chuckd Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) It seems the Obama campaign has his big guns out to push his Republican War on Women theme. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fluke pushes early voting in Reno 9:50 PM, Oct 20, 2012 | 735 Comments Written by Emerson Marcus Sandra Fluke, the woman at the center of a media firestorm earlier this year after Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut,” spoke Saturday in front of about 10 people at the Sak ‘N Save in north Reno. The speech was part of a daylong effort by Democrats to get Northern Nevadans to the polls on the first day of early voting. “I’m trying to do everything I can for an election that I feel is very important. I have a unique opportunity for how I get to do that,” said Fluke, who is coming off recent campaign trips to Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida as a surrogate for Democratic President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. Read more here: http://www.rgj.com/a...nter-stage-Reno ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow!!! A roaring throng of 10 people came to hear Ms. Fluke address the multitude in front of Sak N'Save. Edited October 22, 2012 by chuckd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) 1. Can you give some examples of Bush handing the reins over to others? - Are you saying he was running the country during the 700+ days he had off in eight years? 2. Bush negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement in 2008 to pull our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. You call it an "election stunt" so remind me again...Which Republican candidate ran for the office of President in 2008. Precisely how can you call an agreement by a sitting President who is NOT running for any office an "election stunt"? - An attempt at creating a warm fuzzy feeling for the following Republican candidate, because by then the American people were against this war and, by association, the party that started it. 3. There is this little thing called NATO which calls for the collective defense of member nations yet you ask why the US should be involved in the affairs of Europe? I have asked myself this question many times, particularly since I lost my older brother in WWII. Then I realized it was necessary then to assist and it would be necessary now to protect them from a hostile nation. As a European you will likely see it differently but you know full well the US will be there when and if the time ever comes again. - The EU do not see the need for a missile shield protecting them; surely they should be the ones to decide? 4. Who exactly has Russia by the "balls" as you so succinctly put it? - The former head of the KGB of course. Oops sorry, FSB. Edited October 22, 2012 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiHadOrange Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 1. Can you give some examples of Bush handing the reins over to others? - Are you saying he was running the country during the 700+ days he had off in eight years? When Bush was at his Crawford Ranch, they include that in the 700+ day total. He has an office there with all the necessary communication equipment. This isn't the 19th century and he didn't leave the country in control of someone else sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. Obama, has spent more time on the golf course to the point he skips the Presidential Daily Briefs (for national security), met 1-2 times this year with his economic council and doesn't give press conferences anymore (the press isn't allowed at the Country Club without being accompanied by a member - not Obama's fault, those are Club rules). While Obama has no problem golfing while the White House pen works overtime signing condolence letters to the families of US Military who have died in what Obama called the just war, Bush stopped playing golf as a small sign of respect to the fighting men and women of the US Armed Forces (of which the President is Commander in Chief). - The EU do not see the need for a missile shield protecting them; surely they should be the ones to decide? OK, then ask the EU members Poland and Czech Republic how they feel about it. Obama screwed them in that deal and he is not liked over there one bit. That, and talking about Polish Death Camps during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Check out the history of tax cuts in the US. They always create more revenue for the government than the previous years because they create growth in the private sector, thereby creating jobs for those 23 million US citizens that are unemployed or underemployed. Adding millions of jobs to private sector companies creates a much enlarged tax base. The record is there, look it up. I think you must have caught Romnesia. As stated, lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenue. Edited October 22, 2012 by koheesti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiHadOrange Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 - The EU do not see the need for a missile shield protecting them; surely they should be the ones to decide? OK, then ask the EU members Poland and Czech Republic how they feel about it. Obama screwed them in that deal and he is not liked over there one bit. That, and talking about Polish Death Camps during WWII. And not to forget that Obama's uncle liberated Auschwitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 1. Can you give some examples of Bush handing the reins over to others? - Are you saying he was running the country during the 700+ days he had off in eight years? 2. Bush negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement in 2008 to pull our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. You call it an "election stunt" so remind me again...Which Republican candidate ran for the office of President in 2008. Precisely how can you call an agreement by a sitting President who is NOT running for any office an "election stunt"? - An attempt at creating a warm fuzzy feeling for the following Republican candidate, because by then the American people were against this war and, by association, the party that started it. 3. There is this little thing called NATO which calls for the collective defense of member nations yet you ask why the US should be involved in the affairs of Europe? I have asked myself this question many times, particularly since I lost my older brother in WWII. Then I realized it was necessary then to assist and it would be necessary now to protect them from a hostile nation. As a European you will likely see it differently but you know full well the US will be there when and if the time ever comes again. - The EU do not see the need for a missile shield protecting them; surely they should be the ones to decide? 4. Who exactly has Russia by the "balls" as you so succinctly put it? - The former head of the KGB of course. Oops sorry, FSB. 1. Yes. The football never left his side. 2. Bush had to negotiate the SOF Agreement in 2008 since there had never been one and the military required one. He had no choice but to do so. It had nothing to do with being a political stunt. 3. Yes, they should decide about the need for a missile defense. At least two of them did decide they needed it and Obama threw them under the bus to appease Putin. 4. Now I see who you are talking about. Your original post was very unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 As stated, lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenue. What was stated was that cutting taxes cuts unemployment. But it doesn't, does it? My chart backs up this statement..."Check out the history of tax cuts in the US. They always create more revenue for the government than the previous years...". Your chart is about the second "because" part that comes after. Since more revenues are created from lower tax rates, but your chart says there was no increase in employment, then where does all that revenue come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 As stated, lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenue. What was stated was that cutting taxes cuts unemployment. But it doesn't, does it? My chart backs up this statement..."Check out the history of tax cuts in the US. They always create more revenue for the government than the previous years...". Your chart is about the second "because" part that comes after. Since more revenues are created from lower tax rates, but your chart says there was no increase in employment, then where does all that revenue come from? Cutting taxes doesn't lead to higher government receipts. Economic activity leads to higher government receipts. Cutting taxes doesn't generally in themselves raise economic activity especially if people lack confidence, they'll just save and not spend the money. As much as everyone else the US is hostage to global sentiment. Additionally, you can cut taxes all you want, but if your country isn't selling what people want, or don't have people educated or healthy enough to produce them, then nothing is going to happen. Cutting taxes in and of itself is scraping the bottom of the barell stuff. Race for the bottom no more no less. Those charts would be a lot more informative if they were overlaid with what industries were booming at the time, and where that demand was coming from. People forget that it was the conservatives who lead the switch from relying on fiscal policy to monetary policy. Cutting interest rates (monetary policy) is your first line of defence. Fiscal policy also includes tax policy. And conservatives argue fiscal policy doesn't work. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The best thing the us could do is make sure that its tax system is consistent and doesn't discriminate against forms of consumption. The best way todo this is to get rid of your differing levels of state tax and levy a consistent consumption tax (VAT) uniformly across the board. That would encourage the economy to grow in areas where the us has comparative advantages. Plenty of economies at the moment are doing better than the us with higher tax rates. But none of that fits into a five point plan. So it isn't easily digestible to the punters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 An oversized chart which messes up the formatting on the thread has been removed from view. Sorry about that, but it makes reading the posts very, very difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 This is remarkable that Obama, as incumbent, doesn't have a larger edge in foreign policy with the debate now getting ready to start. Post-ABC tracking poll: Obama 49 percent, Romney 48 percent International affairs generally, and handling terrorism specifically, were once Obama strong points against the former Massachusetts governor, but voters now divide about evenly between the two. At the end of September, Obama held an 11 percentage point lead over Romney as the one voters trusted on terrorism — and killing Osama bin Laden is a mainstay on the Obama campaign trail. But now, 47 percent side with Obama on the issue, 46 percent with Romney. http://www.washingto...ercent/?hpid=z1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londoedan Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Well I think BOH has started well - if the debate stays on foreign policy then Romney is going to lose big-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 It's quite obvious that our current crop of politicians have no idea of how to balance a checkbook. How long can you continue to spend money that you don't have? I would think that Romney knows finances much better than a community organizer. How Obama, who never held a public sector job, was elected in the first place is a mystery to me. Obama has advisors. He doesn't describe himself as a financial expert. Romney, for his part, does project that he's an expert on financial affairs. However, the US has thousands of financial and economic experts just in the Wall Street arena, and look what they brought to the banquet. The US (and world) economies were brought to their knees by financial whizes. But I agree that both candidates need to learn the basic tenet: "don't spend beyond your means." Romney want to shovel 1 trillion $$'s to the military (which the military isn't asking for), whereas Obama wants to trim off the fat of military spending. Being a financial expert doesn't mean knowing how to save money. It usually means knowing the craftiest ways to borrow more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Baiting, argumentative and off-topic posts have been deleted. If you have nothing constructive to say, and no decent argument, then don't post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Watching the debate and the live blog comments on Yahoo, and I agree with the following comment thus far: This romney is the obama in the first debate Mostly a non event thus far.