Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The FILIPINOYS Forum. The Filipinoys Forum is a very friendly, moderately cerebral & fun-centric chill-out all-around forum for Filipinos and friends worldwide. It is your home when you're online. Be part of our online family. We want crazy, passionate, weird, overly-opinionated, funny, eccentric, one-of-a-kind, salt-of-the-earth and not the boring lurking kind of people. If you fit that description, make us happy by registering now! You can freely express yourself here, interact with other members, make friends, debate, discuss, disagree, fraternize, exchange ideas & information, converse in real-time using our Shoutbox, cry, spill your guts and do normal tasks possible in this forum as long as they conform with our general posting guidelines.

Registration is free, easy & quick. Our SPAM & PORN-FREE policies are strictly enforced. Scan the available forums that we currently have and check out some of our members' postings. I'm sure you will find something that you'll like. So do not delay and be a Filipinoys trooper now! There is a warm spot for you here.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. This family-oriented forum is definitely SPAM-FREE.

We hope you enjoy your visit. Don't forget to visit our PORTAL:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/The_Filipinoys_Forum/site/


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Defending President Obama
Topic Started: Nov 3 2010, 07:31 PM (719 Views)
Newter Newt
Unregistered

Newt Gingrich talked about how an American hero should be held for treason. GINGRICH SAID WE SHOULD ALLOW SOME TERRORIST ATTACKS TO REMIND US OF THE DANGER:
During a book tour, Gingrich told an audience in a speech that was televised on C-SPAN that the Bush administration had been very successful at intercepting terrorists. ...."allow another attack to get through to remind" Americans about the danger of terrorism.

WOW! He is willing to sacrifice people's lives to make a point. How kind of him.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobby Cool
Unregistered

Once again, the president's detractors are bringing up the issue of his birth certificate and his academic records. Here is something to consider: Obama was ELECTED as President of the Harvard Law Review, one of the most prestigious things that can happen to a lawyer, and that is not effected in any way by affirmative action. And in so doing, he was firmly supported by the CONSERVATIVE law students of the time.

"The most intelligent politician I've ever met" - This quote did not come from a liberal, but from CONSERVATIVE David Brooks, William F. Buckley's protege.

But let's say those old report cards show mediocre grades, of an unmotivated student, who wakes up a little later (a common scenario). What does that tell the president's detractors, other than the opportunity to embarrass the man? That says more about them, than the president.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Machete
Unregistered

You all must realize that the dirty campaigning playbook came from the GOP (Greed Over Patriotism) under that slimeball Newt. I even remember McCain's campaign being named the "most untruthful" in United States' history...It seems that the GOP is inherently dishonest (to put it mildly).
Quote Post Goto Top
 
PatPeterGomez
Unregistered

I'm so glad I found this Pinoy forum.

Regarding this topic, just remember what George Carlin said. "Think about how stupid the average person is, then realize that half of them are stupider than that." Then realize they can all vote. :harhar:

I'd like to share this article written by Andrew Sullivan:
Quote:
 
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics
From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual.

A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It's not that I don't understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It's that I don't even recognize their description of Obama's first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren't out of bounds. They're simply—empirically—wrong.

A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration's record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress's sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama's long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country's future as his original election in 2008.

The right's core case is that Obama has governed as a radical leftist attempting a "fundamental transformation" of the American way of life. Mitt Romney accuses the president of making the recession worse, of wanting to turn America into a European welfare state, of not believing in opportunity or free enterprise, of having no understanding of the real economy, and of apologizing for America and appeasing our enemies. According to Romney, Obama is a mortal threat to "the soul" of America and an empty suit who couldn't run a business, let alone a country.

Leave aside the internal incoherence—how could such an incompetent be a threat to anyone? None of this is even faintly connected to reality—and the record proves it. On the economy, the facts are these. When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course.

But Obama did several things at once: he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated a bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion.

All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That's not enough, but it's far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama's big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn't.

The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn't bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama's transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.

You'd think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true. Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax, and recently had to fight to keep it cut against Republican opposition. His spending record is also far better than his predecessor's. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama's budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. Again: imagine Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican. You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.

