Pitt,
I will tell you what a donkey dick-sucker move is. Our worthless governor sending out letters to public college students, telling them that they will no longer be admitting students if they don’t vote to pass tax increases. This comes at the same time as UC chancellors and Regents getting $100k raises.
THAT IS A DONKEY BALL BUSTER grabbing the power-up mushroom move if there ever was one.
Can someone tell me Romneys stance on drone attacks?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Can someone tell me Romneys stance on drone attacks?[/quote]
Why do you ask? Will that somehow make you a Romney supporter?
No, that can’t be it. You can’t vote for him or against him in Canada.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why do you ask?[/quote]
I’m wondering how his stance differs from Obama’s (if at all).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Will that somehow make you a Romney supporter?[/quote]
It will help me form my opinion of him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No, that can’t be it. You can’t vote for him or against him in Canada.[/quote]
Well if he wins this election barring catastrophe he will be running for re-election in 2016. I’ll be eligible to vote in 2016.
Now was the goal of this post just to give attitude for the sake of attitude?
Anyways, if anyone has the answer to my question please share.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why do you ask?[/quote]
I’m wondering how his stance differs from Obama’s (if at all).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Will that somehow make you a Romney supporter?[/quote]
It will help me form my opinion of him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No, that can’t be it. You can’t vote for him or against him in Canada.[/quote]
Well if he wins this election barring catastrophe he will be running for re-election in 2016. I’ll be eligible to vote in 2016.
Now was the goal of this post just to give attitude for the sake of attitude?
Anyways, if anyone has the answer to my question please share.[/quote]
You still can’t vote in an American election if you’re Canadian.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why do you ask?[/quote]
I’m wondering how his stance differs from Obama’s (if at all).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Will that somehow make you a Romney supporter?[/quote]
It will help me form my opinion of him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No, that can’t be it. You can’t vote for him or against him in Canada.[/quote]
Well if he wins this election barring catastrophe he will be running for re-election in 2016. I’ll be eligible to vote in 2016.
Now was the goal of this post just to give attitude for the sake of attitude?
Anyways, if anyone has the answer to my question please share.[/quote]
You still can’t vote in an American election if you’re Canadian.
[/quote]
I was under the impression naturalized citizens are eligible to vote.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why do you ask?[/quote]
I’m wondering how his stance differs from Obama’s (if at all).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Will that somehow make you a Romney supporter?[/quote]
It will help me form my opinion of him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No, that can’t be it. You can’t vote for him or against him in Canada.[/quote]
Well if he wins this election barring catastrophe he will be running for re-election in 2016. I’ll be eligible to vote in 2016.
Now was the goal of this post just to give attitude for the sake of attitude?
Anyways, if anyone has the answer to my question please share.[/quote]
You still can’t vote in an American election if you’re Canadian.
[/quote]
I was under the impression naturalized citizens are eligible to vote.
[/quote]
Why would you be eligible to vote in 2016?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why do you ask?[/quote]
I’m wondering how his stance differs from Obama’s (if at all).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Will that somehow make you a Romney supporter?[/quote]
It will help me form my opinion of him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No, that can’t be it. You can’t vote for him or against him in Canada.[/quote]
Well if he wins this election barring catastrophe he will be running for re-election in 2016. I’ll be eligible to vote in 2016.
Now was the goal of this post just to give attitude for the sake of attitude?
Anyways, if anyone has the answer to my question please share.[/quote]
You still can’t vote in an American election if you’re Canadian.
[/quote]
I was under the impression naturalized citizens are eligible to vote.
[/quote]
Why would you be eligible to vote in 2016?[/quote]
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to say
Misread your last post.
I will be eligible because I am a green card holder. Before the 2016 election I will be eligible for US citizenship.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Misread your last post.
I will be eligible because I am a green card holder. Before the 2016 election I will be eligible for US citizenship.[/quote]
If Obamawitz gets reelected we’re pretty much done. Why would you want to board a ship that is sinking?
