Magox

How many campaign promises is Obama going to break? How many does that make it, I can think of six offhand. How do all you lemmings not call him out for what can either be one of two things, either his insincerity or ineptitude? Because he' either lying to us, or he is so naive and has such a horrid economic team that they just aren't able to foresee things. Remember when Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term? Well, according to the presidents political document, it will reach over $1.3 TRILLION dollars. Not even close. The whole thing is a sham. Just like the healthcare debate with phony accounting tricks, Obama is going to use savings from the Troop pullbacks of AFG. and IRAQ. So instead of applying those savings from wars, he is just gonna add it to new spending initiatives. That's just wonderful! So here is the political budget Liberal wish list 1) $350 Billion for more stimulus spending CHECK 2) $60 Billion for state budgets to save UNION state employee jobs CHECK 3) Withdraw from wars conveniently right before elections CHECK 4) End bush tax cuts for upper income earners CHECK 5) Create Buffett rule of taxes for rich CHECK 6) Minimum savings tax on corporations CHECK 7) Cut defense and Pentagon spending CHECK 8) Oh and he can say I amgoing to cut $4 TRILLION in spending within the next 10 years.... yeah more than half of those "Savings" are from letting the wars end. pffffff talk about accounting tricks That's fine, we'll see what happens when Europe begins to show signs of recovery, and when bond rates begin to rise over here, simply because those bond funds will repatriate back to Europe, then we'll see the focus switch over here. We'll see what excuse they have then and I'm sure blaming the conservatives will have somethig to do with it .

Shocking, that that's how YOU would interpret it. One trick pony comes to mind... Where do you guys come up with this Sh%t?!?!

Lets break down his comment. Before I do, let's remember the pretext of the conversation, we are talking about voting for a black man in a historical context... Right? ok 1) He begins with a statement that says if the next 40 presidents were black, it would be justified to vote for a QUALIFIED white guy just because he's white. He used the word Qualified. 2) Then he goes on to say I wouldn't hold it against women if they voted for a "qualified" woman just because she's a woman. Again, he used the word Qualified 3) then he says things have a historical context, which ties it into our conversation, regarding black people, and that also voting for a "QUALIFIED" black guy is significant in this case because it would be the first black president. Then you replied with Really? That's what you got out of his statement? My guess is even now, where it's pretty damn clear what he was saying which had nothing to do with what you asked, that you will be too hard-headed to admit it. Anyone here who has the ability of reason, can see what he was saying. Listen, I'll be the first to call out anyone about anything, and my political views on most non social issues are on the complete opposite spectrum from what Lybob says, but what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong, and you were wrong. It's that simple. Now if you want to argue the merits that you don't think it's ok to vote for a black "qualified' guy over a white guy who may be a little more "qualified", then thats a valid argument, but that isn't what you said.

That's not the way I read it at all. I actually agree with what he says to a degree. He was talking about in within a certain context, the way I understood it is if you have a qualified person in this case a black guy (it's called context) and he is running up against other candidates, considering that there has never been a black president elected, that that could be used as valid criteria to vote for the black guy. That's the way I understood it and I think thats ok. Now if you are gonna ask me was Barack Obama sufficiently qualified to be president? I would say no. Never had any executive experience, didnt even serve one term as senator, and during that time as senator he castr a **** load of "present" votes. I never thought he was sufficiently qualified, but that is besides the point, because maybe from his perspective he thought he was. So going back to his statement, nowhere did he even come close to implying that he thought he was unqualified, that was your opinion and you basically just made it up. Now again, show me where he implied that.

I'm not one to agree with Lybob, but where was his "assertion that it's ok to vote for an unqualified black guy" . I went back and re read it, and I don't see it, maybe it didn't show up on my screen. Can you show me where he said that? Because from what I read, he specifically used the word "qualified" Where was this said?

Well he did say "qualified"

Who are the Senators of Maine?

Let's face it, millions and millions of people voted for Obama simply because he was black. He's really not saying anything that is some sort of new revelation or anything, he's just saying it how it is. I'm sure there are alot of Afro Americans that can relate to him, he's kinda like that crazy black uncle that goes off the reservation from time to time.