The great conservative bugaboo, Obamacare, is also far more moderate than its critics have claimed. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically, as Bush's unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug benefit did. It is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have a public option; it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right. It's to the right of the Clintons' monstrosity in 1993, and remarkably similar to Nixon's 1974 proposal. Its passage did not preempt recovery efforts; it followed them. It needs improvement in many ways, but the administration is open to further reform and has agreed to allow states to experiment in different ways to achieve the same result. It is not, as Romney insists, a one-model, top-down prescription. Like Obama's Race to the Top education initiative, it sets standards, grants incentives, and then allows individual states to experiment. Embedded in it are also a slew of cost-reduction pilot schemes to slow health-care spending. Yes, it crosses the Rubicon of universal access to private health care. But since federal law mandates that hospitals accept all emergency-room cases requiring treatment anyway, we already obey that socialist principle—but in the most inefficient way possible. Making 44 million current free-riders pay into the system is not fiscally reckless; it is fiscally prudent. It is, dare I say it, conservative.

On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement. Instead, Obama reversed Bush's policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America's primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda's leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda's popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.

Obama's foreign policy, like Dwight Eisenhower's or George H.W. Bush's, eschews short-term political hits for long-term strategic advantage. It is forged by someone interested in advancing American interests—not asserting an ideology and enforcing it regardless of the consequences by force of arms. By hanging back a little, by "leading from behind" in Libya and elsewhere, Obama has made other countries actively seek America's help and reappreciate our role. As an antidote to the bad feelings of the Iraq War, it has worked close to perfectly.

But the right isn't alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.

They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.

What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don't-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.

Or take the issue of the banks. Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street, of being railroaded by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner into a too-passive response to the recklessness of the major U.S. banks. But it's worth recalling that at the start of 2009, any responsible president's priority would have been stabilization of the financial system, not the exacting of revenge. Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.

This is where the left is truly deluded. By misunderstanding Obama's strategy and temperament and persistence, by grandstanding on one issue after another, by projecting unrealistic fantasies onto a candidate who never pledged a liberal revolution, they have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game. He did this with his own party over health-care reform. He has done it with the Republicans over the debt. He has done it with the Israeli government over stopping the settlements on the West Bank—and with the Iranian regime, by not playing into their hands during the Green Revolution, even as they gunned innocents down in the streets. Nothing in his first term—including the complicated multiyear rollout of universal health care—can be understood if you do not realize that Obama was always planning for eight years, not four. And if he is reelected, he will have won a battle more important than 2008: for it will be a mandate for an eight-year shift away from the excesses of inequality, overreach abroad, and reckless deficit spending of the last three decades. It will recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible.

Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself). But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.

Sure, Obama cannot regain the extraordinary promise of 2008. We've already elected the nation's first black president and replaced a tongue-tied dauphin with a man of peerless eloquence. And he has certainly failed to end Washington's brutal ideological polarization, as he pledged to do. But most Americans in polls rightly see him as less culpable for this impasse than the GOP. Obama has steadfastly refrained from waging the culture war, while the right has accused him of a "war against religion." He has offered to cut entitlements (and has already cut Medicare), while the Republicans have refused to raise a single dollar of net revenue from anyone. Even the most austerity-driven government in Europe, the British Tories, are to the left of that. And it is this Republican intransigence—from the 2009 declaration by Rush Limbaugh that he wants Obama "to fail" to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's admission that his primary objective is denying Obama a second term—that has been truly responsible for the deadlock. And the only way out of that deadlock is an electoral rout of the GOP, since the language of victory and defeat seems to be the only thing it understands.

If I sound biased, that's because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle," George Orwell once wrote. What I see in front of my nose is a president whose character, record, and promise remain as grotesquely underappreciated now as they were absurdly hyped in 2008. And I feel confident that sooner rather than later, the American people will come to see his first term from the same calm, sane perspective. And decide to finish what they started.

Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, weekly columnist for the Sunday Times of London, brought his hugely popular blog, The Dish, to the Daily Beast in 2011. He's the author of several books, including "Virtually Normal," "Love Undetectable," and "The Conservative Soul."


Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jovel Alipio
Member Avatar
Wanderer
[ * ]
When I listen to the attacks on Obama, I have to wonder what alternate universe they come from. Where else could Dinesh D'Souza and Newt Gingrich get the idea that the roots of Obama's "rage" (Rage? What rage? Where? When? Has anyone ever even heard Obama raise his voice?) come from the politics of a country where he never lived and a father he never met. Or that Glenn Greenwald could convince himself that Obama is such a fascist that it's better to sit out an election and hand it to the Tea Party Congressional candidates than to vote Democratic. Liberals who stayed home last November to teach the Democrats a lesson are still astoundingly obtuse about refusing to admit the cause and effect relationship between what they did and the current state of affairs in Washington. In most cases, the loathing for Obama comes not from anything he's done but from the fevered, paranoid imaginations of people convinced that he's GOING TO do something terrible in the future. "Today it's Osama bin Laden, tomorrow the SEALS will be coming for you or me." "He just pretends not to care about gun control, he's just waiting till he gets re-elected to take all our guns away from us." "Don't you just KNOW that he wants to raise our taxes so that he can give free handouts to -- you know, "them?" He'll do it the minute he gets the chance." :harhar: WOW! What hallucinogen are they popping? :crap:
My MIND is in the GUTTER but my BALLZ never are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reggie
Unregistered

The 4 remaining GOP con-didates are just about to have another debate. Funny how all the corporate-owned media is there to question the corporate-owned candidates. What a surprise if we end up with a corporate-owned President.

Newt's ex-wife was married to him for 18 years, and he has a pattern of leaving women when they are sick, cheating on them, and all the while talking about the sanctity of marriage. I'm sorry, but that is disgusting behavior, and this is more than just a 'bitter ex'. By the way, John Edwards behavior is similarly disgusting. You'll note, he is no longer running for President. Newt should take that cue. I am certainly no defender of John Edwards. He certainly has paid a high price for his infidelity, as he should have. I probably have a bigger issue with Newt and the Republicans because they seem to have this self-righteous mentality and want to impose their morality on everyone. It kind of bugs me, that's all.

Ron Paul is the only honest one there who supports doctors taking advantage of cancer patients to pay their high salaries. If Ron Paul was President in 1941, he would've just brushed off Pearl Harbor and we never would've lost so many American lives in WWII. He's a libertarian who believes the government shouldn't be involved in your life AND he's anti-choice! What's better than THAT??? He's had like five Presidential runs yet nobody even heard of him until a few months ago! What's better that voting for a 5-time loser?

Rupert Murdoch supports Santorum and corporate welfare. Right-wing billionaire, Rupert Murdock controls Faux News, the GOP propaganda machine.

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico - so according to the Birthers' "reading of the Constitution," Mitt's NOT a "Natural Born" citizen and is ineligible?

Is this really the best the GOP can come up with? Seriously?!..I mean c'mon! They have nothing. No facts, no NEW plans, and mostly, no respect for our system of government or our intelligence. It doesn't matter who wins the GOP primary. The agenda will still be the same, New World Order. Have you looked at your civil rights lately and seen a few missing?? Americans falling into poverty....businesses going bankrupt...the Patriot Act....the new provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act...E-911 (Gps location on cell phones)...censoring of what you say...SOPA...PIPA.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mischel
Member Avatar
Rookie
[ *  * ]
If President Obama is not a natural born US Citizen, as alleged by birthers, Teabaggers and some Republicons, why is it that the Republicans have not filed a case in court to disqualify Obama to run for president? The Republicans claimed that the birth certificate of Obama issued by the state of Hawaii is fake; again file a case in court, to settle this once and for all. Also, as US president, if President Obama is not a natural born US citizen, which is a culpable violation of the US Constitution, why is it that the Republicans have not filed an impeachment case in Congress against President Obama? The Republicans are desperate -- being behind at the polls. They tried this trick before in the 2008 election, it did not work. Now they spread a doctored You-Tube video to show that Obama was not born in Hawaii. With no doubt in my mind this trick would not work again. The American voters could not
be hoodwinked. The truth will always prevail.

Now regarding the schools transcripts, prior to his law degree, this became academic and irrelevant, when Barack Obama graduated with JD degree, magna cum laude from Harvard University.

What has religion got to do with being president? We are in a country where there is a freedom of religion and separation of Church and State. Obama's camp never did criticize on Romney being a Mormon. This issue on religion is a personal matter and should stay as it is.

With no doubt in my mind, Mitt Romney, will get the worst beating of his political life. President Barack will again win the presidency come the November election.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Louie Fernan
Unregistered

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole "Obama as big spender" narrative? It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% — going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I'll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled — for better or for worse — with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush — and passed by the 2008 Congress — it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Reagan: 82-85 8.7%
Reagan: 85-89 4.7%
Bush I: 90-93 5.4%
Clinton: 94-97 3.2%
Clinton: 98-01 3.5%
Bush 2: 02-05 7.3%
Bush 2: 06-09 8.1%*
Obama: 10-13 1.4%

*2009 stimulus reassigned to Obama


Scholastic records and tax records are not the same.

Tax records are more or less about honesty while scholastic records are just that, academic. Besides, comparing Columbia/Harvard grades to those of Northeast Missouri State University, for example, is like comparing apples and oranges. Really, how does one compare grades of different majors?

Moreover, providing tax records have been a tradition. And Obama disclosed all his tax records and birth certificate. But making college grades was never part of this tradition. Besides there is really serious doubts about Romney's tax affairs now that the Marriot tax shelter scandal is now out in the open.

Yup, it was about criminally generating a fictional tax loss of $70 MILLION! Nope, not overstating church donation by a few hundred dollars!

The Republicans are again simply trying to evade the issue just like 4 years ago when they were asking for Obama's birth certificate which was nothing but a totally racist distraction. No white presidential candidate was ever asked that. Obama could have asked McCain for his college record transcript to embarrass him knowing that McCain graduated fourth or fifth from the bottom of his class! But he wisely did not. It was irrelevant.

Again it is racist to ask for Obama's college grades when that, again, was never asked of white candidates before. That Obama graduated from Columbia and Harvard and taught at Chicago is enough. How many of those politicians have graduated from these top schools and became president of the most prestigious Harvard Law Review, anyway?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RectoKid
Unregistered

Note how Obama's birth certificate, scholastic records from Puna Hoe to Harvard were scrutinized closely by the Republicans and their allied media.

The DNC already performed its Due Diligence on the leading Democratic candidates before the final nominating convention. That has been a traditional part of the nominating process.

The racist campaign. The transcript of records. The birth certificate. These are for the 2008 presidential campaign. It is already 2012, Obama has been president for almost 4 years. Four years is enough time for any legitimate issues against Obama to reach the courts. Why? Because the GOP lawyers can't find any that the courts will accept. Is there nothing original Romney can come up?

I heard the GOP national campaign manager Michael Steele in a TV interview say, that the birther talk by Romney in Michigan against Obama was intended merely for LEVITY! The campaign should not be serious all the time.

Besides there is no law against it. Weeeellll...

The money Romney invested abroad in Cayman islands, Bermuda and his deposits in Swiss banks seem to me also a big joke of his on American patriotism.

The birther for levity talk actually is self-discrediting but there was a time when GOP Rick Perry, Donald Trump and others were serious about it. They never said it was a joke until this date.

However, let us not forget that Romney had admitted during his primary campaign that Obama was born in the USA. But nobody paid him any attention, not even Rick Perry nor Donald Trump, and Obama himself didn't bother to say thank you [a complain by GOP strategist Karl Rove] because everybody, including Obama took him as telling a joke to make his campaign lively.

hahahaha... there's the levity!

Here's Romney's statement in Michigan [which was later claimed only for levity which could be true because he already admitted before that Obama was born in the USA. Of course, who really knows if he already changed his mind! With politicians one can never be sure].

"No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate."
"They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."

On the campaign trail everything can possibly be said for any purpose but we know that all, joke or serious, is connected to the end-all purpose of discrediting the opponent. This Romney cannot deny. But will it go into Romney's head that it is a poor campaign pitch?

Ok, I saw on TV that he got the laughs for his "mocking birther joke" but will he get the votes?
Edited by Karsie, Aug 26 2012, 04:22 PM.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Karsie
Member Avatar
Boarder
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Now on the matter of confidential school transcripts what possibly anything damaging could they find in Obama's college records that these racists keep harping on while mum on Romney's tax returns? Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law. What else do they want? Let the racists bitch. Nothing will ever change their racial hate anyway. Scholastic records are, and have been checked out regarding certain candidates. People have forgotten how George W. Bush' poor performance in college and Harvard Business School were used against him as well as his non-performance with the Texas National Guard. So was Robert Kennedy's record as a college undergrad at Harvard, during the Dem. Primaries in 1968.....or Johnson's graduating from the SouthWest Texas State Teacher's College. These are floated in the press. There is significance in scholastic records in packaging a candidate. It can be used for or against him.

The GOP camp makes me think the American voters are dumb. Otherwise, they would not try to trick the voters into believing that they've got something in Obama's birth record, in his transcript of records in school, even under his black skin that they were not able to unearth in the 2008 campaign.

The worst CRIME that the GOP would have committed if the allegation that Obama is not born in the USA is in its not having stormed the White House to eject Obama.

I have to credit the GOP for coming up with the transcript of records issue that they know is worthless if Obama obliges. They want to plant the idea of grave doubt on his ability in some areas that can be made a good reason for an imagined poor performance in those areas in his presidency.

Obama, if you have noticed, is an astute politician. He will come up with the damning evidence against this charge in an opportune moment where he can get maximum impact. I believe he is just waiting for that moment.

Scholastic records can be useful if they show good marks but can be damaging if they don't. However, have poor scholastic records stopped the mentally poor candidates from winning or the mentally poor voters from voting for them? Take Lyndon Johnson. Oh, let's not forget yes, yes... Bush? Need I say more?

