meazza Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 He doesn't flip-flop. He evolves. I don't know how anyone can survive in politics without being a flip flopper. That being said my opinions change based on my experiences because unlike some, I'm not stubborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I don't trust him. Is that ok with you? He was pro choice when running in a pro choice state, now that he wants the GOP nomination he's the most pro life person on the planet. He is against Obama care even though he pioneered it in his state. He did alll that environmental crap, hated Reagan and said all that Liberal stuff when he needed to now he is suddenly with us on everything? I do not buy it. he will be Obama's second term if he wins and will lead to us losing the House in 2014 if he wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 I don't trust him. Is that ok with you? He was pro choice when running in a pro choice state, now that he wants the GOP nomination he's the most pro life person on the planet. He is against Obama care even though he pioneered it in his state. He did alll that environmental crap, hated Reagan and said all that Liberal stuff when he needed to now he is suddenly with us on everything? I do not buy it. he will be Obama's second term if he wins and will lead to us losing the House in 2014 if he wins. Sorry, I didn't specify. I meant did any liberals have a legit criticism of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Sorry, I didn't specify. I meant did any liberals have a legit criticism of him. Probably because he says he is not a Liberal/progressive anymore and Obama says he is. Liberals like voting for Liberals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Sorry, I didn't specify. I meant did any liberals have a legit criticism of him. Duck dodgers is a liberal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) His foreign policy rhetoric is troubling. Simpson-Bowles >> budget he backs and many question his ability to raise taxes when/if necessary being beholden to his party (if/when politically possible in a 2nd term it seems to me Obama will be more prone to back something like that). I don't think he has a plan for healthcare that would be as meaningful as the ACA if he were somehow able to repeal the it. A lot of people don't understand why in this climate of distrust for "big money" in America (whether right or wrong) he won't release more personal info that a lot of people would like to know about (probably info he would ask of any VP when he vets them) which goes to just generally knowing what you are getting. For meaningless social issues that some people care about (even thought they don't change) there's a split there. Generally speaking, the idea he (or anyone) "knows" how to "fix" this economy and what will work is asinine...so a lot of people don't buy his main argument that he's the magic man we need...etc etc There are a ton of legitimate criticisms of Obama as well, obviously. The Romney campaign like every campaign is just a campaign. It's just words. You listen to them and decide, "do I like what I'm hearing." Contrary to popular belief there is real disagreement as far as what to actually do on the economy and nobody, absolutely nobody, knows what will work going forward. You look at the candidates as a whole and you decide which joker you can stand. And one thing I wonder about, is given the primary and the state of the GOP how he will be as leader in the WH. To sum it all up everything anyone would criticize Obama for, the same thing. Economy, healthcare, foreign policy, leadership in Washington, etc...it's all the same. IN the end we'll all just have to pick one and hope things go well. Edited July 15, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) What we do know is that Obama is utterly incompetent in regards to understanding what makes the economy tick on a sustained basis, and that he is ideologically handicapped when it comes to producing a logical long-term deficit budget that includes meaningful entitlement reform. Obama is the most left leaning liberal in our lifetimes, for crying out loud, he gutted bill Clinton's signature legislation, which is widely viewed as one of the best reforms in quite some time. This president is bad for this country now, and bad for our future. But hey, who am I to refute that the ptivate sector is doing just fine. Edited July 15, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I don't trust him. Is that ok with you? He was pro choice when running in a pro choice state, now that he wants the GOP nomination he's the most pro life person on the planet. He is against Obama care even though he pioneered it in his state. He did alll that environmental crap, hated Reagan and said all that Liberal stuff when he needed to now he is suddenly with us on everything? I do not buy it. he will be Obama's second term if he wins and will lead to us losing the House in 2014 if he wins. And you trust Barry? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 His foreign policy rhetoric is troubling. Simpson-Bowles >> budget he backs and many question his ability to raise taxes when/if necessary being beholden to his party (if/when politically possible in a 2nd term it seems to me Obama will be more prone to back something like that). I don't think he has a plan for healthcare that would be as meaningful as the ACA if he were somehow able to repeal the it. A lot of people don't understand why in this climate of distrust for "big money" in America (whether right or wrong) he won't release more personal info that a lot of people would like to know about (probably info he would ask of any VP when he vets them) which goes to just generally knowing what you are getting. For meaningless social issues that some people care about (even thought they don't change) there's a split there. Generally speaking, the idea he (or anyone) "knows" how to "fix" this economy and what will work is asinine...so a lot of people don't buy his main argument that he's the magic man we need...etc etc There are a ton of legitimate criticisms of Obama as well, obviously. The Romney campaign like every campaign is just a campaign. It's just words. You listen to them and decide, "do I like what I'm hearing." Contrary to popular belief there is real disagreement as far as what to actually do on the economy and nobody, absolutely nobody, knows what will work going forward. You look at the candidates as a whole and you decide which joker you can stand. And one thing I wonder about, is given the primary and the state of the GOP how he will be as leader in the WH. To sum it all up everything anyone would criticize Obama for, the same thing. Economy, healthcare, foreign policy, leadership in Washington, etc...it's all the same. IN the end we'll all just have to pick one and hope things go well. I think you pretty much nailed it which confirms my suspicions. Personally I could go for a less meaningful health care reform and I have a feeling taking a step towards freeing the markets rather than trying to control them will be the ticket to reviving the economy, but that's neither here nor there. It seems there's not a whole lot to run against other than a few vague policy concerns that don't tend to get the juices flowing. I suspect that's why we're hearing all this nonsense about Bain Capital and mean campaigning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 What we do know is that Obama is utterly incompetent in regards to understanding what makes the economy tick on a sustained basis, and that he is ideologically handicapped when it comes to producing a logical long-term deficit budget that includes meaningful entitlement reform. Obama is the most left leaning liberal in our lifetimes, for crying out loud, he gutted bill Clinton's signature legislation, which is widely viewed as one of the best reforms in quite some time. This president is bad for this country now, and bad for our future. But hey, who am I to refute that the ptivate sector is doing just fine. This I suspect is how we might spare our country from economic doom: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/13/on-the-verge-of-earth-shattering-change/ "Horizontal drilling and fracking have made oil shale and tar sands rich sources of oil and natural gas, so much so that the United States may prove to possess the largest store of fossil-fuel reserves in the world — in theory, with enough gas, oil and coal never to need any imported Middle Eastern energy again. “Peak oil” suddenly is an anachronism. Widespread American use of cheap natural gas will do more to clean the planet than thousands of Solyndras. If the United States uses its resources, its present pathologies — massive budget and trade deficits, mounting debt, strategic vulnerability — will start to subside. These new breakthroughs in petroleum engineering are largely American phenomena, reminding us that there still is something exceptional in the American experience that periodically offers the world cutting-edge technologies and protocols — such as those pioneered by Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks and Wal-Mart." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) This I suspect is how we might spare our country from economic doom: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/13/on-the-verge-of-earth-shattering-change/ "Horizontal drilling and fracking have made oil shale and tar sands rich sources of oil and natural gas, so much so that the United States may prove to possess the largest store of fossil-fuel reserves in the world — in theory, with enough gas, oil and coal never to need any imported Middle Eastern energy again. “Peak oil” suddenly is an anachronism. Widespread American use of cheap natural gas will do more to clean the planet than thousands of Solyndras. If the United States uses its resources, its present pathologies — massive budget and trade deficits, mounting debt, strategic vulnerability — will start to subside. These new breakthroughs in petroleum engineering are largely American phenomena, reminding us that there still is something exceptional in the American experience that periodically offers the world cutting-edge technologies and protocols — such as those pioneered by Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks and Wal-Mart." In the last 2 or so years fracking shale has emerged as the dominating future energy source. Not only can it change the geopolitics of energy for the better but many think it can be done "safely." All that said, this was not known at the time of the Solydra investment but lest any GOP supporter let slide an opportunity to mention that investment. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/10/zakaria-the-game-changer-in-the-geopolitics-of-energy/ Edited July 15, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I don't know how anyone can survive in politics without being a flip flopper. That being said my opinions change based on my experiences because unlike some, I'm not stubborn. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 LOL Can I help you with something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Can I help you with something? YES. Restore the old board... You guys are jokes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 In the last 2 or so years fracking shale has emerged as the dominating future energy source. Not only can it change the geopolitics of energy for the better but many think it can be done "safely." All that said, this was not known at the time of the Solydra investment but lest any GOP supporter let slide an opportunity to mention that investment. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/10/zakaria-the-game-changer-in-the-geopolitics-of-energy/ One of the differences that Romney and a Republican congress can make is in energy policy. Obama is holding back what we know will work in favor of a rainbow farting approach. Cheap energy could be what gets this economy going. Energy independence and becoming a net exporter for us would tend to stabilize energy prices world-wide and give us political clout that would be unprecedented. So, if Achmed wants to threaten Israel, the hell with threatening military action, just let them know you're going to dump a few million barrels a day on the market and make the price nose dive. YES. Restore the old board... You guys are jokes! Who do you miss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) One of the differences that Romney and a Republican congress can make is in energy policy. Obama is holding back what we know will work in favor of a rainbow farting approach. Cheap energy could be what gets this economy going. Energy independence and becoming a net exporter for us would tend to stabilize energy prices world-wide and give us political clout that would be unprecedented. So, if Achmed wants to threaten Israel, the hell with threatening military action, just let them know you're going to dump a few million barrels a day on the market and make the price nose dive. It would be nice to set up Obama as someone who doesn't support fracking. If it were true. They're banging out the regulation and it's a back and forth and it goes with out saying the industry would like no regulation. Fracking is something that clearly needs sensible, and probably significant, regulation. Clearly the industry would take whoever would have the least regulation. But they pump chemicals deep into the ground at pressure powerful enough to crack shale miles below, and it all relies on a cement casing coming back up to keep the fluid and methane etc from leaking everywhere. Both POTUS candidates support growing our fracking industry. And despite regulation being a bad word these days to some, both presidents damn sure better see that we frack smart. We're not on some countdown where we have 5 seconds to frack or our heads blow off. Don't be convinced that fracking regulations are anti-fracking. YOu are smarter than that. Edited July 15, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 :rolleyes: I see the grammar police strike when they have nothing else. "Be" is the forgotten word. So you're saying you have nothing?` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 It would be nice to set up Obama as someone who doesn't support fracking. If it were true. They're banging out the regulation and it's a back and forth and it goes with out saying the industry would like no regulation. Fracking is something that clearly needs sensible, and probably significant, regulation. Clearly the industry would take whoever would have the least regulation. But they pump chemicals deep into the ground at pressure powerful enough to crack shale miles below, and it all relies on a cement casing coming back up to keep the fluid and methane etc from leaking everywhere. Both POTUS candidates support growing our fracking industry. And despite regulation being a bad word these days to some, both presidents damn sure better see that we frack smart. We're not on some countdown where we have 5 seconds to frack or our heads blow off. Don't be convinced that fracking regulations are anti-fracking. YOu are smarter than that. I'm not setting up Obama as anything other than saying that in reality we have stuff that will work vs. his "green energy" initiatives, that seem to be failing even with giant subsidies. I have no problem with proper regulations. The increase in drilling has all come on private land. We need to grant leases on federal land on/offshore and approve the Keystone Pipeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 It would be nice to set up Obama as someone who doesn't support fracking. If it were true. They're banging out the regulation and it's a back and forth and it goes with out saying the industry would like no regulation. Fracking is something that clearly needs sensible, and probably significant, regulation. Clearly the industry would take whoever would have the least regulation. But they pump chemicals deep into the ground at pressure powerful enough to crack shale miles below, and it all relies on a cement casing coming back up to keep the fluid and methane etc from leaking everywhere. Both POTUS candidates support growing our fracking industry. And despite regulation being a bad word these days to some, both presidents damn sure better see that we frack smart. We're not on some countdown where we have 5 seconds to frack or our heads blow off. Don't be convinced that fracking regulations are anti-fracking. YOu are smarter than that. You should know better than most how much bull **** goes into the regulatory process. I doubt anyone would argue that you want some common sense parameters. The problem is, some people, especially when it comes to anything related to the environment, think "cost benefit analysis" is a dirty word. Those people tend to have Ds next to their names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 ...leadership in Washington, etc...it's all the same. I have no idea how Romney would fare in Washington, but I am confident that after his first term the one thing no one will do is question his leadership skills. If you want to be a leader in Washington, you must first be a leader in general, and I think anyone with the slightest sense about what constitutes leadership knows calling Barack Obama a leader is like calling Mitt Romney a black man. If there were a contest to measure leadership, Romney would make Obama cry within minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts