Bullwinkle III

A further note on this...government officials are now trying to attenuate the voting requirements in anticipation of the ruling going against them by the court. It's amazing the lengths they will go to stop people from voting. Israel showed it can kick ass in the Six Days War against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. This was as strong a coalition as had ever attempted to conquer Israel. However if you throw in Iran (providing it has nuclear capability), all bets are off. Nukes even out the odds. Thus we need to insure that they don't obtain nuclear weapon capability.

First bold: This philosophy was first attempted by Reagan, called "trickle down economics". By giving money to the wealthy, the jobs would spring up for everyone. Epic failure. By the time Reagan was done, the national debt grew 189%. Romney is preaching more of the same failed policies - when you can get him to talk in specifics about it. Bold 2: You are obviously not aware of the fact that government now is the smallest its been since the Eisenhower Administration. Stop repeating Faux News talking points and look at the facts.

Look, we all know who Obama is by now. Obviously a very intelligent man (you don't head the Harvard Law Review by getting B's in law school). Romney is a relative unknown. So it is natural to put a magnifying lens on him to see who he is and what he's about. Gaffes are gaffes. Everyone makes them, especially politicians who have to speak to the public and the press on an almost daily basis - especially during election season. When a gaffe is made, you know the person clearly misspoke. "57 states" is a good example. I don't think anyone in this country doubts that Obama does not know how many states there are. But some statements go beyond the gaff definition and speak to a substantial misunderstanding of the facts. Todd Akin's statements about "forcible rape" (is there any other kind?) or the fact that women's bodies can reject sperm from a rapist, relate to a deep ignorance of simple human biology and the way things really are. Romney also seems to be very prone to saying stupid or inane things. e.g. "The trees in this state are the right height." This may be nervousness (although he's spoken in public enough times that it shouldn't be a factor) or he's trying too hard to be liked. (I think his days of being a bully in school are haunting him here.) But it is when he says things off the cuff, and not in the context of a prepared speech that I wonder if this guy has both oars in the water. This airplane comment has me really wondering. It wasn't forced. It wasn't a joke. He was just spit-balling comments as they came into his head. Would that window comment come into your head if you were up there? Not mine. His comments in Britain during the Olympics were similar in nature, which makes me wonder if there is a pattern here. If he was running for dog catcher, it would be a different matter. But the magnifying glass is focused on him and that magnification will only get stronger the more he stumbles through his campaign.

Romney’s wife, Ann, was in attendance, and the candidate spoke of the concern he had for her when her plane had to make an emergency landing Friday en route to Santa Monica because of an electrical malfunction. “I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.” Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

nobody???

Sure it's an open forum. But I criticize Romney and you respond by criticizing Obama. How is your criticism of Obama a defense of Romney?

One point on Romney's tax release. It seems he gave $4 million to charity but only claimed $2.2 million of it as a deduction. There is only one reason why he would do this. Did he not claim that he has never paid less than 13% in income tax? If he declared the entire $4 million, his tax rate would have dropped below 13. Oh Oh!!! But he's now caught between a rock and a hard place. He has stated on more than one occasion that if he paid one dollar more in taxes than he owed, he would not be qualified to run for president. (??? - well, he said it regardless of how odd that sounds) By not taking the full deduction, he ended up paying a lot more than he should have. Well it looks as though that's exactly what he's done in this 2011 filing. He's disqualified himself by his own definition! (of course after the election he will amend the return to get the benefits of a full $4 million write-off)

I could debate you on several of these points, but my post was about Romney, the businessman, and how it does not qualify him for the job. You respond with a post about Obama. I'd prefer to talk about one subject at a time. Tell your friend that when he left the governorship, Massachusetts was 47th in the country in job creation. I am confident - although your concerns are mine as well. Right now, that is the only way Romney can win the election. (the debates will provide no surprises for the Democrats) If it hadn't happened before, I wouldn't worry. But I'm reminded of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Plus I think they're still using the old Diebold election machines in Ohio.