But somehow, it was much more of a moral outrage issue when G.W was in office. How strange

To be fair, he didn't say that. And, you can ONLY pay down the national debt by reducing the deficit. Not that I believe he understands the distinction between the debt and deficit.

If I was a political operative I could have a field day with this. Their "accommodative" measures is simply put, more fodder for conservatives. Talk about government overreach. So they went from one form of centralized power to another. Like I said earlier, this can not be about contraceptives or abortions or anything of the like, from a conservative point of view, this has to be about Obama's White House and how they want to enter every phase of your life. They've given conservatives a whole new round of ammo for this upcoming elections, not to mention the badly needed enthusiasm that they have been lacking because of the candidates they have. There will be alot more energy once they nominate their guy, simply because the antiObama sentiment is strong, but now you are talking about injecting a whole new stream of enthusiasm with this debacle that the W.H created, you will get social conservatives that will enter into the equation and you will get conservatives and independents that value overreach of government as a voting issue. 1) Weak Economy 2) $15 Trillion debt With Trillion dollar deficits projected for many years out 3) Failed energy policy with solyndra, keystone, Cap and trade (which you can tie that into too much centralized power) and an activist EPA 4) Too much centralized power/government overreach ALot of issues to go after them with

I agree, he is genuinely bat **** loony

From what I read, the Catholic Bishops are calling it "unacceptable" Also there is a good editorial piecethat came out this morning from the WSJ. Gotta love the WSJ, its one to spout a partisan opinion, its another to get into the details and numbers or the nuts and bolts of these pieces of legislation and absolutely eviscerate it with hard cold facts and logic. Here is something else to chew on, so the administration says ok, we are gonna "accommodate" the Bishops with this deal, and just for ***** and giggles, lets say its a fair compromise, but now they are gonna FORCE healt insureres to pick it up for free? You freaking tell me that the Executive branch is gonna just mandate a private corporation to pay for something simply to accommodate another entity? Un!@#$ing real These guys are out of their minds. Of course you know what the game plan is right? It goes something like this: Whitehouse: You guys are gonna pick up the tab HealthInsurers: we are? Whitehouse: Yeah you are HI: I don't see how you can make us WH: You wanna !@#$ with us? HI: what do you mean? WH: You remember the health care debate? remember how we demonized you? HI: u huh WH: Before you guys were just heartless callous corporations, now you are gonna be heartless callous corporations that hate womens rights to health insurance. HI: That's BS WH: Comply or its game on bitches!

You got me there

Come on now, When doesn't the GOP ever pander to the social conservatives during the primaries?

Thats all I got out of it

Dude, I hope it's a chick whispering in your ear.

I've been trying to find it too...

No, it is not unreasonable to find Santorum's social engineering beliefs to be absurd. I don't like it. It's a turnoff for me, But I'm reasonable enough to understand that social issues, when its all said and done really can't be tremendously dictated from the executive branch and at the end of the day, the election is about a choice, and that choice for me is who can help turn around this economy and reduce the debt more so than the other guy? Meanwhile you are obsessing about the dude's sweatervest and if he may try to propose an amendment to the constitution that has no chance in hell of passing. Yeah, and I agree with you, I don't like that he was pork barrel spender, but again, I'm rational enough to understand that one of the mandates that he would be elected if he were to get in that position (which I highly doubt) would be to cut spending, much more so than Obama. I also happen to like his manufacturing plan that he has, to not impose any capital gains taxes on manufacturers, which of course would help stimulate that segment of the economy. Would it be the silver bullet solution? Nope, but then again, from my perspective, there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution for our economic woes, but it is a bold idea that I happen to like. My focus is primarily on the economy and the debt, and that is what I mainly care about. If I had to put a number that represents the percentage of emphasis of how much I care about each issue national security about 20%, the economy and debt account for about 60%, centralized power about 15% and social issues about 5%. Now if you were to tell me that Santorum has stood on corners with signs that said "God hates Fags" or "Homos suck dick" then without a doubt that would automatically disqualify him for me, and I would just sit out this next upcoming election simply because I would see that as overtly hateful, and I believe we need to have a president who doesn't exemplify hate towards anyone. And please, don't show me a piece of legislation that he has proposed against gay marriage as an interpretation from you as him hating gays. Now if you have something that has shown that he has spewed hatred, then thats a different matter. I'm about as socially liberal as they get, I'm for gay marriage, pro choice, pro legalization of most drugs and a number of other issues, but when someone has a religious belief that they are against abortions and against gay marriage, I have the capacity to understand where they are coming from and respect their beliefs. I find it incredibly unfortunate that most people aren't able to be adamantly opposed to someone's view, but at the same time respectful of their religious beliefs. It's a religious belief man, its important to them, can't you see that? Like I said, if he is or was spewing hatred, that's another matter. I'll tell you whats really up, you just HATE when politicians commingle religion with politics. I remember, I believe it was you or Peace, I think, that I had mentioned John Thune as a possible candidate, and there you went, you basically went off the reservation and brought up a similar argument with virtually the same passion against him, simply because you perceive him to be some bible thumping politician that is incapable of tolerance. Face it, you have a serious hangup for this sort of stuff, that it creates so much hate within you that it clouds reason. Meaning that in matters that virtually have such little impact in what the presidency can do, that you would rather vote in a much less qualified president to guide us through this crappy economy and horrid debt issue simply because they are against gay marriage and pro choice matters. Now that is what you call unreasonable.

