2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Esten; 420829]Sad but true, millions of Americans suffer from a disorder called ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). Including some of our very own posters here.

ODS is characterized by a fundamental belief that Barack Obama is the cause of all problems in the USA. That Obama can do no right, and that everything he does is wrong.

Facts do not stand in the way of a person suffering from ODS. When presented with facts, one of two responses is generally elicited:

(I) The facts are countered by an argument that is loosely based in reality, usually derived from repeated exposure to programming and messaging that creates an illusion of truth.

(ii) The facts are willfully ignored as the person changes the topic back to their anti-Obama narrative, fueled by uncontrollable firing of diseased synaptic connections.

It is a very difficult disorder to cure. What we do know is ODS is more common in people from the South, people with less education, people who watch more than 1 hour of Fox News a day, and older white men. Falling in just 2 of these categories puts the odds of having or developing ODS at 70.[/QUOTE]Another typical liberal running his mouth with 0 factual statements. Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.

[QUOTE=Runner Up;420848]Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.[/QUOTE]It's George Bush's fault!

[QUOTE=Texas Tornado;420830]Not to be confused with its sister ailment, OIOS: Obama Is Our Savior syndrome which tends to occur in Americans who believe that welfare payments cure all evils[/QUOTE]This provides an excellent example of the first type of ODS response:

[QUOTE](i) The facts are countered by an argument that is loosely based in reality, usually derived from repeated exposure to programming and messaging that creates an illusion of truth.[/QUOTE]In this case, the loose basis in reality is that some people do believe in the moral and economic value of certain forms of welfare. But that's where the connection with reality ends. Few if any people believe that welfare payments cure all evils, or that welfare should be the main or singular focus of government. However, right wing programming and messaging has instilled in many the idea that this is a widespread view among Liberals. In fact, Liberals believe in the same ideals of individual effort, opportunity and rewarding success as Conservatives do. Some Conservatives recognize this, and understand their differences with Liberals are not so great. Those with ODS however, typically weak-minded shallow thinkers, merely recycle the programming and messaging they have succumbed to. They take comfort in the delusion that they alone are the vanguards of American ideals.

[QUOTE=Runner Up;420848]Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.[/QUOTE]And I'm guessing that half of those 65mil are republicans. Just TRY taking away THEIR welfare or unemployment check, not to mention their Lark Scooter reimbursement check. Fucking hell to pay, you better believe it.

[QUOTE=Esten; 420851]This provides an excellent example of the first type of ODS response:

In this case, the loose basis in reality is that some people do believe in the moral and economic value of certain forms of welfare. But that's where the connection with reality ends. Few if any people believe that welfare payments cure all evils, or that welfare should be the main or singular focus of government. However, right wing programming and messaging has instilled in many the idea that this is a widespread view among Liberals. In fact, Liberals believe in the same ideals of individual effort, opportunity and rewarding success as Conservatives do. Some Conservatives recognize this, and understand their differences with Liberals are not so great. Those with ODS however, typically weak-minded shallow thinkers, merely recycle the programming and messaging they have succumbed to. They take comfort in the delusion that they alone are the vanguards of American ideals.[/QUOTE]You are so far from understanding the reality of an entrepreneurial mindset that any attempts at honest dialogue wold be a frivolous waste of time.

[QUOTE=Jackson;420849]It's George Bush's fault![/QUOTE]Even if Obama loses the election, history will be kinder to Obama than Bush. But of course, most historians and writers are liberals.

[QUOTE=Esten;420851]In fact, Liberals believe in the same ideals of individual effort, opportunity and rewarding success as Conservatives do.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!

People, please don't listen to what liberals say, just watch what they do.

For example, they will claim that they believe in "rewarding success", when in fact what they actually believe in is [u]redistributing[/u] success.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Texas Tornado;420854]You are so far from understanding the reality of an entrepreneurial mindset that any attempts at honest dialogue wold be a frivolous waste of time.[/QUOTE]That's it. Go ahead and retreat back to your warm little cocoon of delusion. Where business and entrepreneurship are akin to rocket science, understood only by a few. And where one can quickly ascertain another person's lack of understanding of such things without knowing anything about them. Never mind explaining how so many liberals and democrats have started and run successful businesses. It must have just been a fluke, or maybe a conservative friend helped them. Go ahead. I understand. You're not used to having your programming challenged. It's easier to just dismiss and avoid.

[QUOTE=Runner Up;420848]Another typical liberal running his mouth with 0 factual statements. Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.[/QUOTE]OMG. 65, 000, 000 is such a huge number. Therefore we must be spending too much!

That's the kind of simpleton message that Republicans depend on to maintain their support. Forget the analysis. What for? It's obvious we're spending too much. Just look at that number. 65 Million!

We can all agree it would be better if that number wasn't so high. But there are reasons why the number is what it is. And there are consequences if that number gets brought down through forced spending cuts, versus voluntary reduced usage of assistance.

OK. Let's give Runner Up a chance to prove he's actually given this some thought. Tell us sir, how much money is the goverment spending on those people, where is it going, and how and by how much would you reduce this spending?

I agree with Esten. Liberals are actually very knowledgeable about the private sector. In fact liberals have become experts at taxing the private sector and distributing that money to 'obama is our savior' constituents who prefer not to work.

[QUOTE=Esten; 420871]OMG. 65, 000, 000 is such a huge number. Therefore we must be spending too much!

That's the kind of simpleton message that Republicans depend on to maintain their support. Forget the analysis. What for? It's obvious we're spending too much. Just look at that number. 65 Million!

We can all agree it would be better if that number wasn't so high. But there are reasons why the number is what it is. And there are consequences if that number gets brought down through forced spending cuts, versus voluntary reduced usage of assistance.

OK. Let's give Runner Up a chance to prove he's actually given this some thought. Tell us sir, how much money is the goverment spending on those people, where is it going, and how and by how much would you reduce this spending?[/QUOTE]Here is a fact. I fired a libtard today because I got tired of listening to his crap for 1. 5 years. I didn't even see this guy unless it was inspection time or on Wednesday whe he came in to get his check. He renovates properties for me but thinks he has banking hours and voted for Obama. His wife has 3 kids that aren't his and he supports them all. Well maybe not for the next few months! I felt so good firing his dumb ars.

Here is a fact from Obama mouth and then a few more.

[quote]"I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I've seen it where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."[/quote]He's absolutely right. The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.

[QUOTE=Runner Up;420896]The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.[/QUOTE]This is a cut-and-paste from the Heritage Foundation. Just more short, slanted right-wing messaging.

Notice the comparison of apples (poverty rate) to oranges (total spending). Guess what, the US population has almost doubled since the 1960s. So of course spending will increase even with a flat poverty rate. The 13X reference needs investigation, it is most likely a distortion to support the Heritage Foundation's right-wing agenda. An apples-to-apples per capita comparison is needed.

We already had significant welfare reform in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This added a workforce development component to welfare legislation. This reform has been hailed as a great success by Republicans.

But once again, Republicans are banging the drum that we still have a huge problem.

No doubt there is still [i]some[/i] waste and inappropriate incentives in our welfare system, as Runner Up and Obama have said. The real question is quantifying and addressing the "some". If Republicans are banging the drum for action, the onus is on them to present a plan of action.

What will Republicans do? Cut the single biggest component of welfare - Medicaid? Good luck. Polls show most Americans are against Medicaid cuts, by wide margins.

So what else can be done? How do we distinguish appropriate welfare from inappropriate welfare? And how much money will that really save?

Runner Up provides no answers to these questions, but that's par for the course from people like him.

Sorry Esten, that was a pretty lame excuse for spending and one trotted out by liberals since 1964.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Johnson's "Great Society" project called welfare and its associated programs promise to lift those in poverty out of poverty in a single generation. If I can Google and find these promises so can you.

We are now 48 years down the road with that portion of the populace even move dependent on the Government than ever before as we watch new program after program fail to meet the Democrat's promise of 1964.

To the contrary the poverty pimps, such as Jackson & Sharpton just to name a few, still abound as well as the liberal Democrats who continue to push the programs to buy votes on election day. Obama is chief among those now.

What really puzzles me is the very people liberal's claim to 'care about' have been decimated during those 48 years. Look at statistics from pre 1964 regarding the black family structure and illegitimate birth rates among the black population, now compare them to today's figures.