Posted Image

Posted Image


Compare above how the Reagan and George W's huge deficits correlate with low tax rates they have gifted the rich.

Didn't Sen. McConnell infamously declare, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."?

So he, Boehner, Cantor et al proceeded to treasonously sabotage the economy by saying, "No!" to all of Obama's proposals to make sure the economic recovery doesn't happen! Never mind if millions of fellow Americans suffer from unemployment or underemployment!
Edited by Karsie, Aug 26 2012, 08:07 PM.
For a HAPPY LIFE, keep your MIND FULL and your BOWELS EMPTY. ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arturo Gomez
Unregistered

Here’s a link you might want to look at to compare the US National Debt. You can see how much it was in 2000 when GW Bush first became president and how much it was when he left 8 years later. You might just be surprise!:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Divera
Unregistered

House Republicans have launched an all-out war on women since taking the Speaker's gavel. In the last year, Republicans have:

1. Proposed redefining rape to only cases of "forcible rape" to deny access to women's health services.
2. Voted to defund Planned Parenthood and repeatedly tried to restrict access to women's health care services.
3. Held a hearing on women's health with five men and no women.

Over the last week, we saw top Republican leaders squirm at denouncing or even criticizing Rush Limbaugh after he called women's health care advocate Sandra Fluke a "****" and a "prostitute" on his radio show.

It's clear Republicans are trying to silence women who stand against their radical agenda.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
SabrinaQ
Unregistered

To those complaining about how expensive Pres. Obama's vacations are costing the taxpayers, the fact is ALL U.S. Presidents and their families take vacations. The Obama family has not taken or spent nearly as much as the Bush family for instance. This can easily be researched and proven.

I suppose Republican fans weren't complaining when George W. Bush spent at least $20 million taxpayer dollars just on FLIGHTS to his ranch in Crawford, TX. He was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.

During Bush's two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, this means that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687, and $20 million total JUST for Bush's ranch flights.

If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers, Bush's vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush's vacation numbers.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
breb
Member Avatar
Wanderer
[ * ]
Romney's campaign was/is in debt, due to his mismanagement? How can Mitt Romney possibly begin to end the deficits, let alone start paying off the national debt, when his own campaign cant even stay out of debt? What a joke!
Quote:
 
Romney campaign borrowed $20 million

DALLAS — Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign borrowed $20 million in the month of August to pay for its expenses before he could begin tapping general election dollars and is now $11 million in debt, a senior campaign official confirmed late Tuesday.

Romney's campaign finance filings, due to be released on Wednesday, will show the campaign with $15 million in debt, the official said, although the debt currently stands at $11 million.

The National Review Online first reported news of the campaign’s debt Tuesday night.

Although Romney has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in general election funds, his campaign could not legally tap those funds until after he officially was nominated at the Republican National Convention. Through the summer, he could only spend primary dollars, and once that money dried up the campaign was forced to borrow money to pay its bills.


Romney swore he left Bain in 1999 before they started shipping jobs overseas, yet SEC filings show he was attached to the company as the PRIMARY managing partner until 2002. YES he DID offshore jobs, and he is also in line with Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul who is under investigation for defying the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by bribing Chinese officials to build a 50 BILLION dollar casino in Macau. That 50 BILLION created lots of jobs in China and none here. Could you imagine if that 50 BILLION had been invested in the US??? Sort of like how amazing it would be if Romney pulled all his money out of foreign ventures and invested HERE at home, rather than investing in Iranian banks, the Cayman Islands, Switzerland AND Bermuda.

He knows nothing about foreign affairs, his trip to Europe proved that. So many voters want to elect a president who has ran a business. The last time this country elected a businessman president, he gave us a Depression! Can you say Hoover?! According to US News & World Report, businessmen and only businessmen have made the worse presidents in the modern era: Warren G Harding, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. USN&WR is a conservative/pro-Republican. Running this country isn't like running a business. Running a business is not a good preparation for public office, in fact, it's one of the worst. Government is nothing like an operation that is supposed to benefit only the stockholders at the expense of labor and customers.

Romney is not smarter than Pres. Obama. Pres. Obama knows why windows in an airplane don't roll down, Romney doesn't. Romney is a liar, and a tax cheat who won't even invest in America.
Edited by breb, Oct 14 2012, 08:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Politics, Government Affairs and Social Issues · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Get your own Chat Box! Go Large!
Edited by Cory, Apr 29 2014, 09:02 PM.