What is it with Obama's face during speeches?

[saadus]

No person with a sixth grade education would put out half the idiocy our so-called Congressmen, Representatives, and President supports. And now, he is pulling the exact same tactic again with a different wrapper this year's election. Four years ago, I was considered outcast because I didn't support Obama. I must have been Racist. Now, gay marriage will be the big topic and, while I do support that, I will NOT support that dumb ass running my country a second longer, even if, once again, I will be cast aside and considered a homophobe.

 

Here's to a new election year.

[myrmaad]

Sorry I was kind of lumping you all the responses together and I get interrupted by a two year old every 6 minutes, and multi task here to boot. I wasn't precise as I often try to be that time, because frankly I only have time to shoot from the hip today. A case could be made for Obama being about the same point on the scale as Bush Senior in fact. I'm not the only one who sees the spectrum widening but just because one side is being dragged to the right does not make the historic middle less a landmark to shoot for, in my opinion.

 

Yes, as HeyYou notes Obama is being dragged to the right by the tea party which is one reason HY doesn't really see much difference I suppose.

 

But HeyYou there are some big differences I see between GWB and Obama, wasn't it you who noted that Bush wanted the Iraq war, in fact we had no reason to invade iraq at all except for the old neocon dream and while I do not believe 9-11 was an inside job, I sure do think it Bush was overjoyed that it fell into his lap. He must have believed it was a "godsend".

Aside from that I do agree about Health Insurance and what do you expect? I meant to address this in my original post but the biggest problem I believe we have is the money in elections.

 

On to the deficit, I can understand how you must think, Aur, having been indoctrinated with ideology regarding deficits, but the way to get out of big debt is not to allow it to mow you over, but to invest in your own future. Throughout history every other government to successfully overcome a depression has stepped up government spending, every government that has tried austerity measures has only worsened the situation.

 

It's not that I don't think that the deficit is a problem but I do think there's a right way to address it. The way we're doing it is putting the cart before the horse. You can't fix things when you're flat on your back. Have you ever heard the saying 'you're only as strong as you're weakest link'?

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-interview-2011-11

 

American Enterprise Institute "Framing the Long Term Budget Debate" hosted by Paul Ryan <- Even conservatives when rational agree that there is a difference between short term and long term deficits.

 

The real bottom line here, is that both Republican and Democratic administrations have historically increased deficits, except for after the Clinton Administration, when Alan Greenspan made his trip to capital hill to plead the case that we were going to run out of debt and we should give big tax breaks (now that there was a Republican in office).

 

The American consumer base is such that if a most of the middle class buys one $5 item from you, you will attain great wealth, in fact if only males between the ages of 15 and 64 bought your item one time you would net $513325215 (five hundred thirteen million three hundred twenty-five thousand two hundred fifteen); so what does that say about the Walmarts and Exxons and Johnson and Johnsons and Proctor and Gambles and McDonalds', I'll tell you what it says, they were given the gift of the American Consumer class and they do not appreciate it. (Many many purchases of $5 over and over). That is a luxury and we should tax for access to it. It has been our national treasure, and it beats the pants off every other consumer economy which is why our global corporatocracy is trying to recreate new competitive consumer markets in India and especially China. (Creating a viable middle class consumer class there is more important than here.)

 

Gads there is so much more to this and I'm just necessarily scratching the surface.

[grannywils]

Oh, Myr please leave that sheepishness behind you forever and keep it coming. To coin a phrase, you have got it goin' on girl! :thumbsup:

[HeyYou]

Obama gave us Yemen, (and still is...) and Libya. Two places we really don't have any business being in. He can't seem to decide which side to support though, the oppressive existing regime, or, the up-and-coming muslim brotherhood regime..... I think he flips a quarter, and lets chance decide. Then we have Iran...... Obama is prepping the country for military action there. The Israelis want it, the military industrial complex wants it, the military will go where they are told. (not to be confused with the earlier military, which is the research and acquisition side..... they make big bucks off of wars, and can use them to justify spending billions more on weapon system that don't do what the original specs called for, and have not even once come in remotely close to 'on budget'....) No one handed these wars to Obama, he took them up on his own volition. How either of them have anything to do with National Security is absolutely beyond me. I am surprised he hasn't added the Syrian rebels to his list.... (of course, he would have to side with the rebels, as the existing government most certainly does NOT want our help......)