Yeah, I'd vote for him over Obama, without a doubt. So you care more about the social issues than the economy, Okey dokey, so i guess you are one of those kinda people. Thats ok you can worry about the social issues, I'll keep my focus on the economy. Also, as Adam and DC pointed out, I'm rational enough to understand that none of those things that Santorum wishes he could achieve, in regards to amending the constitution and all the other B.S would never ever happen.

Actually their routes were sort of in both. The problem with the business that my father didn't take into account was that up North, in heavily populated centers, the icecream trucks could stay parked in certain areas and the business would come to them, in other words they didn't have to drive that far. The problem is that we lived in North Carolina, where it is much hotter and they would have to drive longer distances and it was a nightmare to upkeep those huge diesel monsters. They were constantly breaking down. But anyway, I know you meant that as a dig at JW, carry on.

You may be right with most of what you said, but that's not the point of our debate, AND that still doesn't mean that most people find him to be despicable. I'm objective and reasonable enough to understand that, I think thats where you and I differ. And I really don't like having to defend a person that is not my sort of candidate at all, but whether you like him or not, he is seen as a likeable and a genuine candidate. Your strong views don't allow you to see that, and hey, that's ok. That's how you feel. But without a doubt, Romney makes a much better general election candidate, and his track record of turning things around, business acumen and governing over a liberal state while showing fiscal discipline is something that I find appealing. I just hope this Santorum surge is just that, a surge. My guess is that once they shine that big light on him, his weaknesses will get exposed. He's had the luxary of being able to throw punches at the other two candidates without getting hit back, lets see how he deals with it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72711_Page2.html#ixzz1lzarRHF4 Another quote from Rubio, and he makes the right point. I wouldn't be surprised if social conservatives such as Rick Santorum and others get so emboldened over this issue that they overplay their hand. If they go too far on the social side of things, it will turn off voters. This has to be about too much centralized power and the overreach of government. Yet another example of a politician like Rubio who is wise beyond his years. Btw, I just heard the White House caved in with a compromise. From what I read it will be based on Hawaii's plan, where they refer them to insurers who provide this sort of care. I imagine they strategically did this today to undercut the message of the GOP candidates at the CPAC convention.

No, you and likeminded people hate his guts. Does he have views that I vehemently disagree with? yes. Does that make him despicable? No, only to people who have strong views about religion and politics. Does wanting to amend the constitution = vile? No, it just means he's a pandering goofball. Does losing an election by a landslide equate to being seen as despicable in the eyes of voters? Of course not. Rick Santorum has always had these views, it's not a new revelation. You telling me that after 16 straight years of getting elected and reelected that all of a sudden they "hate his guts"? That just doesn't fly in the face of reason. Dude, you can do better than that. This sort of argument only works with dimwits. Sorry, JA Correlation does not imply causation, you can try to spin it however you like, but you can't win this argument in a rational manner, at least not with the arguments that you have provided anyway.

so much for sarcastic humor