|
Post by slappy on Feb 25, 2011 19:32:58 GMT -5
I didn't think you would be old enough next election either. Huckabee while likable is a joke. There is no Republican out there who can beat Obama. So we will have to suffer through many more years of Obama. While I get heated in a discussion of politics with you, at least you have an argument (unlike most folks in this thread). The one Conservative that would've beaten Obama was Mitt Romney. When the Republican party chose their side, Obama suddenly inherited a piss load of voters. McCain was completely the wrong choice, as RINOs are not needed in office. I hope Romney goes up for the next election. Most Republicans (& Conservatives) realized that they had the wrong choice, only after it was too late. Would I vote for Ron Paul? Over any Liberal, any day. Can Romney win the nomination? I'm not really sure. I think there are too many people out there who are afraid of his being a Mormon. Which is why Jon Huntsman will have a hard time if he runs. (Which it looks like he will more and more every day.) Huckabee, while claiming not to be talking about Romney, did have a good quote. They don't want to elect someone that looks like the guy that can fire them. I like Romney. Part of that is because I know he is a closet Democrat. But I do know that he'd put people on the Supreme Court that are very conservative to appease voters in the next election.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 1, 2024 2:30:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 20:24:49 GMT -5
I'm voting for McMahon
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Feb 25, 2011 22:50:17 GMT -5
It's taken me a few years to figure it out, but I refuse to talk politics on this board. Too many know-it-alls and elitists trying to tear down what other people post just because they disagree. Awesome.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 1, 2024 2:30:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2011 1:03:28 GMT -5
damn u got me,tho i did volunteer at the scott county republican headquarters havnt seen a good candidate yet, tho i like ron paul about spending im sure we dont need to spend money helping dominos make better pizza,monkey smoke crack and studying fruit fly brains Well only two, I believe have actually entered the race. An owner of some pizza shop and some guy who believes Obama wasn't born here. No credible candidate has announced yet. I agree we don't need to spend money on Dominos or crack monkeys. We could learn things through science, so I fully support funding science when it could lead to big things.I'm not sure what will come from crack smoking monkeys though. i agree, but spend the money wisly
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Feb 26, 2011 1:56:17 GMT -5
I would if I felt he were the best candidate. If it were him or Sara Palin, I would definitely re-elect him. He is proving that he is making efforts to improve the economy and improve the United States. The Republican party is acting so stubborn it's like they are kindergarteners. They are inhibiting all progress with this country and they are the greedy ones who got us into the economic trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 26, 2011 4:06:54 GMT -5
He is proving that he is making efforts to improve the economy and improve the United States. Are you ing serious? they are the greedy ones who got us into the economic trouble. ... Really?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. McCluer on Feb 26, 2011 21:54:51 GMT -5
heck no, of course im conservative ha so i didnt vote for him anyways
|
|
The Doctor
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 3, 2002 19:03:52 GMT -5
Posts: 3,446
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 26, 2011 23:26:35 GMT -5
No, I would not cast a vote for Obama. I was open in the last election, but then came problems in the personal life which prevented me from voting at all.
I want to know something, guys. Can you name one thing Obama has done which had the majority of the country behind him. HealthCare is at 50% at best. Companies haven't added job one since Obama was elected. I'm talking about new jobs now. And gas... Gas was $3.29 a gallon at the cheapest gas in town *YESTERDAY*. Slappy said Obama could win against any Republican. I would like to see a single Republican, on the national stage, he can defeat in the next election.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 26, 2011 23:29:50 GMT -5
No, I would not cast a vote for Obama. I was open in the last election, but then came problems in the personal life which prevented you from voting at all. I want to know something, guys. Can you name one thing Obama has done which had the majority of the country behind him. HealthCare is at 50% at best. Companies haven't added job one since Obama was elected. I'm talking about new jobs now. And gas... Gas was $3.29 a gallon at the cheapest gas in town *YESTERDAY*. Slappy said Obama could win against any Republican. I would like to see a single Republican, on the national stage, he can defeat in the next election. There is no Republican out there he can beat next time around. Jobs have been added, many many jobs. I don't know what you mean by new jobs though. www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/02/private-sector-adds-k-jobs-january/187,000 in January of this year, 247,000 in December of last year.
