May speak to Romney's ability to woo the Independent

[dayman]

Then actually, you agree with a lot more of us than you think.

 

I think it's safe to say that most of us view taxes and spending as they variables they are, and tools to help the economy, rather than the constants that extremists on both sides wish they were, and tools to punish people.

 

My personal view is that the tax rate should be adjusted quarterly, but more importantly, predictably. Being able to reliably predict that ahead of time would probably add .5% growth to the economy all by itself. I think ALL spending should have a mandatory timeout, and should be graded for effectiveness. If it can't be quantified, it goes away.

 

Now, look, I have a buddy who is a state-employed AIDS counselor. We can talk about efficiency all day, but I don't know how we make him more efficient at telling people they have AIDS. There is spending that will be inefficient like that, and there's not much we can do about it. However, he will tell you that there's no way they can do the work that the state laws have mandated that they do. Not enough people, but really, the jobs they are being asked to do is nearly impossible. You can't start living somebody's life for them because they have aids, and the legislature says you need to.

 

That is my problem with government-->scope. They simply cannot deliver on what they promise, because they promise irrational, overblown, poorly understood, "one size fits all" solutions that fit no one.

 

Spend whatever you want, but f'ing deliver the goods. Don't tell me that I should be happy when you fail. Don't tell me that failing = being "compassionate and moral" because it is neither.

 

 

Well there it is then. No complaining about what is said there from me.

[GG]

Well there it is then. No complaining about what is said there from me.

 

I think that if you spend enough time here, you will see plenty of criticism of government, not as a knee jerk reaction to anything left, but the naivete of the left to assume that because there's a government program in place, it will work as envisioned and accomplish net positive results over a private sector solution. The general viewpoint is that you're better off in a system that provides substandard service to all, as opposed to providing much better service to a significant majority, with the rest relying on government service as the last resort.

[dayman]

I think that if you spend enough time here, you will see plenty of criticism of government, not as a knee jerk reaction to anything left, but the naivete of the left to assume that because there's a government program in place, it will work as envisioned and accomplish net positive results over a private sector solution. The general viewpoint is that you're better off in a system that provides substandard service to all, as opposed to providing much better service to a significant majority, with the rest relying on government service as the last resort.

 

Let's be real here. There may be some whom that is the case but the most vocal here just root against Obama. Period. They love it when new jobs numbers come out and suck. They'll never admit it but they do. Anything, that makes him look bad...even if it hurts America...they like. I'll never understand it. It's why you would find me trying to support Bush years ago and you'll see me trying to support Obama now. And before someone jumps in, support simply means support...and nothing more.

Edited May 5, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Doc]

Let's be real here. There may be some whom that is the case but the most vocal here just root against Obama. Period. They love it when new jobs numbers come out and suck. They'll never admit it but they do. Anything, that makes him look bad...even if it hurts America...they like. I'll never understand it. It's why you would find me trying to support Bush years ago and you'll see me trying to support Obama now. And before someone jumps in, support simply means support...and nothing more.

The jobs/people no longer in the workforce numbers are sad. I doubt anyone takes joy in them. If anything, it's more of a "it figures" type of reaction.

[3rdnlng]

Let's be real here. There may be some whom that is the case but the most vocal here just root against Obama. Period. They love it when new jobs numbers come out and suck. They'll never admit it but they do. Anything, that makes him look bad...even if it hurts America...they like. I'll never understand it. It's why you would find me trying to support Bush years ago and you'll see me trying to support Obama now. And before someone jumps in, support simply means support...and nothing more.

 

The "Thinking Man" looks to what is good for the long-term future. I absolutely, firmly, without question know Obama's philosophy is bad for this country. As much as I hate the pain that many of us are going through because of his poor reaction to the economic mess, and his idea of the fundamental change he wants for America. It is going to be a close election. Frankly speaking, I don't want some anomaly like the Saudis dumping a bunch of oil on the market to get gas down to $2.50 or Michelle finding the cure for the common cold to get this guy re-elected. Our real recovery won't start until he is out of office. Rush was right some time ago when he said he wanted Obama to "fail". Obama was going to fail no matter what. His policies and philosophy are just wrong. Rush should have said that he didn't want Obama to fool people into thinking his policies were good for this country, when they have been proven to not work. That certainly is what he meant. Regardless, let me be the first here to say "I want Obama to fail" to get another term and a second shot at !@#$ing this country up.