 

His economic policy his echoed GWB's. Tax cuts. More spending, to the same folks that got us into this mess in the first place...... Etc.

 

Now that he is on the campaign trail, he is touting "nixing tax breaks for outsourcing jobs." Something he talked about last time around, yet, after elections...... nothing happened. He has zero credibility with me, even though I voted for him. That isn't gonna happen this time. Of course, I won't vote for Romney either. Him winning would ensure the continuation of business as usual, and our economy would slide ever faster into recession. I just hope there is some viable third party candidate to vote for..... if there isn't, I simply won't vote for either of the two losers. Where's my "none of the above" option?

 

My question becomes: Do we really WANT someone 'politically experienced' in office again? Seems to me, that just guarantees the same old feces coming out of washington. So far as I am concerned, it's time to wipe the slate clean, and start over again.

[Aurielius]

My question becomes: Do we really WANT someone 'politically experienced' in office again? Seems to me, that just guarantees the same old feces coming out of washington. So far as I am concerned, it's time to wipe the slate clean, and start over again.

I fail to see why political ineptness is a qualification for governing, the art of politics is the ability to make a deal with your ideological opponents. I am sure you remember President Carter's campaign which promoted his outsider credentials, and that turned out oh so well once in office. I was never overly fond of LBJ (for his consistent inept meddling in the war) but he managed to get his Civil Rights legislation through Congress by good old fashion arm twisting... a definite point in his favor. Those who elected our current fearless leader, voted in someone who NEVER created one piece of legislation in his entire career and lets us review his ability to get measures passed....the Affordable Health Care Act..shortly to be dismembered by the SC, not one balanced Budget or for that matter a budget of any sort, considering that he had two years of Congressional majority, it's an appalling record of achievement.

[marharth]

Maybe that is because Obama doesn't actually want to get anything done?

 

Its not like our politicians actually care about the people. Passing legislation to benefit the country is the last thing on their list.

 

Has nothing to do with political experience.

[SubjectProphet]

2000 election: You're a terrorist for not supporting Bush

 

2008: You're racist for not supporting Obama

 

2012: You're anti-gay and STILL racist for not supporting Obama

 

 

I'm done with this crap. -_-

[HeyYou]

2000 election: You're a terrorist for not supporting Bush

 

2008: You're racist for not supporting Obama

 

2012: You're anti-gay and STILL racist for not supporting Obama

 

 

I'm done with this crap. -_-

 

Yeah, welcome to the new politics.... The dems are all socialists, the repubbies are war-mongers, and obstructionists, and are just itchin' to pull the trigger on Iran, the independents are whack-job extremists, the occupy movement is all about ME, and what I can get from the government.... etc.

 

Everyone paints all the 'other guys' as some flavor of evil, that is out to destroy our country on purpose. What's really funny is, they all say "we have the best interests of 'THE PEOPLE' in mind".... Their definitions of 'the people' just vary considerably from party to party. None of them have the faintest desire to do what's right FOR THE COUNTRY, only, what is right for THEM.

[myrmaad]

Actually I think this is the problem, right here.

 

When someone wants to get real serious about actual facts, no one can handle it and it goes right back to mud slinging and nonsensical sound bytes, pithy one-liners and shallow talking points.

 

I'm armed with data and video evidence and credible bipartisan sources, myself.

[csgators]

Actually I think this is the problem, right here.

 

When someone wants to get real serious about actual facts, no one can handle it and it goes right back to mud slinging and nonsensical sound bytes, pithy one-liners and shallow talking points.

 

I'm armed with data and video evidence and credible bipartisan sources, myself.

 

 

I think you are correct. We all have data, video evidence and credible bipartisan sources to back us up. Life is not that simple. Lies, lies and and damn statistics!!!!!! I think we could look at the same numbers and come to different conclusions. We all have pre-conceived notions and different life experiences to draw on. What seems blatantly obvious to me is a mystery or is certainly wrong to someone else. Who is right? No one can convince the other that they are wrong. That is why Libertarianism is the correct form of government. No one is forcing their beliefs on others. As long as you are non-violent and pursuing your own goals and beliefs then great, have at it. Again, this seems obvious to me but to others, force by the majority is required for a civil society.