Anyways, If you want to tell me about your main gripes with Obama I would love to hear them (I’ve only recently started to follow US party politics).
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Look, I posed the question because I came across this cartoon and just wondered if it accurately portrays Romney and Obama’s political views. From the clips I’ve seen, Romney supports drone attacks just as much as Obama.
Anyways, If you want to tell me about your main gripes with Obama I would love to hear them (I’ve only recently started to follow US party politics).
[/quote]
Very funny cartoon Therajraj.
I think it’s obvious that Obama has tanked the economy. And his tax hike policies will surely send us into another recession. But he is the teflon President and no matter how bad he is the MSLM will not come down on him and hence the populace is comfortable voting him back in.
No matter:
-16 trillion in debt
-Unemployment over 8% for 43 straight months (the highest since the great depression)
-100 million people on some sort of government hand out
-45 million people on food stamps (16 million more than before he took over)
-A middle East foreign policy that is in disarray (I thought they hated us because of Bush?)
I could go on but this guy has the worst record of any man who has only had the job for four years with the exception of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
If he gets reelected I don’t think there is any question that we are going into another recession or worse. Is he doing this on purpose? I sure hope not but I am starting to wonder. I think this is what he meant when he said he was going to “fundamentally change the US.” He is working toward some sort of socialist utopia and the American people are not quite smart enough to catch on and the American press is certainly not going to tell them because they are in love with Obama in an unnatural way.
So, why bother coming here? Canada is looking good man!
Thanks for the reply.
How do you rebut the comment that Obama needs more time to cleanup Bush’s mess?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
How do you rebut the comment that Obama needs more to cleanup Bush’s mess?[/quote]
Because a good leader would accept responsibility for his actions, and realize that 4 years is enough time to see better results than those gotten.
Good leaders don’t blame those that came before them as they beg for more time. Good leaders lead, bring people together and form solutions. Good leaders, shit marginal leaders don’t care who got anyone where, just that they will get the people out.
Obama blames republicans and rules through executive order.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
How do you rebut the comment that Obama needs more time to cleanup Bush’s mess?[/quote]
An incredibly feeble excuse. And if Jimmy Carter had tried using that excuse back in 1980 he’d of been laughed out of office!
Obama failed!
Give someone else a chance.
Simple.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
How do you rebut the comment that Obama needs more to cleanup Bush’s mess?[/quote]
Because a good leader would accept responsibility for his actions, and realize that 4 years is enough time to see better results than those gotten.
Good leaders don’t blame those that came before them as they beg for more time. Good leaders lead, bring people together and form solutions. Good leaders, shit marginal leaders don’t care who got anyone where, just that they will get the people out.
Obama blames republicans and rules through executive order. [/quote]
Ditto. Good leaders, or even merely capable leaders, are objective focused. They might want to take credit even for things they didn’t do, but they care first about results happening.
I basically rebut the comment about him needing more time to clean up “Bush’s mess” in the following way:
It wasn’t just Bush’s fault, that’s a strawman of the highest order. Yes, he gets some blame. I’ll never deny that he deserves some. But this crisis has roots that go far beyond just him.
More importantly, what is important regarding Obama’s abysmal performance is NOT that the situation should be 100% fixed by now–it’s that anybody who was remotely capable should have gotten real progress TOWARDS being 100% fixed by now instead of whining and dissembling like a pussy.
Let me put it this way: If you’re hired to re-organize a multi-national corporation that has gone under, or is going under–like many new heads of corporations after the '08 crisis tanked big companies–do you want to be blamed for the first year of your shitty turnaround job? No. Nobody does. Things can take a lot longer than that and everybody knows it. Just the same as with college sports or anything else, you need time for your recruits to learn the team system and mature (or in the case of business and finance for your change in the business model and personnel to filter down and affect your market share or product line or profit margin or overhead). Everybody who is remotely intelligent already understands this! We all know it’s a long process to fix something that was in the shitter when you got to the job.
HOWEVER, if, after four years, there is not some progress TOWARDS being fixed you can’t blame your predecessor. Nobody is expecting a fully fledged completion. What they are expecting are SIGNS of PROGRESS towards this completion. Returning to our multi-national corporation, you need to be getting better year to year–in some tangible and measurable way. You need to be cutting the magnitude of your fiscal losses (eg: instead of being in the hole 19% you are in the hole 15% on new products), OR you need to be cutting debt, OR you need to be showing serious progress in new acquisitions that can lead your company to profitability, OR you need to be showing serious progress in the personnel overhaul department. Things both trackable and significant.
Sports example: Bill Snyder and the KSU wildcats. The cats had had only 2 winning seasons in the last 34 friggin years. Hadn’t won a single game in 3 whole seasons when they hired snyder, who said “I believe the opportunity exists for the greatest turnaround in college football today”. The first year he was there, they won only 1 game. But they had moved forward. The second year they won 5. Third year they had a winning record for the 3rd time in the last 37 years. By the fifth year they were 9-2. Progress towards a solution. Slow, but trackable and significant.
THAT is what is lacking in Obama’s record. What I do not see is significant change towards a solution. I never expected anyone to have fixed the situation in the first 2 years, or even 4. But I DID expect the person in charge to make significant and consistent progress towards that goal. And Obama has done nothing in my opinion that constitutes anything remotely close to that. We may not have sunk much deeper, but we absolutely have not gotten significantly better. That is simply not good enough. Past presidents on both sides of the aisle have managed to do the job in 4 years or at least show good progress towards an acceptable end solution in those 4 years.
That is why Obama does not deserve a vote. He’s shirking duty, shirking responsibility, and incapable of directing us towards a solution to this disaster. I’ll say one thing for GW–that boy never shirked criticism or responsibility. He did a lot of things that I don’t agree with, but he at least had the balls to own his decisions when they were viewed as mistakes or outright error by the media and public.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
How do you rebut the comment that Obama needs more time to cleanup Bush’s mess?[/quote]
“One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition”
Guess who.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
How do you rebut the comment that Obama needs more time to cleanup Bush’s mess?[/quote]
“One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition”
Guess who.
[/quote]
double ditto. Also, I’d add that his handling of this Ambassador killing is beyond the pale. I’m not commenting on Mitt’s perhaps ill-advised political opportunism or verbal misstep here at all, but Obama is the man in charge and I find his response…lacking, shall we say. It is unconscionable. I think this further demonstrates that he has no business at the helm of our country.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
How do you rebut the comment that Obama needs more time to cleanup Bush’s mess?[/quote]
“One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition”
Guess who.
[/quote]
double ditto. Also, I’d add that his handling of this Ambassador killing is beyond the pale. I’m not commenting on Mitt’s perhaps ill-advised political opportunism or verbal misstep here at all, but Obama is the man in charge and I find his response…lacking, shall we say. It is unconscionable. I think this further demonstrates that he has no business at the helm of our country. [/quote]
Can you elaborate on this?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
How do you rebut the comment that Obama needs more time to cleanup Bush’s mess?[/quote]
“One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition”
Guess who.
[/quote]
double ditto. Also, I’d add that his handling of this Ambassador killing is beyond the pale. I’m not commenting on Mitt’s perhaps ill-advised political opportunism or verbal misstep here at all, but Obama is the man in charge and I find his response…lacking, shall we say. It is unconscionable. I think this further demonstrates that he has no business at the helm of our country. [/quote]
Can you elaborate on this?[/quote]
Hmm. What specifically should I elaborate on? In the US Ambassador Killed thread AC pretty much laid out what I feel should be done and you agreed with him. I feel like another president would have handled the matter in a much more decisive manner…I basically have zero faith that Obama will do anything properly. Now, I can admit my bias against him–clearly I am not planning to vote for him, but I don’t feel that it is without experiential support from the past 4 years or so.