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Romney "I want to replace the Syrian regime, with an administration that is friendly towards America." That man is scarey, to a non American. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Romney losing control, getting defensive on his Detroit stance, and my sense is that Obama is walking away with this debate. Edited October 23, 2012 by keemapoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Obama is on the attack and Romney wants a serious discussion of the issues (that is his strategy for the debate). Obama wants another pointless fight like the last debate. Pointing out to Obama that attacking him was not addressing the issues several times was a nice touch. Romney is mostly maintaining a pleasant demeanor. Obama looks angry and defensive. Obama got no bump from the last debate although the liberal media tried to paint it as a win for him. Romney is playing it smart, but he might have let Obama walk over him too much. Will sticking to his strategy work for Romney in the end? The polls will tell. Edited October 23, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Pretty clear who won this debate. I score the final debates tally: 2 to 1. If Romney loses the election, he can blame his Auto industry comments probably, less forgivable as he is a son of Detroit. (I actually agree strongly with Romney's position on the Detroit bailout) As I suspected, Romney backed away from the war drums and switched his position to be more moderate. Edited October 23, 2012 by keemapoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I agree that he lost if you look at it as a fight, but I think what Romney did was intentional. I don't know if it is a winning strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I've always liked Jeff Greenfield's views, ever since he was William F. Buckley Jr.s apprentice. He just blogged: Romney's whole effort, I think, was to be the reasonable, thoughtful guy...I think it meant that Obama "won" , but it's pretty clear that Romney did not want to stir the waters..which likely means the Romney campaign thinks it is on track to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I think Obama won. He looked and sounded better than the last debate. He was more aggressive. Romney wasn't necessarily bad, but he wasn't going after Obama. Which might have been good because every time they attacked, the undecided-voter meter at the bottom of the screen dipped negative. I don't think these guys were responding to each other, just reciting talking points. If Romney had been listening, he would have noticed Obama saying that we have been nation-building for 10 years and have been neglecting "nation-building" at home, building the economy, etc. So Obama basically admitted that he has neglected the US the past 4 years. Romney let Obama slide on the Benghazi question. Romney didn't say one word about the controversy - which is what the question was about. Obama gave Romney grief over saying that Russia was a geopolitical enemy but Romney should have asked Obama who was blocking resolutions against Iran and Syria? Russia. Romney should have explained more about the Status of Forces Agreement and that Obama wanted to keep troops, but we basically got kicked out. When Obama was talking about his great relationship with Israel and other foreign leaders, Romney should have pointed out that Obama skipped meetings with leaders to appear on David Letterman and The View TV shows. Obama nailed him on the size of the US Navy. The total number of ships compared to 1917 is just a stupid argument. Too bad for Obama that Foreign Policy came in at #9 (4%) when people were asked to name the most important issues for them today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Debates are debates. The game is to win the election. Yes. So let's break this down. Nationally there is a consensus the popular vote among likely voters is about tied. HOWEVER, for registered voters, Obama is well ahead. In my view, the media focus on the swing states and how all other states simply do not matter has never been so emphatic and clear. So I think this election is going to be a little different. Many of these registered Obama voters that won't vote are in SAFE states for Obama. They are rational not to vote in their states as their states will go for Obama anyway (in the context of the presidential contest). But I do not believe as high a percentage of this crucial segment, pro Obama but unlikely to vote, live in the very few battleground states. This debate doesn't change the basic electoral college fundamentals. Obama wins. The election. Who the heck cares who won the debates the day after the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Romney "I want to replace the Syrian regime, with an administration that is friendly towards America." That man is scarey, to a non American. As an American, and one who votes, I hope the next Syrian leadership is friendly towards America. I'm sure even Obama supporters (the American ones) want a friendly Syria as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Watching the debate and the live blog comments on Yahoo, and I agree with the following comment thus far: This romney is the obama in the first debate Mostly a non event thus far.... There is some truth to this tweet. It is obvious that the Romney campaign think that he is winning and do not want another pointless fight like the second debate. They want to do what it takes to win the election. However, Romney came off as pleasant, knowledgeable and competent in the first debate. Obama came off as angry and a little desperate in this one. His base will love it, but the voting public may very well not. Edited October 23, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Well, at least now we know Romney loves teachers. Glad we got that settled. Probably the most colorful comment, was Obama's 'horses and bayonets' retort. Watch for that to get a lot of airplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Not likely. The miltary still uses bayonets. Maybe the Romney campaign will use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Epic Zinger: “the 1980s are calling to have their foreign policy back” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Not even close: 57% give it as a win for Romney or a Tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 First CNN poll has 48% thought Obama won, 40% thought Romney won. I thought it would have been closer to 55% for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts