TB:
That’s a well-written article from the “Tennessean”. It’s not full of the “End-of-America/End-of-the-Constitution/Marxist” hyperbole that drives me crazy when speaking of the President.
Question; when the President’s historical narrative begins to written; will this all be looked at as completely his inability to lead? In other words, will any responsibility be placed on the “Do-Nothing-Congress-2”?
(Again; I agree with the article; just wondering about your opinion).
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
TB:
That’s a well-written article from the “Tennessean”. It’s not full of the “End-of-America/End-of-the-Constitution/Marxist” hyperbole that drives me crazy when speaking of the President.
Question; when the President’s historical narrative begins to written; will this all be looked at as completely his inability to lead? In other words, will any responsibility be placed on the “Do-Nothing-Congress-2”?
(Again; I agree with the article; just wondering about your opinion).
Mufasa
[/quote]
The best part of that story by far were the comments below…as is typical of modern internet warfare.
I love this statement from the article, TB and UL:
"…What is downright infuriating is that, after four years of an Obama presidency and two years of campaigning and 22 televised debates by Romney… so many questions remain and it is difficult to discern what the next four years would look like with either man in charge.
Again; a well written article with a even, well-thought out approach.
Mufasa
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The best part of that story by far were the comments below…as is typical of modern internet warfare.
[/quote]
My fav:
“and principles that America strongly stood for until the tea party types decided to put their two cents in. I do not have to pay for their free speech”
lol, either someone doesn’t know what the tea party stands for, or doesn’t know what america strongly stood for.
Bill is the smartest man alive. Sees blood in the water. Romney gets in now, Hilary in 2016…
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I love this statement from the article, TB and UL:
"…What is downright infuriating is that, after four years of an Obama presidency and two years of campaigning and 22 televised debates by Romney… so many questions remain and it is difficult to discern what the next four years would look like with either man in charge.
Again; a well written article with a even, well-thought out approach.
Mufasa[/quote]
Total nonsense. If Obama is reelected you will have more of the same only much worse as he does not have an electorate to answer to. If Romney is elected he will fall center right and cannot drift from that as he will have conservatives to thank for winning.
This stuff is not rocket science and those who try to make it out to be such are idiots.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I love this statement from the article, TB and UL:
"…What is downright infuriating is that, after four years of an Obama presidency and two years of campaigning and 22 televised debates by Romney… so many questions remain and it is difficult to discern what the next four years would look like with either man in charge.
Again; a well written article with a even, well-thought out approach.
Mufasa[/quote]
Total nonsense. If Obama is reelected you will have more of the same only much worse as he does not have an electorate to answer to. If Romney is elected he will fall center right and cannot drift from that as he will have conservatives to thank for winning.
This stuff is not rocket science and those who try to make it out to be such are idiots.[/quote]
The paper ultimately endorsed Romney.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Romney 53% to 47%. Romney takes at least 320 electoral votes. Its going to be a blow out
Undecided are breaking almost 100% to Romney. Not once have I ever heard of anyone saying they did NOT vote for Obama in 2008 and are going to vote Obama in 2012. Its always moving from voted Obama to will vote Romney.[/quote]
I’ll go on record stating I believe this is pretty close to what the outcome will look like.
If I’m right, will smirk and snort and crank up the Schadenfreude as I scroll through my Facebook news feed enjoying watching all my liberal friends have nervous breakdowns like they did with the election of GWB back when I was in college.
And if I’m wrong. Having a wrong prediction on T-Nation is going to be the least of my worries. [/quote]
Probably the most satisfying thing about the day after any election.
Unfortunately for me, I’m pretty ambivalent about both candidates this year, so I don’t even have the chance of basking in the glory of my opponents’ misery. If only Bachman or Cain had won the primary…[/quote]
Agree, smh.
But I disagree with Cortes; I think that there will me a MUCH greater melt-down of Conservatives should the President win. (than Visa-Versa).
And I worry about Rush and “FoxNews”. What will they do in terms of programming if Romney wins? :)-!
Mufasa
[/quote]
There will still be liberals for Rush to educate
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Also, this bit:
Should President Obama, as some suggested, have devoted his early political capital to jobs and debt reduction and pursuing Wall Street criminals, instead of health reform? Time will tell. But it�¢??s clear whatever shaky bridges were burned in the push for health reform only emboldened Republicans to oppose his subsequent economic proposals. That has rendered much of his presidency ineffective.
This gets precisely to the issue. In addition to well-documented criticism that health care should not have been the priority, the other issue - an important one - is the amateurishness of Obama’s style of governing. Obama thought that he and the Presidency were bigger than everyone else and that he could bigfoot the process with little consideration of the political consequences. He could let Pelosi run with the bill, and he would enforce no discipline on it, and would concede no act of bipartisanship in trying get it passed (hell, he didn’t even want anyone to read it).
But Presidents have to govern with Congress, and when Obama “burned the bridges” the editorial speaks of in his race to create “transformational” policy for his legacy come hell or high water, he neutered his ability to govern for the remainder of his presidency.
Set aside his party affiliation - Obama is terrible at governing and managing the actual job of politics, and even Democratic-leaning outlets like the Tennessean realize this heading into the election.[/quote]
Implicit in this talk of bridges burnt is the clear admission that our economic recovery was actively hampered by House Republicans. I won’t challenge the notion that President Obama invited conservative ire in the early years of his Presidency–because I believe that to be true–but that fact does more to indict your people than Obama: whereas the latter is only indirectly responsible for our anemic recovery (by this logic of “Obama pissed them off and then they refused to let him govern,” that is), the House directly obstructed policies designed to stimulate progress. If you see in this the naivete of an ambitious President, I see the active anti-Americanism of a group of embittered sabotuers.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
the House directly obstructed policies designed to stimulate progress. If you see in this the naivete of an ambitious President, I see the active anti-Americanism of a group of embittered sabotuers.[/quote]
How do you know the bills weren’t more green pork to pay off contributors that would just run up the debt and further add to the 51k my 9 month old daughter already owes for being born?
I mean, without reading the actual bills, I’m going to go out on a limb and give the republicans the benefit of the doubt. Particularly because of how hard the press hammers them for it. Leads me to believe the republicans were right if the press was that mad.
I’ve seen Obama’s ideas, and they are shit. I’m glad more were stopped. We can’t afford them.
.
Tonight’s Susquehanna Poll (out of Pennsylvania) has Romney up 49-45.
Obama too has pension investments that include Chinese firms, and investments through a Caymans Island trust. Why does it take the main stream media so long to do these investigations? Hmmmm…
Second solar panel energy company this week files for bankruptcy. They also received a multi-million-dollar grant from Obama administration. Things that make you go hmmm…
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Tonight’s Susquehanna Poll (out of Pennsylvania) has Romney up 49-45.[/quote]
From what I have seen this is to be taken with a huge grain of salt. It is a republican firm, and more than likely looking to get romney to come to PA and spend some money. In the hopes that some local republicans will benefit from the $ and attention.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Obama too has pension investments that include Chinese firms, and investments through a Caymans Island trust. Why does it take the main stream media so long to do these investigations? Hmmmm…
Second solar panel energy company this week files for bankruptcy. They also received a multi-million-dollar grant from Obama administration. Things that make you go hmmm…
[/quote]
another one for you
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
the House directly obstructed policies designed to stimulate progress. If you see in this the naivete of an ambitious President, I see the active anti-Americanism of a group of embittered sabotuers.[/quote]
How do you know the bills weren’t more green pork to pay off contributors that would just run up the debt and further add to the 51k my 9 month old daughter already owes for being born?
I mean, without reading the actual bills, I’m going to go out on a limb and give the republicans the benefit of the doubt. Particularly because of how hard the press hammers them for it. Leads me to believe the republicans were right if the press was that mad.
I’ve seen Obama’s ideas, and they are shit. I’m glad more were stopped. We can’t afford them.[/quote]
Also, after seeing the way Biden acted in the debate, and Harry Reid acted about the tax returns… Do the democrats really appear to be the most willing to reach across the isle?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean, without reading the actual bills, I’m going to go out on a limb and give the republicans the benefit of the doubt. Particularly because of how hard the press hammers them for it. Leads me to believe the republicans were right if the press was that mad.
I’ve seen Obama’s ideas, and they are shit. I’m glad more were stopped. We can’t afford them.[/quote]
And that’s the problem Beans. How can you have an informed opinion without even knowing the details of the bills? You’re playing party politics instead of thinking on your own which is a huge problem in this country and is exactly why Congress does what it does.
At this point you’re only seeing red against Obama and that’s shaping all of your opinions. But I think it’s worth stepping back and actually looking at the bills. Surely there was room for compromise in them. Hell, the U.S. is one big compromise because it has to be. The only way for the system to truly work is for people to bend on some stuff.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
You’re playing party politics instead of thinking on your own which is a huge problem in this country and is exactly why Congress does what it does. [/quote]
We’ve talked about this a lot so we are both aware of the fact I’m a hammer right now, and everything is a nail.
Yes I have my head in the righty narrative right now, and yes I’m blindly giving them a pass on this.
The only reasoning I even have for it is a total appeal to emotion.
But…
The House republicans did the exact thing they were elected to do. They kicked in the teeth of every shithole progressive sitting in Washington now destroying the future for our kids. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how the word progressive has come to describe what it has, or how people have come to except that view point.
I mean, we see eye to eye on a lot. But we both grew up watching Sly and Arnold… First Blood? Come on man. You can’t tell me you look at what is going on right now and not thing “are you fucking kidding me”?
You don’t hang out with communists your entire life because they cook good chocolate cake…
Romney would be a lefty 40 years ago. He is the new conservative? If enough people don’t have the attitude I have right now, we are fucked. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to look my daughter in the eye and tell her “America used to be the best nation in the world”.
No, it is spreading to more people, lol. It isn’t just him.
[quote]Surely there was room for compromise in them. Hell, the U.S. is one big compromise because it has to be. The only way for the system to truly work is for people to bend on some stuff.
[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more. It would just be nice if “center” today was the same “center” it was before. Because “center” now is radical left in 1960.
Like I said in the other thread. JFK would be leading the Tea PArty today.