House Republican leadership, the Senate Democratic leadership and President Obama.

Sounds like it's not just Obama, but Congress too there buddy.
Sounds like the R's deserve blame as well. They pass the CRs....

Willard had best figure out how he is going to get out in front of this Bain issue because it is starting to become a "death by a 1,000 paper cuts" type scenario as stuff keeps leaking out about when he actually stopped being in charge. Coupled with his secretive accounts and his refusal to release more than a years tax returns, the Obama team is weaving a narrative that is making him look real bad right now.

With all his flip flopping over the years the last thing he needed was another scandal that makes him look untrust worthy and willing to say and do anything to get elected.

He should never have been allowed to get out of the Republican primary as this was always going to be a huge liability to his candidacy. In the primary yelling "they're anti free market" was how he defused it when his opponents attacked, but in the general that is not a viable strategy.

The economy is in the tank, but Willard's business career is driving the campaign race right now. Politico has a piece up right now that Republican strategists are actually starting to worry that this Bain issue is taking hold, and could do to Willard what the Swift Boat vets did to Kerry.

For the first time in a while I am actually starting to think BHO is going to get 4 more years because Willard is just proving to be the perfect foil to tar and feather given his background. Sadly many saw it coming from the start of the campaign, but Willard bought the nomination so there was nothing we could do. He and every RINO involved with allowing it to happen are directly responsible for what happens to this country if BHO gets a 2nd term.

IggyPride00;1224688 wrote:Willard had best figure out how he is going to get out in front of this Bain issue because it is starting to become a "death by a 1,000 paper cuts" type scenario as stuff keeps leaking out about when he actually stopped being in charge. Coupled with his secretive accounts and his refusal to release more than a years tax returns, the Obama team is weaving a narrative that is making him look real bad right now.

With all his flip flopping over the years the last thing he needed was another scandal that makes him look untrust worthy and willing to say and do anything to get elected.

He should never have been allowed to get out of the Republican primary as this was always going to be a huge liability to his candidacy. In the primary yelling "they're anti free market" was how he defused it when his opponents attacked, but in the general that is not a viable strategy.

The economy is in the tank, but Willard's business career is driving the campaign race right now. Politico has a piece up right now that Republican strategists are actually starting to worry that this Bain issue is taking hold, and could do to Willard what the Swift Boat vets did to Kerry.

For the first time in a while I am actually starting to think BHO is going to get 4 more years because Willard is just proving to be the perfect foil to tar and feather given his background. Sadly many saw it coming from the start of the campaign, but Willard bought the nomination so there was nothing we could do. He and every RINO involved with allowing it to happen are directly responsible for what happens to this country if BHO gets a 2nd term.

The Washington Post completely debunked today's obsessive-compulsive Bain story within 4 hours of its release.

fish82;1224711 wrote:The Washington Post completely debunked today's obsessive-compulsive Bain story within 4 hours of its release.

The swift boat stuff was proved debunked too. Damage is already done. That's politics today. Facts really do not matter.

ptown_trojans_1;1224758 wrote:The swift boat stuff was proved debunked too. Damage is already done. That's politics today. Facts really do not matter.

That may be true but I have a hunch in this case that Romney will not be "swift boated" politically. That's how bad Obama is and that's a fact.

"The economy is in the tank, but Willard's business career is driving the campaign race right now."

Perhaps to the people that are incredibly stupid, or will vote for Obama no matter what. We care more about the business career of a SUCCESSFUL businessman than the lack of any experience at all of our current executive and administration that has no semblance of being able to drive our country back in the right (pun unintended, not meant to be politically right) direction? If that is the case we deserve to re-elect Obama and we deserve the ramifications for it. I just don't how we can survive 4 more years of this. Debt default (disastrous)? Keep interest rates at historic lows (not working)? Hire more public employees and let China pay for it (that will work out well for our children and grandchildren)? Reduce regulations, red tape and allow businesses to expand without fear of government intervention? Wait, that's the other side's argument. We can't do that.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/americans-will-work-more-6-months-pay-cost-govt-2012

... a national disgrace!

ptown_trojans_1;1224647 wrote:From the article:

Sounds like it's not just Obama, but Congress too there buddy.
Sounds like the R's deserve blame as well. They pass the CRs....