If conservatives had wrought this much wholesale destruction on a minority population within the United States liberals would be up in arms calling conservatives racist and demanding redress in the courts and criminal punishment for those involved in this 'crime'. But since liberal's caused this destruction in the name of 'social justice', 'fairness', 'compassion' it is OK.

And now we have Doppelganger, yet another conservative complaining about welfare, but with no answers. No details on what should be cut.

Truly UNBELIEVABLE.

Doppel, the simple answer to your question is this. The Great Society had some initial success. But over the long run, government efforts have been inadequate to counter the forces of free-market capitalism, which have increasingly concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. Surely you are not so naive as to think legislation from the 1960s is the sole or even main factor influencing the poverty rate today.

According to the Economic Policy Institute. 80% of the nation's wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The top 1% gained 40% of the nation's total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%. The bottom 60% lost 7.5% of the gains.
[url]http://www.epi.org/publication/large-disparity-share-total-wealth-gain/[/url]

In general, conservative policies strongly support this type of extreme economic inequality. It is pretty much bottom --> up wealth redistribution. Similar though less extreme statistics exist for income as well. When liberals look at these statistics and propose to do something about it, conservatives march out their Wall-Street friendly messaging and propaganda:

"But the rich EARNED their money. It's wrong to take it away."
"Redistribution of wealth is morally wrong."
"Don't punish success."

And so the trend continues.

The same name calling and blind nonsense disconnected from reality. Jackson-please close both political threads and let's just agree to disagree.

-

I was saddened to see Mitt on TV trying to win over the right wing of the grand old party:" I was a severely conservative governor."

Mitt and the democract were almost in a dead heat until Mitt became part of the who is the most conservative conservative contest:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html[/url]

-

Now a true social conservative has to be against birth control. Mr Rick made the Sunday morning new talks shows and told the world that he personally is against the use of birth control regardless of who pays for it. I am sure the Mr Rick would make a great leader for maybe 25% of the USA whose moral conviction play out as abstinence if sex is not for making babies. I am sure that all the members here would applaud this as social policy in the good old USA.

I call him Mr rick because he looks like the dashing gay blade who used to cut one of my X's hair who was called Mr Rick in his salon.

The general poplulation doesn't buy this stuff no matter whatever the republican primaries might say:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html[/url]

_________________________________________________________.

The president demonstrates problems with the basic job skills while the republicans play a game as to who can tame the far right wind of the grand old party[that represents maybe 25% of the electorate. ]

While the country self destructs-I can imagine bill clinton play sax with the rolling stones while mick sings honky tonk women-a modern equivalent of nero playing the fiddle while rome burns

All this nonsense about who has wealth is just an attempt to divert attention from the fact that the economy of the United States is in the gutter and will remain in the gutter as long as Obama's birdbrain policies are followed.

Esten, sitting on your ass, with your hand out for a government program to fill is not capitalism it's typical liberal feel good policies with someone else's money.

I gave you two very specific criteria by which to judge the 'great society' welfare programs effectiveness which you have ignored, as usual.

Yes the 1960's Great Society is where this monster started. It's like eating possum, the longer you chew it the bigger it gets!

My suggestion is to totally abolish ALL FEDERAL WELFARE PROGRAMs, turn them over to the several states to fund and manage as each state sees fit. This would include MEDICAID, which would also revert to the several states.

Reduce the Federal Tax Rate since the Fed does not have to feed the Welfare Monster anymore.

Let the private charities do their work with VOLUNTARY donations from the 'evil rich' and get the Federal Government out of the welfare business.

The Federal Government has collected taxes from both employees and employers for years for MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY, as such they should be continued at the Federal level, but these programs need to be returned to their original payment schedules which do not include spouses, kids and all the other additional pay outs never envisioned in the original program.

Last but not least, your arguments are much like Obama's man Lee trying to explain how Obama's budget which adds an additional Trillion dollars to the national debt is a good thing.

It's the Keep It Simple Stupid – STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!

Esten, is that specific enough for you?