 

 

BTW, on a side note, how come every bit of "good news" for Obama has been contrived by the MSM, or Obama himself. He's proven he can spike the football, even if he can't throw out the first pitch or keep a bowling ball between the gutters.

[dayman]

The "Thinking Man" looks to what is good for the long-term future. I absolutely, firmly, without question know Obama's philosophy is bad for this country. As much as I hate the pain that many of us are going through because of his poor reaction to the economic mess, and his idea of the fundamental change he wants for America. It is going to be a close election. Frankly speaking, I don't want some anomaly like the Saudis dumping a bunch of oil on the market to get gas down to $2.50 or Michelle finding the cure for the common cold to get this guy re-elected. Our real recovery won't start until he is out of office. Rush was right some time ago when he said he wanted Obama to "fail". Obama was going to fail no matter what. His policies and philosophy are just wrong. Rush should have said that he didn't want Obama to fool people into thinking his policies were good for this country, when they have been proven to not work. That certainly is what he meant. Regardless, let me be the first here to say "I want Obama to fail" to get another term and a second shot at !@#$ing this country up.

 

 

BTW, on a side note, how come every bit of "good news" for Obama has been contrived by the MSM, or Obama himself. He's proven he can spike the football, even if he can't throw out the first pitch or keep a bowling ball between the gutters.

 

So what Romney sanctioned "philosophy" is good for us now and in the long term? Is strict adherence to "philosophy" of either extreme good in a world that is...without a doubt...dynamic? The conditions we operate in are not static. If they were we would have figured it out by now even with politics as it is (as system where conflict works as opposed to cooperation and compromise which works in the real world). Also, if Obama gets a second term will you still support those who will do anything to "prove" his decisions are totally wrong?

[OCinBuffalo]

So what Romney sanctioned "philosophy" is good for us now and in the long term?

Ahh....See? Now we're talking.

 

See, you are a newb. That means you expect us to deal with you fairly and objectively. However, we are not newbs. That means that after spending:

for some of us, years,

for others, months,

and for DC_Tom, seconds,

attempting to be fair and objective, we have learned that simply verbally lashing the fools is more fun and effective.

 

That is not your fault. But, remember, it isn't ours either. There have been posters on this board, who I assume were paid given their amount of threads/posts, who spewed nothing but leftist propaganda. They are gone. We remain. Some of us wish they were still here, as squishing them with their own contradictions was quite fun. There are still some posters who are fun to squish. You should try it. ...lybob is easily squished. Start with him.

 

Regarding your question: you don't know, and neither do I. That's a good thing in my book. Look, the very last thing we need right now is an ideologue in office. Obama is an ideologue. Romney is not. Not saying Romney is going to make social conservatives, or conservatives in general, happy. Frankly, I couldn't care less. What we need is a problem solver, especially one who can deal with a lot of different people and perspectives. Obama is not that guy.

Is strict adherence to "philosophy" of either extreme good in a world that is...without a doubt...dynamic? The conditions we operate in are not static. If they were we would have figured it out by now even with politics as it is (as system where conflict works as opposed to cooperation and compromise which works in the real world). Also, if Obama gets a second term will you still support those who will do anything to "prove" his decisions are totally wrong?

We don't need to support people....to know Obama's decisions are totally wrong. We know that all by ourselves. You will learn how many of us are relevant on this part of the board, and, how many of us have to personally deal with/make business decisions based on the poor decisions coming from this administration. Hell, I would hire 6 specific posters on this board over the feckless Obama economic team that has all run back to academia. There's 0 doubt in my mind that my team would crush them, and even if they didn't, they wouldn't run until they did.

[fjl2nd]

Look at how mad you are.

 

HE MAD

Edited May 5, 2012 by fjl2nd

[DC Tom]

Ahh....See? Now we're talking.

 

See, you are a newb. That means you expect us to deal with you fairly and objectively. However, we are not newbs. That means that after spending:

for some of us, years,

for others, months,

and for DC_Tom, seconds,

 

Minutes, really.

 

That is not your fault. But, remember, it isn't ours either. There have been posters on this board, who I assume were paid given their amount of threads/posts, who spewed nothing but leftist propaganda.

 

More than a few who spewed right-wing propaganda, too. This board more or less tortures blind followers to death.

[dayman]

What we need is a problem solver, especially one who can deal with a lot of different people and perspectives. Obama is not that guy.

 

 

I still feel Obama could be that guy if the GOP was less hostile. As for the rest, I know. I get it. This isn't my first time on the internet.

[3rdnlng]

I still feel Obama could be that guy if the GOP was less hostile. As for the rest, I know. I get it. This isn't my first time on the internet.

 

You obviously haven't been paying attention if you think Obama could be a "problem solver".

[GG]

I still feel Obama could be that guy if the GOP was less hostile. As for the rest, I know. I get it. This isn't my first time on the internet.

 

GOP was pretty hostile to Bill Clinton, yet he was very effective in crossing the aisle and tossing his ideology aside to be an effective President. He also knew when he needed to insert himself or step aside to let natural instincts take their course. Obama is 1/10 the politician that Bill Clinton was. The biggest concern about him coming in was that his inexperience would be a major liability. And here we are. So what you see as cheering bad news, is more in the Schaudefraudean vein of "See we told you so." The guy is an ideological empty suit, and is a very slow learner.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I still feel Obama could be that guy if the GOP was less hostile. As for the rest, I know. I get it. This isn't my first time on the internet.

And how precisely have they hindered him? Actual,specific examples.

[Doc]

And how precisely have they hindered him? Actual,specific examples.

They hindered him by not continuing to let him have carte blanche after his first 2 years.

[Jim in Anchorage]

They hindered him by not continuing to let him have carte blanche after his first 2 years.

When he casts off the constraints of this reelection he will be free of the Republican yoke and those idiot voters. Now he can fly as he was intended and never have to answer to anyone!

Edited May 6, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage

[IDBillzFan]

And how precisely have they hindered him? Actual,specific examples.

After Obama was elected, a Republican said their job was to make Obama a one-term president so the GOP can have the WH back.

 

Once those words were uttered, it was impossible for a party in full control of the WH, House and Senate to get anything accomplished. Just impossible.

 

You see, words are hurtful. And those words weally, weally hurt awot.

[IDBillzFan]

Looks like Romney isn't alone in this whole homosexual problem.

 

Biden says gay marriage is fine. WH walks it back. Gay community now plenty pissed at WH.

 

"David Axelrod is once again frantically trying to push gay stuff back in the closet. This is really quite ludicrous," tweeted Michelangelo Signorile, host of The Michelangelo Signorile Show on Sirius XM and editor-at-large of The Huffington Post's Gay Voices.

 

"All Axelrod's denial does is further tick the gays off while doing nothing to dispel the notion on the right that the president already embraces gay marriage," wrote prominent LGBT blogger John Aravosis on his site, AMERICAblog.

 

"Remember those 5 minutes when Biden was for gay marriage? Good times," quipped Chris Barron, founder of the Republican pro-gay rights group GOProud.

[DC Tom]

Looks like Romney isn't alone in this whole homosexual problem.

 

Biden says gay marriage is fine. WH walks it back. Gay community now plenty pissed at WH.

 

It speaks volumes that the White House is embarrassed by the VP taking a stand on something.

[IDBillzFan]

It speaks volumes that the White House is embarrassed by the VP taking a stand on something.

Especially gay marriage. Talk about the perfect "War Against (Fill in the Blank) for the Democrats! I can't possibly imagine what made the WH walk back his comments the way they did.

 

Unless, y'know, they really don't believe in gay marriage and have stopped "evolving" on the topic.

[3rdnlng]

This is what Romney needs to say about all the social canards brought up by the dems and the MSM: "I'm not going to get embroiled in those minor, not presently pertinent or non-issues. The focus has to be on getting this country back on the road to prosperity. So quit asking "gotcha" questions and talk about fixing this economy that is ready to collapse unless there is a drastic change in direction".