|
|
The Doctor
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 3, 2002 19:03:52 GMT -5
Posts: 3,446
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 27, 2011 0:02:47 GMT -5
No, I would not cast a vote for Obama. I was open in the last election, but then came problems in the personal life which prevented you from voting at all. I want to know something, guys. Can you name one thing Obama has done which had the majority of the country behind him. HealthCare is at 50% at best. Companies haven't added job one since Obama was elected. I'm talking about new jobs now. And gas... Gas was $3.29 a gallon at the cheapest gas in town *YESTERDAY*. Slappy said Obama could win against any Republican. I would like to see a single Republican, on the national stage, he can defeat in the next election. Jobs have been added, many many jobs. I don't know what you mean by new jobs though. www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/02/private-sector-adds-k-jobs-january/187,000 in January of this year, 247,000 in December of last year. Ah... There's the catch. It went up for the month, but that it all. Show me overall numbers. Show me where a company has ONE job more that say... the Bush administration? The Clinton administration? Take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 27, 2011 5:09:40 GMT -5
Ah... There's the catch. It went up for the month, but that it all. Show me overall numbers. Show me where a company has ONE job more that say... the Bush administration? The Clinton administration? Take your pick. Can't really blame that on Obama... But the bailouts were a joke and those have clearly not been good for the economy.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 27, 2011 9:46:04 GMT -5
I have heard reports recently that the "Cash for Clunkers" program actually is hurting poor people in the long run. So many people turned in their beater cars (which were then destroyed) that there are not very many cheap beater cars on the market any more. Some poor person who can only afford a $500 or $1,000 beater can't find any reliable ones on the market as they all got turned in for Cash for Clunkers.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Feb 27, 2011 9:56:29 GMT -5
Ah... There's the catch. It went up for the month, but that it all. Show me overall numbers. Show me where a company has ONE job more that say... the Bush administration? The Clinton administration? Take your pick. Can't really blame that on Obama... But the bailouts were a joke and those have clearly not been good for the economy. Ridiculous statement. Its impossible to say how much the bailouts truly helped the economy, especially as they are still having an effect. Maybe, just maybe, you might be able to qualify that statement in 10 years or so... but highly unlikely.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 1, 2024 2:30:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2011 12:00:26 GMT -5
Can't really blame that on Obama... But the bailouts were a joke and those have clearly not been good for the economy. Ridiculous statement. Its impossible to say how much the bailouts truly helped the economy, especially as they are still having an effect. Maybe, just maybe, you might be able to qualify that statement in 10 years or so... but highly unlikely. Because some 'failing' companies were getting bailed out. Don't bail out the companies, help out the people.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 27, 2011 12:23:05 GMT -5
Ridiculous statement. Its impossible to say how much the bailouts truly helped the economy, especially as they are still having an effect. Maybe, just maybe, you might be able to qualify that statement in 10 years or so... but highly unlikely. Because some 'failing' companies were getting bailed out. Don't bail out the companies, help out the people. The logic is, if they weren't bailed out, they would have gone under. If they had gone under, all the people who worked there would have lost their job. So, they were helping the people, with that logic. Doc, who cares if they are "new" jobs. Someone gets that position.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 1, 2024 2:30:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2011 13:09:31 GMT -5
Because some 'failing' companies were getting bailed out. Don't bail out the companies, help out the people. The logic is, if they weren't bailed out, they would have gone under. If they had gone under, all the people who worked there would have lost their job. So, they were helping the people, with that logic. Doc, who cares if they are "new" jobs. Someone gets that position. But at the same time, the working public who were middle class suddenly became lower middle class or maybe even lower class when the economy tanked, cannot afford to even put food on the table for their family; if people don't have money to buy, those same corporations could still be failing, correct? Small businesses around the US are still failing everyday, because people still don't have money to support a local economy much less a broader one (like GM, who got on their feet simply because of the 'Cash for Clunkers' *see above post about Cash for Clunkers*). People simply cannot afford to buy overpriced items anymore, especially when there's an alternative (back to the car analogy, see Hyundai or Kia). It was even sillier when some of these companies who got the bailout still gave their upper-upper management bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 27, 2011 13:28:44 GMT -5
It's because of the ever increasing disparity between the rich and the poor and the devaluing of the dollar. Something needs to be done but no one seems to be willing to do anything that hurts the rich because they heavily influence their campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 27, 2011 13:35:08 GMT -5
Ridiculous statement. Its impossible to say how much the bailouts truly helped the economy, especially as they are still having an effect. Maybe, just maybe, you might be able to qualify that statement in 10 years or so... but highly unlikely. 1. I didn't say, "They can't be positive down the road." I just said they haven't been good for the economy, as in we haven't seen any positive effects. 2. The federal debt has grown MASSIVELY since Obama took office, largely because of the bailouts. 3. The federal government has not RIGHT to do this.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 27, 2011 13:56:10 GMT -5
The logic is, if they weren't bailed out, they would have gone under. If they had gone under, all the people who worked there would have lost their job. So, they were helping the people, with that logic. Doc, who cares if they are "new" jobs. Someone gets that position. The law of capitalism says that if there is a market for a business, there will be something that grows in the place of the failed business. If there isn't a market, then why are we propping up the business?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 27, 2011 14:05:00 GMT -5
The logic is, if they weren't bailed out, they would have gone under. If they had gone under, all the people who worked there would have lost their job. So, they were helping the people, with that logic. Doc, who cares if they are "new" jobs. Someone gets that position. The law of capitalism says that if there is a market for a business, there will be something that grows in the place of the failed business. If there isn't a market, then why are we propping up the business? Because no one has any long term vision. If a business fails in the short term, it sucks monkey balls. That's all people care about is the short term.
|
|