PDA

View Full Version : The Race to 1144



StoopTroup
1/31/2012, 09:49 PM
Now, this is where the Gingrich who stole Christmas comes to play hardball.

OK Oklahomans. Shall we give our fair state to the Newt?

It's possibly our time to be a Playa.

hawaii 5-0
1/31/2012, 11:27 PM
I would think Newt would take Oklahoma pretty handily.


5-0

dwarthog
2/1/2012, 08:10 AM
There might have been a time for Newt, but that is long gone IMO.

XingTheRubicon
2/1/2012, 09:07 AM
Again, Romney will defeat Obama by a comfortable margin. Newt has no chance with moderates and women, so the general vs Newt would be a dogfight. Whether it's good news or not...Romney is the next POTUS, it just hasn't happened yet. Some of you guys might want to hoard up your food stamps.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 09:14 AM
Again, Romney will defeat Obama by a comfortable margin. Newt has no chance with moderates and women, so the general vs Newt would be a dogfight. Whether it's good news or not...Romney is the next POTUS, it just hasn't happened yet. Some of you guys might want to hoard up your food stamps.

Doubtful.

XingTheRubicon
2/1/2012, 09:54 AM
Not really.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 10:27 AM
Not really.

Only two major polls give Romney an edge over Obama in the general election. 7 show Obama winning and several show a tie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Regardless, your claim that "Romney will defeat Obama by a comfortable margin" is sheer folly. Neither candidate would win "by a comfortable margin." It will be close and either man would win a tight race, not a landslide.

Again, I say your claim is doubtful.

And I have facts to back up that assessment.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams.

LiveLaughLove
2/1/2012, 10:34 AM
Only two major polls give Romney an edge over Obama in the general election. 7 show Obama winning and several show a tie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Regardless, your claim that "Romney will defeat Obama by a comfortable margin" is sheer folly. Neither candidate would win "by a comfortable margin." It will be close and either man would win a tight race, not a landslide.

Again, I say your claim is doubtful.

And I have facts to back up that assessment.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams.

After the beating the Republicans have given each other, and the fact that Obama has been basically untouched throughout, I find it encouraging that any polls show Romney ahead of him at all.

Obama said himself if he didn't turn things around he would be a one term president. For once, I agree with him. Amateur hour is almost over.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 10:46 AM
After the beating the Republicans have given each other, and the fact that Obama has been basically untouched throughout, I find it encouraging that any polls show Romney ahead of him at all.

Obama said himself if he didn't turn things around he would be a one term president. For once, I agree with him. Amateur hour is almost over.

Again, facts aren't helping your cause.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/obama-romney-jobs/

Sorry, but as much as you'd like to believe things aren't getting "turned around," the facts are that the economy and the unemployment situation is indeed on the mend. I'd trust a Nobel laureate economist.

Amateur hour may indeed be over. But President Obama had a a lot of cleaning up to do after the clown show that preceded him.

LiveLaughLove
2/1/2012, 11:28 AM
Again, facts aren't helping your cause.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/obama-romney-jobs/

Sorry, but as much as you'd like to believe things aren't getting "turned around," the facts are that the economy and the unemployment situation is indeed on the mend. I'd trust a Nobel laureate economist.

Amateur hour may indeed be over. But President Obama had a a lot of cleaning up to do after the clown show that preceded him.

Sorry, but I dont find Paul Krugman or the NY Times to be arbiters of fairness in coverage. No offense but articles from him might as well come from DNC HQ.

Ton Loc
2/1/2012, 11:36 AM
If Romney beats Obama it will be by an *** puckering amount. When it is Obama vs Romney the people that voted for Obama will remember why they voted for him in the first place.

I could care less, whoever wins will have their work cut out for them.

dwarthog
2/1/2012, 11:43 AM
If Romney beats Obama it will be by an *** puckering amount. When it is Obama vs Romney the people that voted for Obama will remember why they voted for him in the first place.

I could care less, whoever wins will have their work cut out for them.

What were those reasons again?

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 01:02 PM
What were those reasons again?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01016/bush-expression_1016531i.jpg

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 01:04 PM
Sorry, but I dont find Paul Krugman or the NY Times to be arbiters of fairness in coverage. No offense but articles from him might as well come from DNC HQ.

Comfort yourself by attacking the messenger all you want. That is fine.

Again, facts are stubborn things.

The economy and unemployment situation is improving.

Is it enough to re-elect President Obama?

We shall see.

But neither the Democratic nor Republican candidate will win "comfortably."

dwarthog
2/1/2012, 01:23 PM
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01016/bush-expression_1016531i.jpg


He isn't running, yet again.

Surely there are tangible reasons.

XingTheRubicon
2/1/2012, 01:26 PM
Obama won by 7 points if I remember correctly over McCain.

Romney will win by no less than 5, probably closer to 10 in the general.


The American people hate Democrats AND Republicans right now, BUT when forced to choose, they're voting red. Back in the 2010 mid-terms (15 months ago) the food-stampers voted liberal and almost everyone else voted conservative. We're still at 2 million less net jobs since Jan '09 and gas is still climbing. The CBO's projection on the next 2 year's unemployment numbers are morbid at best. It's not an opinion; it's just what's going to happen.

"The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know." -H. S. Truman

SoonerTerry
2/1/2012, 01:31 PM
Again, Romney will defeat Obama by a comfortable margin. Newt has no chance with moderates and women, so the general vs Newt would be a dogfight. Whether it's good news or not...Romney is the next POTUS, it just hasn't happened yet. Some of you guys might want to hoard up your food stamps.