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-calls-occupy-movement-intolerant-protestors-interrupt-him-001541619.html[/url]

I guess rick doesn't like BBBJ. Rick when you visit the privados in baires ask for bucal sin

Unfortunately, that is almost never acknowledged on this site. Politics doesn't belong here. The divisions in the contemporary USA will not be resolved here. This forum serves a better purpose to share what we can share about things.

I think we all agree that the "social conservatives" would want 99. 999999% of the membership here stoned and flogged in public as an example to the youth that we are all ungodly perverts. Maybe mr rick would bring back the guillotine to cut off jackosn's head during half-time of next years superbowl.

NO the guillotine is french and well all know how those "social conservatives "generally feel about all things french.

It is unfortunate that the current republican candidates have to pander to the social conservatives. A "moderate republican" can beat the president, but the party base apparently is in revolt and mitt is now a severely conservative guy and was a severely conservative governor.

The mitt of the past who I was assuming I would vote for is getting sliced and diced in the sausage machine and coming out severely conservative at the end of the assembly line.

Bob, I readily agree intelligent people can have very different views of the body politic; an example would be Esten and me. We have been going at it for years now and nothing has changed. We continue to swap good natured barbs.

No we are not going to change anyone's mind on this site or anywhere else for that matter, but me thinks you take this tread much too seriously. I also think you are confusing social conservatives as a general group with evangelicals.

If Mr. Rick is going to cut off my Johnson he better bring a magnifying glass and some tweezers, cause that's what it's going to take to find that sucker!

As far as Mitt is concerned, it is pretty clear he will be the nominee. What you are seeing in these smaller races are the conservatives telling Mitt he needs to get off center and move right. No different than Obama getting off center, well maybe not 'center' but moving more to the left to satisfy his base.

If you remember during the 2008 campaign the Democrats did not choose a candidate until late in the primary season after some really bruising campaigns and he still went on to win.

I think the Catholic thing is going to really hurt Obama in the general election, there are a lot of Catholics out there and he just pissed them all off. Not because of the birth control per say but because he is forcing it down their throat by presidential fiat.

A Liberal, a Moderate and a Conservative walk into a bar.

The bartender says, "Hey Mitt !"

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;420937]Esten, sitting on your ass, with your hand out for a government program to fill is not capitalism it's typical liberal feel good policies with someone else's money.[/QUOTE]Notice Doppel recycling a favorite right-wing message, that liberal policies are focused on giving handouts to lazy people. Why is such right-wing messaging and propaganda so pervasive? Because it helps prop up their ideological arguments, so they can feel good about their position. So they can believe they are right. No doubt, a significant chunk of Republican support depends on frequent repetition of such nonsense.

Now Doppel deserves credit for laying out his position with some details. But let's have a closer look.

Cutting all federal welfare (including Medicaid) would be a big hit. There is no way such a shortfall would be made up by the states, or by increased charitable giving. Not even close. Who takes the hit? Millions of lazy people with their hand out? Not quite.

About two-thirds of Medicaid (the largest welfare component) goes to spending on the elderly and disabled. Also, many people who receive welfare and can work make an honest effort to find work. With the high ratio of applicants to openings, it's inevitable that millions of people will not land a job. What's the number / cost of able-bodied people 'sitting on their ass' with their hand out, not making an honest effort? That number is unclear, but irrelevant to folks like Doppel. It's easier to just lump everybody together in one group, cut the funds, and let the chips fall where they may.

Likely outcomes would be:
- Increased leverage for employers, decreased leverage for workers. Which often translates into a poorer deal for workers.
- An increase in the poverty rate.
- An increase in economic inequality (already at extreme levels).
- An increase in infant and child mortality.
- A decrease in average life expectancy. Currently the US ranks 36th, well-behind other countries with universal health coverage.

To far-right Conservatives, it appears the risk of these outcomes is worth it, if we can weed out those lazy freeloaders.

You guys debating would be like ron paul and huntsman-everyone would fall asleep. You guys are missing the drama and idiocy of Rick perry, herman cain and super newt.

After newt loses the primaries and gets thrown out of clalista's bed, he should join ap and take sweet jazmin and her girlfriend carla for a weekend with TL's love drops supplied via iv. Newt could liven up this board and if he really had the balls to ask his wife with cancer for an open marriage,

He would fit right in here: there is no substitute for class.

Well back on point-don't want to confuse anyone-I have not been reading the political boards because all the nasty name calling and dumb repition was boring. I am re-reading your on-going dialog and it is a "reasonable discourse" my comments should not apply to the two of you. I stand corrected.

I for one miss WW. He actually would research and think through his postings even if I found him to have the sensitivity of gengus khan and the mongol hoard

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html[/url]

Is the USA ready for no contraceptives and sexual self control as a national policy? I guess covered BJ's may become illegal. Bootleggers will be running in illegal condoms from canada and mexico. Viagra will only be available to married men. Mr rick has the point of view of a good christian man from before martin luther's time. Each religion or even those without religion are entitled to their own point of view as long as it does impact those with other points of view.

[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sheriff-babeu-20120219[/url].0, 182908. Story.

A Republican freak of nature or an Democratic agent sent to cause disarray among the Republicans. The world is coming to an end.

Romney will be the Republican nominee and Obama will beat him because the economy is recovering just fast enough for that to happen. Obamacare will thus survive because even if the Democrats don't get a majority in Congress the Republicans won't be able to override a veto. Some states will refuse to implement the "insurance exchange" system and so that will mean more Medicaid enrollees. The Bush tax cuts will not survive in their entirety but the 10% bracket will survive. Capital gains will not be taxed the same as ordinary income but the preference will decrease. My bet is the 0% will go to 10% and the 15% will go to 20%. Dividends might go higher since people are too stupid to realize that one is a substitute for the other.

I am not political. I am practical. You set up whatever system and I will do my best to beat it. But these are my predictions so let's see how it all shakes out. I will vote for Obama not because he is the Messiah but because I selfishly believe I will be better off under him than under either Sanctimonio or Rich Fuck Mormon. Ideology means nothing to me and my net cash flow means everything to me.

Now let's return to our regularly scheduled righty lefty bullshit.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 421013][url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sheriff-babeu-20120219[/url]

0, 182908. Story.

A Republican freak of nature or an Democratic agent sent to cause disarray among the Republicans. The world is coming to an end.[/QUOTE]Your link is bad.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 421013][url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sheriff-babeu-20120219[/url]

0, 182908. Story.

A Republican freak of nature or an Democratic agent sent to cause disarray among the Republicans. The world is coming to an end.[/QUOTE]Well, the news story is of the Arizona sheriff who is running for Congress, Paul Babeu, a rising Republican star. He disclosed his gay identity after exposure that he is featured in a gay soliciting web site. In addition, it was reported that he threatened his former lover, with deportation if he disclosed their relationship.

How about some posting about chicas or a good restaurant or bar. You are the master of cost-effective mongering in BA. Newbies-this is the guy to listen to HE KNOWS HIS STUFF.

[QUOTE=Miami Bob;420986]You guys debating would be like ron paul and huntsman-everyone would fall asleep. You guys are missing the drama and idiocy of Rick perry, herman cain and super newt.[/QUOTE]I couldn't miss it if I tried! The GOP race is on the news every day, every hour it seems. Occasionally I get tired of the news so dominated with it, but sooner or later I find myself wanting to check in on the latest. It's turning out to be good for the Obama team, I'm sure they're happy to have it go on as long as possible. I am looking forward to seeing what quotes and clips end up in the fall campaign.

I generally don't post about the GOP race, I prefer discussing and exposing the pervasive bullshit in right wing policies and positions. But they are certainly connected.

My favorite guy so far is Rick Perry. Too bad he dropped out. All Obama would have had to do is run his 'Oops' debate performance as a commerical over and over.

[QUOTE]"I will tell you: It's three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the -- what's the third one there? Let's see. . OK. So Commerce, Education and the -- . The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with the Education, the . Commerce and -- let's see -- I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops."[/QUOTE]My gawd, what an epic embarrassment for Perry, and for the state of Texas. And he's had several other embarrassing quotes too. But forgetting the three agencies he wants to cut? What that tells me, is this could not possibly have been a policy position he's thought through and held for a long time. You wouldn't forget something like that. No, Perry and his handlers probably whipped this up prior to the debate, to help separate himself from the pack, to help portray him as a leader with great, bold policies. But then he forgot, live on national television. The guy comes across as the consumate snake-oil salesman. Maybe he can sweet-talk his believers in the conservative state of Texas, but his bullshit wouldn't have stood a chance against a reasoned thinker like Obama. Too bad, I would have loved to watch Obama. Perry debates.

Now Perry's latest, he jumped on Newt's bandwagon as it was surging ahead. Now Newt slid back to third.

There will be plenty of time to talk about Romney and Santorum. I don't care who their nominee is. They will lose. Not because of their candidate but because of their policies and positions. The single biggest one being their position on taxes. The GOP nominee will not be the most important person determining Obama's win. The most important person helping Obama win will be Grover Norquist.

I think Dickhead's predictions are pretty sound.

I am not sure the economy is going to save Obama. I expect the economy to be more or less a mess come November I. E. Housing markets a disaster, inflation starting to raise its ugly head, national debt increasing at warp speed, real unemployment unacceptable. I don't think Obama can make a dent in these problems because Obama's understanding of a free market economy could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a lot a space left over.

The real issue is that the Republicans might nominate a knucklehead. Much like their senatorial candidates in nevada and Delaware in 2010.

Dick Head makes some good points but I believe the election will be too close to call until late on election night baring some unforeseen major event, be it good or bad for either side.

If you look back at other elections, the incumbent always sees a rise in his popularity as the other party's presidential candidates attack each other. All the incumbent has to do is remain in the back ground and at least give the impression of being presidential, so Esten I would not start counting the election won at this point.

I do think the election will turn into a dog fight late this summer and Obama's current above 50% approval rating will plummet as the election nears.

Where is why :

1. Gas prices continue to rise and will be at or above $4 / gal before the election, you will see plenty of ads quoting Obama's US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu 'somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe' as they continue to force the American public 'Green' by choking off domestic production via regulation and red tape. XL Pipeline anyone?

2. The Catholic Church contraceptive issue is not going to go away, as one case filed on behalf of a Catholic institution has already been granted a temporary injunction prohibiting the Fed from implementing it. This will be a wedge issue which will cost Obama badly needed votes come November.

3. Obama's continued treatment of Israel as the 'red headed step child' is already costing Obama votes in the Jewish community and the administration's further demands for Israel to refrain from defending itself will only accelerate the loss of the Jewish vote.

4. Obama will suffer a reversal of fortune in the Supreme Court at the end of June or first of July as the individual mandate is found unconstitutional.

5. The companion case to this regarding severability will most probably come out against Obama as well since trying to insert a 'severability clause' into the legislation after it was written, enacted and signed into law is futile and will result in the entire law collapsing.

6. Unemployment will come back to haunt Obama as the masses lose their Unemployment Benefits they are now turning to Disability which is paid by the Social Security Trust Fund.

A. When granted disability they are removed from the 'unemployment rolls' but added to the already overburdened social security disability rolls, FYI the Social Security Trust Fund is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2018.

B. By the way 5. 3% of all Americans now receive disability payments from the Social Security Trust Fund. The number approved for disability has increased 18% since 2008 and continues to accelerate.

C. This manipulation of unemployment numbers and disability numbers will be another negative for Obama

7. Once the GOP primary battles are over, the GOP candidate will turn all that attention on Obama and his record.

Have a good day

Newt is a pig, but at least he has soul and isn't boring. Mitt just loves the height of the trees in michigan and lakes, lots of lakes. He drove a mustang-wowwie zowwie a mustang-

Sarah pallin on the 40th ballet, is the only one left standing. She gets herman's and rick perry's left over delegates delegates and mr rick's by promising to campaign on her daughters being taught to never use condoms during their home schooling. Public schools teach the youth of america about ungodly things like condoms.

While this goes on and the world stratches it's head-Obama will open up an annex of the the governmet printing office to set-up exrtra printing presses in the White house to keep-up with the demand for more $$. He moves michelle and the girls and 47 secret service guys into trailer park and he pays less taxes than warren buffet's secretary.

Only in the USA

Newt is suggesting he could get gas down to $2 / gallon as president.

One of his arguments is that we actually had $2 gas not too long ago. That the national average was below $2 when Obama was inaugurated. Republicans also use this to show how much gas has increased under Obama. Of course, they all fail to point out that these events occured near the bottom of a market crash.

They're also claiming Obama's policies have caused the rise in gas prices, especially Keystone, but no oil projects he might have approved would have brought any oil to market at this point. The other angle is that Obama has been weak with Iran, and this is causing oil to go up.

As usual, these jokers are grasping at anything they can to advance themselves politically. It is comical, and a shame.

Here's an article with some stats you will never hear these guys mention. One of the most noteworthy IMO - more drilling rigs are being deployed in America today than at any time since the mid 1980's.

Oil and Gas Jobs Increase by 75,000 Under Obama — 69,000 More Than Would Be Created By Keystone XL
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/18/406314/oil-and-gas-jobs-increase-by-75000-under-obama-69000-more-than-would-be-created-by-keystone-xl/[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten; 421070]Oil and Gas Jobs Increase by 75, 000 Under Obama — 69, 000 More Than Would Be Created By Keystone XL.

[url]http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/18/406314/oil-and-gas-jobs-increase-by-75000-under-obama-69000-more-than-would-be-created-by-keystone-xl/[/url][/QUOTE]All these jobs are a result of north Dakota Balkan formation oil development. This had nothing to do with Obama, but guesse who? The devil George W! It takes time to ramp up oil development. Your facts are totally misdirection BULLSHIT! Shame on you spin Boy! I live in this part of the world and no one out here would ever attribute this sole example of energy growth to Obamanation. WTF. I thought you were actually much smarter than this! Guesse you just have to use any distorted metric to support your boy. Obomanations record is "what it is"! Deal with it! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;421072]Your facts are totally misdirection BULLSHIT! Shame on you spin Boy! WTF. I thought you were actually much smarter than this! Guesse you just have to use any distorted metric to support your boy.[/QUOTE]"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Rousseau, Jean Jacques

[QUOTE=David_33;421075]"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Rousseau, Jean Jacques[/QUOTE]We are allowed to be colourful here [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]! Read the political threads and stop sounding like a [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] everytime I post. Esten and I are friends [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue] and colourful exchanges have dominated this and the other political thread for years. As most liberals on this board you do not address the facts of my post. So I guesse you are now an expert on the Balkins. LMAO. Suggest you stay off these threads unless you want to discuss the issues and not whine about the form of my posts here. Trust me, Esten wasn't offended. Now go out and save some whales or continue your lecture series on internet chat board etiquette.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any [u]personal attacks or derogatory comments[/u] directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.[/blue]

Once again your post proves my point. But what can one expect from someone who needs to use toys?

[QUOTE=David_33;421075]"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Rousseau, Jean Jacques[/QUOTE]Now you are referencing a Frenchman, too funny (but of course YOU are not a wild-ass liberal). Go back to whale watching dude. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Hey Toymann that's cool. If you think that article implies Obama created those jobs (even though it does NOT claim this) , fair enough for you to point out some of those jobs were probably set in motion before Obama came along. If Bush had something to do with them, good for him, he did a few things right as I've said before. You guys should really stop calling him evil and saying everything was his fault.

The 'direction' of my post and that article, is to put the lie to the claim some Republicans are making that Obama is stifling oil & gas development. Jobs are increasing, rigs are increasing, production increasing. Those are the facts.

Now it was very interesting listening to Bill O'Reilly today. Recently he has had a rare, apolitical discussion of something, in this case what is causing the high price of gas. In fact he acknowledged production is up, and US demand is down due to the mild winter, so the high price contradicts the laws of supply and demand. Basically the take away was that the oil companies are exporting the oil, in turn reducing the US supply, driving the price up. If this is true, increasing production further (as Republicans want) is not necessarily the answer to driving the price back down. O'Reilly then goes on to suggest something surprising (from a conservative) : Obama could ask Congress to raise export taxes on oil companies, to encourage them to sell more oil in the US (thereby driving down price).

That's an idea worth discussion. Republicans won't likely get behind it though, given their earlier vigorous opposition to ending tax loopholes for Big Oil, and the ideological positions they have dug themselves into on taxes and 'government meddling' in the private market.