This is so ironic. The Republican in the House do exactly what you constantly clamor for . . . negotiate, compromise, reach across the aisle, etc, etc, and then when they do they deserve blame.

Yet if they held their ground and shut down the government for a few months, you would be among the first to excoriate them for not compromising. Am I wrong?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/republicans-accuse-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform-with-quiet-policy-change/

The Dictator-in-Chief unilaterally eliminating the welfare work requirement ------ give me a [EMAIL="fu#@$%"]fu#@$%[/EMAIL] break.

jhay78;1225055 wrote:This is so ironic. The Republican in the House do exactly what you constantly clamor for . . . negotiate, compromise, reach across the aisle, etc, etc, and then when they do they deserve blame.

Yet if they held their ground and shut down the government for a few months, you would be among the first to excoriate them for not compromising. Am I wrong?

Oh, I am all for compromise and passing CRs. Better than shutdown.
That said, the R's in the House do not compromise enough, and neither do the D's as well.

That wasn't the point. My point was if you are going to blame the President for the debt, you also have to blame the Congress as they are equally just as guilty.
The Prez just submits a budget, the Congress always adds to it.

QuakerOats;1225059 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/republicans-accuse-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform-with-quiet-policy-change/

The Dictator-in-Chief unilaterally eliminating the welfare work requirement ------ give me a fu#@$% break.

See, now while maybe there is substance in the article, the "Dictator-in-Chief" crap makes no sense and leads no credibility to anything you say or post. Yes, the President is a Dictator.
Man, I guess that election thing in November doesn't matter then since he is a Dictator.
Give me a break.

When the president makes a unilateral move in direct conflict with the law I would call it dictatorial in nature.

QuakerOats;1225117 wrote:When the president makes a unilateral move in direct conflict with the law I would call it dictatorial in nature.

So, every President then is a dictator? Or, only the ones you disagree with?
Because, nearly every President has done something of this nature, exerting executive power, over the history of the U.S.

Perhaps the ones who wish to "fundamentally transform the United States of America".

The reason for putting executive power in place is not why Presidents are now using it. It's being relied upon at an alarmingly increased frequency.

The spirit of intent is being spit on in a dictatorial way no matter which party affiliation the President came from.

Mr. Obama has used it with alarming frequency.

I personally would rather see obstructionist actions by congress than an executive power over- use. The opposite lends to a more dictatorial type government.

ptown_trojans_1;1225137 wrote:So, every President then is a dictator? Or, only the ones you disagree with?
Because, nearly every President has done something of this nature, exerting executive power, over the history of the U.S.

Do they all do it in direct conflict with the law? I mean, first it's not enforcing DOMA, passed overwhelmingly by both houses on Congress and signed by Clinton, not enforcing immigration laws because we don't feel like it, states can get waivers from the welfare reform law, and we could probably name a dozen other examples of this guy doing what he wants whenever he feels like bypassing Congress. He even brags about bypassing Congress if they "refuse to act" (i.e. refuse to do what he wants) on other issues.

Dictatorial.

ptown_trojans_1;1225097 wrote:Oh, I am all for compromise and passing CRs. Better than shutdown.
That said, the R's in the House do not compromise enough, and neither do the D's as well.

That wasn't the point. My point was if you are going to blame the President for the debt, you also have to blame the Congress as they are equally just as guilty.
The Prez just submits a budget, the Congress always adds to it.

I'm not buyin your explanation, ptown. jhay78 nailed it with his statement that R's are guilty if they compromise and become bipartisan buddies and they are also to blame should they stand their ground and want to cut programs. Heaven forbid they shut down the government!! Since compromising and "being the party of no" means they are to blame, I'll ask the follow-up: What should R's do in order to be "blameless"?

ptown_trojans_1;1225097 wrote:See, now while maybe there is substance in the article, the "Dictator-in-Chief" crap makes no sense and leads no credibility to anything you say or post. Yes, the President is a Dictator.
Man, I guess that election thing in November doesn't matter then since he is a Dictator.
Give me a break.

What else would you call a person that picks and chooses what laws to enforce?
What else would you call a person that writes his own legislation via Executive Order and changes the welfare requirements LAW?
What else would you call a person that acts as policeman, judge, juror and executioner as he sends drones across the planet to execute Americans, terrorists, and anyone else standing in his way?
What else would you call a person that authorizes a governmental agency to sexually grope grandmas and children?
What else would you call a person that refuses to enforce the Defense Of Marriage Act because he doesn't like it?
What else would you call someone that magically turns ILLEGAL citizens into legal ones with a stroke of a pen?
What else would you call a person that gives OUR TAXPAYER money (note- not HIS money) to people who funded his election and punishes those that did not?
What else do you call someone that allows his election donors to be granted waivers from his new healthkare law?

Yeah, you're right, he wasn't elected dictator. He's just performing like one.

Big part of the problem is Houdini Harry is the most uncompromising and divisive Senate majority leader in some time. He uses cloture votes to block tricky legislation and create the illusion that Repubs are failing to compromise even if there hasn't been a filibuster (how could there be when the bill never even comes to the floor for discussion?).

And other stuff he just flat kills. What did he do the other day along the lines of progressing something himself just so he could kill it? The guy is a flat-out super partisan gate keeper, and the left-wig media is too fucking stupid to realize it (or more likely they just refuse to).

jhay78;1225212 wrote:Do they all do it in direct conflict with the law? I mean, first it's not enforcing DOMA, passed overwhelmingly by both houses on Congress and signed by Clinton, not enforcing immigration laws because we don't feel like it, states can get waivers from the welfare reform law, and we could probably name a dozen other examples of this guy doing what he wants whenever he feels like bypassing Congress. He even brags about bypassing Congress if they "refuse to act" (i.e. refuse to do what he wants) on other issues.

Dictatorial.

It is certainly a flagrant and obvious abuse of executive powers if not dictatorial. In all fairness all presidents have used executive orders to circumvent the law to one degree or another. It seems, however, that the Bammer is abusing it to an arrogant and even scary extreme. He did promise to fundamentally transform Amerika so......

BGFalcons82;1225488 wrote:What else would you call a person that picks and chooses what laws to enforce?
What else would you call a person that writes his own legislation via Executive Order and changes the welfare requirements LAW?
What else would you call a person that acts as policeman, judge, juror and executioner as he sends drones across the planet to execute Americans, terrorists, and anyone else standing in his way?
What else would you call a person that authorizes a governmental agency to sexually grope grandmas and children?
What else would you call a person that refuses to enforce the Defense Of Marriage Act because he doesn't like it?
What else would you call someone that magically turns ILLEGAL citizens into legal ones with a stroke of a pen?
What else would you call a person that gives OUR TAXPAYER money (note- not HIS money) to people who funded his election and punishes those that did not?
What else do you call someone that allows his election donors to be granted waivers from his new healthkare law?

Yeah, you're right, he wasn't elected dictator. He's just performing like one.

One thing is certain...if the Kool Aid drinkers, fence riders, and the Pauliban are successful in handing Barry 4 more years to continue these policies, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

QuakerOats;1225059 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/republicans-accuse-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform-with-quiet-policy-change/

The Dictator-in-Chief unilaterally eliminating the welfare work requirement ------ give me a fu#@$% break.

Here was Obama's postion on the welfare reform law in a debate in 2008:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/video-during-the-2008-rick-warren-debate-obama-sounded-different-on-welfare-reform/

Good grief....really? http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/

[video=youtube;6j8XhQfvpW8][/video]