Doubtful.


Not really.


And this was when the debate really heated up... :0


sorry, my smart *** got away from me

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 01:34 PM
He isn't running, yet again.

Surely there are tangible reasons.

That is the tangible reason.

President Bush plunged the country into the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.

President Obama entered office with the hope of a better, brighter economic future.

Despite the recalcitrance of the obstructionists on the other side of the aisle, the ship of state has turned and is headed into more favorable waters.

SoonerTerry
2/1/2012, 01:38 PM
. But President Obama had a a lot of cleaning up to do after the clown show that preceded him.


So which is it, do you want to be all factual or all spitefull, passiony, and opinionated?

Oh and those Nobel laureate economist never have an agenda.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 01:42 PM
Obama won by 7 points if I remember correctly over McCain.

Romney will win by no less than 5, probably closer to 10 in the general.


The American people hate Democrats AND Republicans right now, BUT when forced to choose, they're voting red. Back in the 2010 mid-terms (15 months ago) the food-stampers voted liberal and almost everyone else voted conservative. We're still at 2 million less net jobs since Jan '09 and gas is still climbing. The CBO's projection on the next 2 year's unemployment numbers are morbid at best. It's not an opinion; it's just what's going to happen.

"The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know." -H. S. Truman

In case you hadn't noticed this isn't 2010.

And unfortunately it's not a generic option people will choose between. They won't just be voting "red."

If Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate it remains to be seen if he can motivate the base to turn out in large enough numbers to unseat President Obama. The far right's antipathy of Obama knows almost no limits, but will it trump their tepid response to Mitt Romney?

Without that fervent support he will most likely lose and in any case it will be close. Especially in the electoral college, where the real battle is anyway and not in the popular vote.

ahem, George W. Bush, cough.

Ton Loc
2/1/2012, 01:43 PM
What were those reasons again?

He's going to turn on the charm.

and...........9/11? (Wait that was Bush)

Oh yeah - Hope and Change - FTW!

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 01:49 PM
So which is it, do you want to be all factual or all spitefull, passiony, and opinionated?

Oh and those Nobel laureate economist never have an agenda.

I was replying in kind, sir.

SoonerTerry
2/1/2012, 02:15 PM
I was replying in, kind sir.

FIFY :)

dwarthog
2/1/2012, 03:41 PM
That is the tangible reason.

President Bush plunged the country into the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.

President Obama entered office with the hope of a better, brighter economic future.

Despite the recalcitrance of the obstructionists on the other side of the aisle, the ship of state has turned and is headed into more favorable waters.

Well so far you still haven't mentioned a tangible reason, just dredged up previous campaign rhetoric and threw out a colorful metaphor.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 04:01 PM
That is the tangible reason.

President Bush plunged the country into the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.

President Obama entered office with the hope of a better, brighter economic future.

Despite the recalcitrance of the obstructionists on the other side of the aisle, the ship of state has turned and is headed into more favorable waters.

Well so far you still haven't mentioned a tangible reason, just dredged up previous campaign rhetoric and threw out a colorful metaphor.

Ok, how about this?

When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate it was painfully obvious that he was incapable of making a sound decision.

dwarthog
2/1/2012, 04:38 PM
Ok, how about this?

When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate it was painfully obvious that he was incapable of making a sound decision.

Well that still isn't listing anything that Obama has accomplished, but that is kind of the point, isn't it?

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 04:46 PM
Well that still isn't listing anything that Obama has accomplished, but that is kind of the point, isn't it?

Your original query was why was he elected in the first place.



it is Obama vs Romney the people that voted for Obama will remember why they voted for him in the first place.

What were those reasons again?

I gave you several reasons why Obama was elected in 2008.

Stop moving the goalposts.

Whether he gets re-elected is a different matter.

And Romney presents a whole different kettle of fish.

LiveLaughLove
2/1/2012, 05:35 PM
They key is can Obama win Ohio and Florida again.

I don't think he can carry either of those two, and without them it doesn't matter how many San Franciscans, Chicagoites, or New Yorkers vote for him, he won't win.

There will be hue and cry to eliminate the states power through the electoral college and go straight to a popular vote if he wins the popular vote, but loses the election.

I personally don't think he will even win that, but it will be close.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 05:57 PM
They key is can Obama win Ohio and Florida again.

I don't think he can carry either of those two, and without them it doesn't matter how many San Franciscans, Chicagoites, or New Yorkers vote for him, he won't win.

There will be hue and cry to eliminate the states power through the electoral college and go straight to a popular vote if he wins the popular vote, but loses the election.

I personally don't think he will even win that, but it will be close.

We'll see won't we?

The real X factor is the rise of the Super PAC and what Citizens United will mean for the process and our democracy.

I have a feeling it will be an ugly campaign. From both sides.

LiveLaughLove
2/1/2012, 06:38 PM
Campaigns are always ugly. John Adams was called a hermaphrodite before he became our second President. He was one of our greatest men ever.

I don't mind tough campaigns. When someone spouts what the other side believes to be a lie or a wrong, they would not be doing their duty if they didn't point it out.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 06:56 PM
Campaigns are always ugly. John Adams was called a hermaphrodite before he became our second President. He was one of our greatest men ever.

I don't mind tough campaigns. When someone spouts what the other side believes to be a lie or a wrong, they would not be doing their duty if they didn't point it out.

That is one thing. The painting of President Obama as some radical Kenyan Muslim is both disingenuous and fundamentally damaging to our system.


“This is how politics has changed. You used to run against an actual president. But now you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate.”

Maher argued that as partisan and occasionally hyperbolic as George W. Bush‘s critics were, at least they were attacking the actual person. But for Gingrich to actually accuse Obama of being “anti-work,” Maher suspected Republicans were operating on “a paranoid feeling about what he might do.”

JSKdsUvD7CY&feature=related

Bill Maher is spot on in this comment.

Disagree with President Obama? Fine.

But at least argue about what he really has done, not some bugaboo nonsense about him being a Communist or secret Muslim sent to destroy America.

dwarthog
2/1/2012, 08:17 PM
Your original query was why was he elected in the first place.



I gave you several reasons why Obama was elected in 2008.

Stop moving the goalposts.

Whether he gets re-elected is a different matter.

And Romney presents a whole different kettle of fish.


That is correct, the question still stands.

What were his accomplishments?

So far all you've cited is he wasn't George Bush, who wasn't elgible to run again and that Sarah Palin was selected as VP by McCain.

Those hardly rank as accomplishments.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 08:53 PM
That is correct, the question still stands.

What were his accomplishments?

So far all you've cited is he wasn't George Bush, who wasn't elgible to run again and that Sarah Palin was selected as VP by McCain.

Those hardly rank as accomplishments.

Oh I see. You now want to know why he'll win THIS year?

Promises kept

1. Affordable Care Act. Revamping the United States' healthcare system to extend health insurance to 32 million Americans who have none. Santorum is right when he says that neither Gingrich nor Romney will offer a credible opposition to healthcare reform, since the former proposed individual mandates in the 1990s and Romney's Massachusetts plan is the blueprint for the plan that was passed by Congress. What is potentially a rallying cry for the right is hobbled by the candidate supposedly leading the charge against it.

2. Troops out of Iraq. Obama pledged to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, a war he had opposed, and has delivered on that promise.

3. Osama bin Laden is dead. The killing by U.S. special forces of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May fulfilled Obama's pledge to hold accountable the man blamed for masterminding the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Unlike Bush who claimed he "didn't worry much about bin Laden," Obama OK'd a very daring mission to put a bullet in his head. The possiblity of failure was high and he took great politcal risk in this decision. Fail and he's labeled another Jimmy Carter trying to rescue the hostages, playing right into the stereotype of the right that only the Republicans can 'man-up.'


4PGmnz5Ow-o

4. Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell. Just about the only thing the progressives will give him kudos for without fail.

5. Oil production is up (drill baby drill, remember that?) and dependence on mid-east oil is DOWN. U.S. dependence on foreign oil has declined under Obama as well, going from 58.9 percent of oil consumption in January 2009 to 44 percent in November 2011, according to EIA estimates.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-04/fact-check-obama-promises-ad/52380628/1

6. Majority of promises made have been kept. He has made over 500 promises, according to Politifact.com, a fact-checking operation run by the Tampa Bay Times. But its tally makes clear the challenges. It shows that 162 promises were kept and 56 broken. The rest were either stalled, compromised or still in the works, according to the study. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

7. He is not Mitt Romney. Romney has some serious flaws as a candidate. His record at Bain Capital will be scrutinized. We'll see how the country appreciates his brand of leveraged capital-ism. Besides, only once we get past both conventions will we see a stark contrast in what each man plans to do over the next term. I've not heard a great deal from Romney about precisely what it is he will do, besides stating he'll undo what Obama has done. But when pressed on those points, it's hard to see where that leaves us. He's good at attacking, but at some point he's going to have to give some idea of what he intends to do.

More here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/24/us-usa-obama-speech-factbox-idUSTRE80N0UZ20120124

It will be an interesting fall.

okie52
2/1/2012, 09:21 PM
Oil production up due to Obama? Now that is hilarious. Just what did Obama do to increase oil production?

And almost as funny is the decrease in oil consumption is due to our terrible economy resulting in a decrease in demand.

The troops being out of Iraq was already agreed to by W and the Iraqis long before Obama ever took office.

LiveLaughLove
2/1/2012, 09:29 PM
That is one thing. The painting of President Obama as some radical Kenyan Muslim is both disingenuous and fundamentally damaging to our system.



JSKdsUvD7CY&feature=related

Bill Maher is spot on in this comment.

Disagree with President Obama? Fine.

But at least argue about what he really has done, not some bugaboo nonsense about him being a Communist or secret Muslim sent to destroy America.

I agree. So we can both demand that the Obama sycophantic media and his campaign not call the Republican candidate a racist, homophobe that hates the poor, correct?

You see, it never works both ways on this stuff.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 09:32 PM
Oil production up due to Obama? Now that is hilarious. Just what did Obama do to increase oil production?

And almost as funny is the decrease in oil consumption is due to our terrible economy resulting in a decrease in demand.

The troops being out of Iraq was already agreed to by W and the Iraqis long before Obama ever took office.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/18/406314/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/US-Crude-Production-Romm-Climate-Progress.gif

If the claim on the right is that Obama is killing the oil industry, the facts prove that patently false. His administration isn't choking the industry under a mountain of red tape. It is flourishing and producing more jobs and barrels per day than under his predecessor.

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/

So you may not credit President Obama with the increase (that is up to you), but the facts severely undercut a right wing meme that he is anti-oil and destroying jobs at home. That is simply not true.

And yes, the agreement to leave Iraq was signed by President Bush (who famously dodged a shoe at the press conference following the ceremony). But there was still considerable carping on the right about "failure" and "weakness" in leaving Iraq, when the majority in the country thought it was an error to start it in the first place and a giant boondoggle that wasted precious lives and drained our treasury dry.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 09:43 PM
I agree. So we can both demand that the Obama sycophantic media and his campaign not call the Republican candidate a racist, homophobe that hates the poor, correct?

You see, it never works both ways on this stuff.

When you see those attacks on Romney, please point them out to me and I'll be the first to condemn them as false.

If they were said about Santorum, I'd say they were true. And that is no joke.

okie52
2/1/2012, 09:51 PM
What a comical chart. Do you realize when the Bakken field came or when the horizontal oil plays started using new frak techniques? Harold Hamm brought in the Bakken field with his new techniques in 2005.

Think progress passed that bit of wisdom on to you. They wouldn't know a drill bit from a shovel. Well Obama was twice court ordered to open the gulf back. He is the only president to inherit both coasts being open to drilling in over 30 years and how many wells were drilled off of them?

He tried to pass a unilateral cap and trade law that would have punished oil and natural gas while rewarding ethanol.

This a president that campaigned against oil, gas and coal but now has raised production through his insightful energy policies?

Let's see, after no wells had been drilled off of either coast he banned offshore drilling on these coasts until 2017. Now, a little over a year later, he has seen the light and states in the state of the union he is going to open up 75% of the coasts to drilling. What amazing technology has Obama uncovered in this election year to cause such a drastic about face?

It's fine to spread the propaganda as long as you don't start believing it.

okie52
2/1/2012, 10:05 PM
The majority of the country was behind the Iraq war just like the dems in congress at that time. Hindsight is 20/20 and I would not say today it was a war worth the cost even though I had a son serve there. But I feel that way about most of our wars save Afghanistan.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 10:16 PM
What a comical chart. Do you realize when the Bakken field came or when the horizontal oil plays started using new frak techniques? Harold Hamm brought in the Bakken field with his new techniques in 2005.

Think progress passed that bit of wisdom on to you. They wouldn't know a drill bit from a shovel. Well Obama was twice court ordered to open the gulf back. He is the only president to inherit both coasts being open to drilling in over 30 years and how many wells were drilled off of them?

He tried to pass a unilateral cap and trade law that would have punished oil and natural gas while rewarding ethanol.

This a president that campaigned against oil, gas and coal but now has raised production through his inciteful energy policies?

Let's see, after no wells had been drilled off of either coast he banned offshore drilling on these coasts until 2017. Now, a little over a year later, he has seen the light and states in the state of the union he is going to open up 75% of the coasts to drilling. What amazing technology has Obama uncovered in this election year to cause such a drastic about face?

It's fine to spread the propaganda as long as you don't start believing it.

Regardless of how you spin it, production is up under Obama's tenure. That is a fact.

That alone cuts off at the knees the mantra from the right that Obama is anti-oil.

Obama watched Sarah Palin and the tea partisans chanting "drill baby drill," and under his watch the US has done just that. Regardless to whom you want to give the kudos.

I predict that the Keystone XL pipeline will miraculously get approved sometime around October. If the right wants to play politics with oil and think they've got an edge on President Obama on this front, they are sadly mistaken.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 10:23 PM
The majority of the country was behind the Iraq war just like the dems in congress at that time. Hindsight is 20/20 and I would not say today it was a war worth the cost even though I had a son serve there. But I feel that way about most of our wars save Afghanistan.

Sadly, the majority of Americans were duped into supporting the war on inflated rhetoric and bombast from Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell. On flimsy intel our leaders failed to do the right thing. They knew what they were selling was a pile of BS.

Some of us thought so at the time.

I would like to thank your son for his service to our country.

okie52
2/1/2012, 10:25 PM
Well you obviously don't want to take Obama at his word during his 2008 campaign.

Production is up in spite of Obama rather than because of him.

Now this "energy" president has really taken advantage of the ng in this country. Not a single act on his part to utilize this abundant resource that is much cleaner than oil, coal, or ethanol. For all his talk about energy independence and reducing CO2 he has ignored the most plausible energy source available.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 10:32 PM
Well you obviously don't want to take Obama at his word during his 2008 campaign.

Production is up in spite of Obama rather than because of him.

Now this "energy" president has really taken advantage of the ng in this country. Not a single act on his part to utilize this abundant resource that is much cleaner than oil, coal, or ethanol. For all his talk about energy independence and reducing CO2 he has ignored the most plausible energy source available.

Perhaps you missed this from 1/26/2012?



Plans to increase US demand for natural gas, including a new tax break for gas-fuelled trucks, are being unveiled by President Barack Obama on Thursday as part of the effort set out in his state of the union address to support “American-made energy”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09e07950-47ef-11e1-a4e5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lBvUihro

okie52
2/1/2012, 10:33 PM
Sadly, the majority of Americans were duped into supporting the war on inflated rhetoric and bombast from Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell. On flimsy intel our leaders failed to do the right thing. They knew what they were selling was a pile of BS.

Some of us thought so at the time.

I would like to thank your son for his service to our country.

He deserved better from his commander in chief.

He was there under Obama in 2009. but thanks.

But more to the point it is a primary reason for energy independence is to free us from the ME and have our foreign policy not tied to defending our oil interests there. It is achievable but not on the path Obama gave us in the first 3 years.

okie52
2/1/2012, 10:36 PM
Perhaps you missed this from 1/26/2012?



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09e07950-47ef-11e1-a4e5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lBvUihro

Yes I did since I missed most of the SOU speech. If so, I'll applaud his move on it. Now if he will move autos and increase the number of ng distribution points across the country I will be happy.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 10:38 PM
He was there under Obama in 2009. but thanks.

But more to the point it is a primary reason for energy independence is to free us from the ME and have our foreign policy not tied to defending our oil interests there. It is achievable but not on the path Obama gave us in the first 3 years.

This we do agree on. No more wars for oil.

I would like to get to where the US doesn't buy one drop of oil from the middle east. They can drink it for all I care. When the oil finally runs out their kingdoms will dry up and blow away like the sands upon which they are built.

okie52
2/1/2012, 10:52 PM
Agreed.

LiveLaughLove
2/1/2012, 10:54 PM
When you see those attacks on Romney, please point them out to me and I'll be the first to condemn them as false.

If they were said about Santorum, I'd say they were true. And that is no joke.

And there in is the problem isn't it. Because YOU think Santorum guilty (without any actual proof, just your perception of his stances) of those things, then YOU think it would be OK to say it about him.

Well, other people (not myself necessarily) think Obama to be the things said about him. I don't think Obama is a full blown communist, but I think he leans heavily socialist. His father and his grand fathers best friend were both communists so I don't think that's a stretch.

I know he views (his own words) the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, which is the polar opposite of what it does. He wants to break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers (his words). The Constitution is about our rights, he wishes it to be about the governments rights. That's at the very least socialist.

SoonerPride
2/1/2012, 11:07 PM
And there in is the problem isn't it. Because YOU think Santorum guilty (without any actual proof, just your perception of his stances) of those things, then YOU think it would be OK to say it about him.

Well, other people (not myself necessarily) think Obama to be the things said about him. I don't think Obama is a full blown communist, but I think he leans heavily socialist. His father and his grand fathers best friend were both communists so I don't think that's a stretch.

I know he views (his own words) the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, which is the polar opposite of what it does. He wants to break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers (his words). The Constitution is about our rights, he wishes it to be about the governments rights. That's at the very least socialist.

From Santorum's own words I know him to be a homophobe. Racist, maybe. That's not invective. That's proveable fact.


Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality

As far as Obama being a socialist, PolitFact says your pants are on fire. Well, Rick Perry's were. Ooops.



There are plenty of ways to have a meaningful, substantive conversation about the differences of the Republicans and Democrats in tax policy, economics and the role of government. But it's simply preposterous for Perry -- and Gingrich -- to refer to Obama's policies as socialism or to say he is a socialist. Obama's policies may have expanded government, but they don't justify this ridiculous hyperbole. We're reaching for the matches -- Pants on Fire!



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/08/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-barack-obama-socialist/

LiveLaughLove
2/1/2012, 11:31 PM
From Santorum's own words I know him to be a homophobe. Racist, maybe. That's not invective. That's proveable fact.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality

As far as Obama being a socialist, PolitFact says your pants are on fire. Well, Rick Perry's were. Ooops.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/08/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-barack-obama-socialist/

Being against the homosexual agenda does not make him a homophobe. It makes him a principled Christian that believes his Bible. You can dislike that all you want, but it doesn't mean he is afraid of or hates gay people.

I have a gay acquaintance. Nice enough guy. Don't know his politics, but if they are for a strong gay agenda then I am very much opposed to it. Doesn't mean I hate him or am afraid of him at all.

As for Obama, his health care is socialist regardless of what PolitiFact or anyone else says. So is Romney's for that matter. Obama is a heavy lean toward socialism, and if he had a big majority in both houses we wouldn't recognize our country. I don't need PolitiFact to tell me that.

dwarthog
2/2/2012, 09:34 AM
Oh I see. You now want to know why he'll win THIS year?

Promises kept

1. Affordable Care Act. Revamping the United States' healthcare system to extend health insurance to 32 million Americans who have none. Santorum is right when he says that neither Gingrich nor Romney will offer a credible opposition to healthcare reform, since the former proposed individual mandates in the 1990s and Romney's Massachusetts plan is the blueprint for the plan that was passed by Congress. What is potentially a rallying cry for the right is hobbled by the candidate supposedly leading the charge against it.

2. Troops out of Iraq. Obama pledged to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, a war he had opposed, and has delivered on that promise.

3. Osama bin Laden is dead. The killing by U.S. special forces of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May fulfilled Obama's pledge to hold accountable the man blamed for masterminding the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Unlike Bush who claimed he "didn't worry much about bin Laden," Obama OK'd a very daring mission to put a bullet in his head. The possiblity of failure was high and he took great politcal risk in this decision. Fail and he's labeled another Jimmy Carter trying to rescue the hostages, playing right into the stereotype of the right that only the Republicans can 'man-up.'


4PGmnz5Ow-o

4. Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell. Just about the only thing the progressives will give him kudos for without fail.

5. Oil production is up (drill baby drill, remember that?) and dependence on mid-east oil is DOWN. U.S. dependence on foreign oil has declined under Obama as well, going from 58.9 percent of oil consumption in January 2009 to 44 percent in November 2011, according to EIA estimates.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-04/fact-check-obama-promises-ad/52380628/1

6. Majority of promises made have been kept. He has made over 500 promises, according to Politifact.com, a fact-checking operation run by the Tampa Bay Times. But its tally makes clear the challenges. It shows that 162 promises were kept and 56 broken. The rest were either stalled, compromised or still in the works, according to the study. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

7. He is not Mitt Romney. Romney has some serious flaws as a candidate. His record at Bain Capital will be scrutinized. We'll see how the country appreciates his brand of leveraged capital-ism. Besides, only once we get past both conventions will we see a stark contrast in what each man plans to do over the next term. I've not heard a great deal from Romney about precisely what it is he will do, besides stating he'll undo what Obama has done. But when pressed on those points, it's hard to see where that leaves us. He's good at attacking, but at some point he's going to have to give some idea of what he intends to do.

More here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/24/us-usa-obama-speech-factbox-idUSTRE80N0UZ20120124

It will be an interesting fall.

1) This disasterous legislation was directly responsible for losing the royal "Kennedy" seat in the senate when the citizens of a completely blue state voted in a Republican in an attempt to thwart it's passage. The level of this accomplishment is specious.

2) He stuck to the timetable set by Bush in 2008. "All US Forces are mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by December 31, 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

3) A definite plus.

4) MEH

5) The chickens will come home to roost on this one after he is gone. Shutting down drilling in the gulf will cost us later.

6) 30% isn't a majority.

7) I'm sure class warfare will be demagogued heavily by the Dems this fall. The deflections away from what has been a very ineffectual presidency are their only hope. Obama's going to have a tough time with his linkages to "big donors" which received large sums of stimulus money.

It will indeed be an interesting fall.

LiveLaughLove
2/2/2012, 12:10 PM
Gallup Poll shows some interesting stuff.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

Of course, it hasn't even started so it's just a snapshot of the current state of affairs. It does show Obama has his work cut out for him. I'll say it again, I don't think he wins Ohio or Florida, and without them I don't see him winning.

Ton Loc
2/2/2012, 12:30 PM
Being against the homosexual agenda does not make him a homophobe. It makes him a principled Christian that believes his Bible. You can dislike that all you want, but it doesn't mean he is afraid of or hates gay people.

I have a gay acquaintance. Nice enough guy. Don't know his politics, but if they are for a strong gay agenda then I am very much opposed to it. Doesn't mean I hate him or am afraid of him at all.


It means that you pick and choose what to follow from the bible. It also means that you care way too much about something that has no effect on you. And I would argue that it could make you homophobic since you are basically saying you're afraid of what the gays would do with the same rights as everyone else.

I argue they'd be as miserable as the rest of us and they could finally shut up about it. Those alone seem like good enough reasons to me.



5) The chickens will come home to roost on this one after he is gone. Shutting down drilling in the gulf will cost us later.


#5 I give Obama zero credit for this. The economy was/is crap and the dependence went down because our national usage went down. The production went up because of a few different things. Two of those reasons: The economy got a little bit better and a lot of companies had to drill and produce or risk losing their leases.

LiveLaughLove
2/2/2012, 01:25 PM
It means that you pick and choose what to follow from the bible. It also means that you care way too much about something that has no effect on you. And I would argue that it could make you homophobic since you are basically saying you're afraid of what the gays would do with the same rights as everyone else.

Pick and choose what to follow from the Bible? I guess I don't understand that. Are you implying that the Bible does not really condemn the sin of homosexuality but some people choose to believe it does? Sexual sin of any kind is condemned.

Old Testament - Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as [a]one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

While much of the Old Testament law has been made fulfilled by Christ, sexual sin is addressed in the New Testament also.

Romans 1:24-27 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It takes a great stretch to not think this is talking about homosexuality. You may not agree with it. You may not like it. Fine. But it is what it is.

I dislike the homosexual agenda because it is being shoved down my kids throats. I don't want ANY sexual stuff being shoved down my kids throats. My senior daughter told me the "in thing" at school is for the kids to try homosexuality. It's considered cool now. This is in Mustang freaking Oklahoma! Not exactly San Francisco. So it has a very big effect on me. I still have 5 kids in school being effected by this agenda.

That didn't happen by chance. It happened by an all out campaign to normalize the homosexual agenda.

The good news for homosexuals (and all sexual sinners) is grace through Christ is available to those that will repent and accept him.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/2/2012, 01:31 PM
Again, facts aren't helping your cause.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/obama-romney-jobs/

Sorry, but as much as you'd like to believe things aren't getting "turned around," the facts are that the economy and the unemployment situation is indeed on the mend. I'd trust a Nobel laureate economist.

Amateur hour may indeed be over. But President Obama had a a lot of cleaning up to do after the clown show that preceded him.

Hang on, a year ago Krugman was saying the economy was going to be hopelessly mired in a rut unless the gov't spent another $1.5 trillion on Solyndra type projects. Now that he's stumping for his boy to get re-elected, the economy's great. Whatever Krugman.

SoonerPride
2/2/2012, 02:09 PM
Hang on, a year ago Krugman was saying the economy was going to be hopelessly mired in a rut unless the gov't spent another $1.5 trillion on Solyndra type projects. Now that he's stumping for his boy to get re-elected, the economy's great. Whatever Krugman.

Hmmm. Even Romney says the economy is improving under Obama.

Here he is with Laura Ingraham:


INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better.


INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/romney_us_economy_getting_bett034919.php

Y'all need to get on the same page or it won't be a very long contest. lol

Ton Loc
2/2/2012, 02:10 PM
Lots of words...

That didn't happen by chance. It happened by an all out campaign to normalize the homosexual agenda.

The good news for homosexuals (and all sexual sinners) is grace through Christ is available to those that will repent and accept him.

I could run through a 1000 things the bible says that we do not follow and believe to be untrue, unfair, or simply out dated. To stick on the homo part and leave out the rock throwing, holding down the ladies, etc seems to be pretty silly to me.

What you classify as the agenda and what I would call equal rights are two separate things. Kids are dumb. Period. It is ignorant to associate the dumb things kids do as some sort of agenda of the gays. However, I agree with you that homosexuality is not something you should try. I would be upset if my kids told me the things they told you. Good that your kids actually talk to you about this stuff.

The good news is that Christ is for all sinners and I once heard that God sees all sin as the same. Not one greater than the other. That should be good news for everyone.

On Topic - Anyone see that interview with Romney where he said he didn't care about the extremely poor? Good stuff on the Daily Show last night. Regardless of the fact that I'm pretty sure Romney didn't mean what he actually said (but he probably did).

SoonerPride
2/2/2012, 02:28 PM
Pick and choose what to follow from the Bible? I guess I don't understand that. Are you implying that the Bible does not really condemn the sin of homosexuality but some people choose to believe it does? Sexual sin of any kind is condemned.

Old Testament - Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as [a]one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

While much of the Old Testament law has been made fulfilled by Christ, sexual sin is addressed in the New Testament also.

Romans 1:24-27 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It takes a great stretch to not think this is talking about homosexuality. You may not agree with it. You may not like it. Fine. But it is what it is.

I dislike the homosexual agenda because it is being shoved down my kids throats. I don't want ANY sexual stuff being shoved down my kids throats. My senior daughter told me the "in thing" at school is for the kids to try homosexuality. It's considered cool now. This is in Mustang freaking Oklahoma! Not exactly San Francisco. So it has a very big effect on me. I still have 5 kids in school being effected by this agenda.

That didn't happen by chance. It happened by an all out campaign to normalize the homosexual agenda.

The good news for homosexuals (and all sexual sinners) is grace through Christ is available to those that will repent and accept him.

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/gay-funny.jpg

http://bostonbravery.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/bible-marriage.jpg

To put it plainly, the bible is a mess on the subject of morality, sex and marriage and if I were you or especially a presidential candidate, I wouldn't try to use it as any sort of a guide.

LiveLaughLove
2/2/2012, 02:37 PM
I could run through a 1000 things the bible says that we do not follow and believe to be untrue, unfair, or simply out dated. To stick on the homo part and leave out the rock throwing, holding down the ladies, etc seems to be pretty silly to me.

Not really accurate, but we can leave it for another thread.


What you classify as the agenda and what I would call equal rights are two separate things. Kids are dumb. Period. It is ignorant to associate the dumb things kids do as some sort of agenda of the gays. However, I agree with you that homosexuality is not something you should try. I would be upset if my kids told me the things they told you. Good that your kids actually talk to you about this stuff.

It's definitely an agenda. It permeates everything now. It's not by chance that all of a sudden HS kids think it to be cool to try. So yes, I do have a phobia for my children's souls. Soulaphobia maybe? :)


The good news is that Christ is for all sinners and I once heard that God sees all sin as the same. Not one greater than the other. That should be good news for everyone.

Agreed, and the most popular misconception of people toward Christians. They think we "hate" homosexuals. We "hate" sin (and we ALL sin). we hate the sin in our own lives equally to other sins. If a group of adulterers begins as prominent of an agenda as the homosexuals have, I will hate it equally because it will be fighting for peoples souls. That group doesn't exist as yet.


On Topic - Anyone see that interview with Romney where he said he didn't care about the extremely poor? Good stuff on the Daily Show last night. Regardless of the fact that I'm pretty sure Romney didn't mean what he actually said (but he probably did).

On Topic - Romney should be smarter in that the media is going to scrutinize every word he utters (unlike Obama whom they ignore the bad things he says). It was stupid in that regard. But the quote is taken completely out of context. His context was the poor and the rich are basically covered. The nanny state has the poor covered, the rich cover themselves.

My problem is that he seems to imply that he wishes to keep the nanny state or add to it. This will keep a portion of our populace in slavery. The slavery of the handout for votes.

My grandfather (a full blood Chickasaw) did the greatest thing for my family back in the early 40's. He moved away from his family and got away from government handouts (The BIA). He was never a rich man, worked his whole life on his feet, but he gifted us all with the chance to succeed. His family down in Madill, not so much. Most drink themselves to death, few ever hold true jobs for more than a few months.

No alcoholics in our side of the family. All but one (he is on disability), gainfully employed and make good livings. I hope Romney changes his tune on the "safety net", but I won't hold my breath.

LiveLaughLove
2/2/2012, 03:00 PM
http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/gay-funny.jpg

http://bostonbravery.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/bible-marriage.jpg

To put it plainly, the bible is a mess on the subject of morality, sex and marriage and if I were you or especially a presidential candidate, I wouldn't try to use it as any sort of a guide.

No offense Pride, but from what I've read from you, I wouldn't try to use it either, because you use it completely amateurishly, just as those signs do. The Bible is the farthest thing from a mess.

I know you are smart enough to know this, so I know I am wasting my time, but here goes...

I didn't quote one verse. I quoted a verse from the Old Testament, and then a comparable verse in the NT that confirmed the one in the OT.

Your quoted verses are all from the OT without confirming verses from the NT.

When someone quotes a single verse, it is almost always to do so out of context. Example: Judge not lest ye be judged. An unrepentant sinners favorite. or, He who is without sin cast the first stone. Another favorite of sinners. Neither mean (in full context) what the sinner wants them to mean.

Look, we are never going to agree on this stuff. I know the Bible and you will never be able to convince me that it says something it doesn't or vice versa. I am dogmatic if you will. You are dogmatic about liberal policies and agendas. I get it. Good luck with that, but stick to it. Bible scholar hopefully, isn't on your resume.

soonercoop1
2/2/2012, 06:12 PM
Again, Romney will defeat Obama by a comfortable margin. Newt has no chance with moderates and women, so the general vs Newt would be a dogfight. Whether it's good news or not...Romney is the next POTUS, it just hasn't happened yet. Some of you guys might want to hoard up your food stamps.

If Romney is the nominee he will lose to Obama...

soonercoop1
2/2/2012, 06:16 PM
Obama won by 7 points if I remember correctly over McCain.

Romney will win by no less than 5, probably closer to 10 in the general.


The American people hate Democrats AND Republicans right now, BUT when forced to choose, they're voting red. Back in the 2010 mid-terms (15 months ago) the food-stampers voted liberal and almost everyone else voted conservative. We're still at 2 million less net jobs since Jan '09 and gas is still climbing. The CBO's projection on the next 2 year's unemployment numbers are morbid at best. It's not an opinion; it's just what's going to happen.

"The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know." -H. S. Truman

The problem for Romney is he isn't red...only a RINO really...McCain revisited and it took Palin to keep it as close as it was which wasn't that close...

soonercoop1
2/2/2012, 06:23 PM
That is one thing. The painting of President Obama as some radical Kenyan Muslim is both disingenuous and fundamentally damaging to our system.



JSKdsUvD7CY&feature=related

Bill Maher is spot on in this comment.

Disagree with President Obama? Fine.

But at least argue about what he really has done, not some bugaboo nonsense about him being a Communist or secret Muslim sent to destroy America.

Any more disingenuous and fundamentally damaging to our country than Obama and liberalism/progressivism?

Midtowner
2/2/2012, 06:39 PM
Hasn't Romney actually implemented just about every policy he's going to be attacking Obama over?

SoonerPride
2/2/2012, 06:58 PM
That is one thing. The painting of President Obama as some radical Kenyan Muslim is both disingenuous and fundamentally damaging to our system.



JSKdsUvD7CY&feature=related

Bill Maher is spot on in this comment.

Disagree with President Obama? Fine.

But at least argue about what he really has done, not some bugaboo nonsense about him being a Communist or secret Muslim sent to destroy America.

Any more disingenuous and fundamentally damaging to our country than Obama and liberalism/progressivism?

Yes.

LiveLaughLove
2/2/2012, 07:46 PM
Hasn't Romney actually implemented just about every policy he's going to be attacking Obama over?

Maybe, but he will resend Obama's executive orders on mandated government paid abortions. Doesn't matter if he was for abortion in the past. As a Republican President he will have no choice but to do so.

For me, that alone is worth the price of admission.

Midtowner
2/2/2012, 08:07 PM
Maybe, but he will resend...

Resend?

Rescind?

LiveLaughLove
2/2/2012, 08:18 PM
Resend?

Rescind?

Yeah that.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 09:19 AM
Again, Romney will defeat Obama by a comfortable margin. Newt has no chance with moderates and women, so the general vs Newt would be a dogfight. Whether it's good news or not...Romney is the next POTUS, it just hasn't happened yet. Some of you guys might want to hoard up your food stamps.

Care to retract this claim?

Romney can't even win his own party's nomination "by a comfortable margin."

Or maybe at all.

The Republican party needs to decide if they are going to be overtaken by the Tea Party or not.

Perhaps they need to split and form a third party.

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 01:55 PM
bump

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 05:19 PM
Care to retract this claim?

Romney can't even win his own party's nomination "by a comfortable margin."

Or maybe at all.

The Republican party needs to decide if they are going to be overtaken by the Tea Party or not.

Perhaps they need to split and form a third party.

Not that I'm necessarily a fan, but Romney currently has as many delegates as Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul combined...not to mention he just won CPAC. I'd say that's a pretty comfortable lead, even for a complete and utter moron such as yourself.

Learn to add.

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 05:54 PM
Care to retract this claim?

Romney can't even win his own party's nomination "by a comfortable margin."

Or maybe at all.

The Republican party needs to decide if they are going to be overtaken by the Tea Party or not.

Perhaps they need to split and form a third party.

Not that I'm necessarily a fan, but Romney currently has as many delegates as Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul combined...not to mention he just won CPAC. I'd say that's a pretty comfortable lead, even for a complete and utter moron such as yourself.

Learn to add.

Sorry if I got you all upset missy.

The fact of the matter is that even in the best case scenario Romney will be battling to secure the nomination well into May. That hardly is "winning comfortably." If he can't win his own nomination easily you think he's gonna beat President Obama "comfortably?"

Um sure.

Next time you feel like crying or throwing a hissy fit eat some chocolate.

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 08:01 PM
Learn to add.

Turd_Ferguson
2/13/2012, 08:05 PM
4+4=jelloUh huh... I thought so...

Turd_Ferguson
2/13/2012, 08:10 PM
Learn to add.That 1000 yd shot is starting to make more sense now...

StoopTroup
2/13/2012, 08:25 PM
Cakeaters?

SoonerPride
2/17/2012, 01:37 PM
RHaMqHh5NZ4

It makes sense that Mitt Romney thinks the trees in Michigan are "the right height." He relates to trees. They are only slightly less wooden than he is.