Look, being a good (i.e. profitable) businessman does NOT qualify you to be president and to solve the ills of this country. The two jobs are not comparable because they require different skill sets. In business if a specific product line is floundering in debt, you drop that product, cut your losses, fire those responsible, and move on. As president, if Michigan is floundering in debt, you can't drop the state or fire the governor. You have to work with a bad situation to make it better - a very difficult task in the face of opposition, who you can't fire. In business you have more control over the way things run. You can design your business to enter profitable fields of endeavor and streamline its effectiveness as conditions warrant. If you have an obnoxious or incompetent employee, you can fire him. But you can't fire the leader of the Senate or the House. In fact you need to learn to work with him/her to get even a few of your goals accomplished. And the system is the system. Its mechanisms cannot be changed because you disagree with them. As president, you need to have negotiating abilities, not only with government officials, but with the leaders of other countries as well. It's not about profit and loss. It's about good will and building a better world in the face of hatred, violence, and acrimony. Also about understanding and finding common ground with cultures that are far different than yours'. Nothing in business is comparable to dealing with the likes of Kim Jong-il, Netanyahu, or Hu Jintao. These requirements are beyond Romney's abilities. I believe recent evidence has pointed to that more than ever. IMO he wants to be POTUS not because he believes he can do a better job, not because he thinks he is capable, but because it puts him in the ultimate position of power - and power and money are all Romney relates to. Just in the field of diplomacy, Willard Romney has demonstrated that he's singularly inept. Witness his European Tour in August. Within two days he managed to insult one of our closest allies three times and went on to further gaffs in the tour. The British figured out he was a doofus two days after meeting him. What's taking Americans so long?

I am almost certain of it. Think about the sadistic bullying he did as a kid (including holding a door shut on a blind teacher so that she walked into it). His inability to relax - he always looks uptight. Plus his inclination to jump the gun and blurt out anything to prove to people that he's presidential material. Combine that with his secrecy and refusal to admit mistakes, and I think we can safely say that this guy has serious problems.

I have the solution for you: Take a couple of deep breaths, relax, and then slowly come to grips with the fact that Obama is going to win this election. Call me in the morning!

The court enjoined issue to the lower court , meaning that they are suggesting that the lower court suspend the bill for this election. We'll see what the lower court says, but my feeling is that Pa. is blue regardless. It's Ohio and Florida that concern me more regarding voter suppression. The effort in Iowa has been stopped. I've been reading the various perceptions of Romney. I agree with most of them. He's definitely out of touch with the public and because he is such a poor candidate, he invalidates his economic argument against Obama. Some people are against Obama but save for the most radical, most people want to know exactly who is replacing him. What they are seeing is a secretive rich guy with no specific plans to change anything. He's stiff and holds on to ideas like the middle class in this country ranges from $200k - $250k per year. Remember that I said long ago that likeability will decide this election? Well, I think you see this happening now. The debates will only confirm this because Romney isn't going to be able to become someone he is not, and as we've all seen, he's a terrible actor. Voter suppression notwithstanding, I can see Obama getting at least 300 electoral votes.

I stand by everything I said.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the national numbers mean nothing. I don't reference them for that reason. The numbers I gave you are factual (so you won't have to create your own) and are for the swing states that will decide the election. Bottom Line: Romney's losing. You can quote national polls all you want, he is still losing. His only chance now is voter suppression.

I seem to check the facts better than you - at least I don't make them up. Republicans who knocked Romney? How about Peggy Noonan, Joe Scarborough, Tom Ridge, Chris Wallace to name a few? After that first day the party came down on the dissenters of Romney and made them all toe the line, as they are supposed to do. And if you think Obama was responsible for the violence and deaths, well all I can say is that you don't have a clue. Like I said before, stick to hockey.

Correction: Florida & Virginia he's up by 5. Ohio by 7.

Actually Rasmussen skews towards Republicans. But even it shows Obama with a widening lead. Latest polling in Ohio & Virginia show Obama + 5 In Ohio he's +7. This doesn't surprise me at all, but is sooner than I expected. This was supposed to happen after the debates but events in the Middle East changed that. Four Americans were killed, which should be a time for national unity. Not for Romney, who turned this sad event into a political talking point. His desperation made him look very unpresidential and merely guy who will attempt to convert any event into his own political gain. Even Republicans knocked him for this, and rightly so. To use today's language, "Epic Fail".

I think the Romney campaign knows that they are losing and are pulling out all stops. Thus this unfortunate message from Romney. In short, they are in panic mode right now and will throw anything they can at Obama, hoping something sticks. Desperate people do desperate things...and usually make many mistakes.

I don't want to get into a religious dispute here, but stuff like this needs to be pointed out. When the Christians came into power after Constantine, they persecuted all other religions just as they had been and were tolerant of none, unlike their pagan predecessors who tolerated all religions. It was the Christian refusal to participate in the pagan celebrations that set them apart at that time and so they were not trusted by the others and thus subject to persecution by certain Emperors, not all. In short, when the Christians gained power in Rome, they ruled with an iron fist. I agree. His mystique is unjustified. The national debt went up 189% under his watch.

And now a few words from The Ultimate Hypocrite: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/11/cheney-bashes-obama-for-not-paying-attention-to-intelligence-briefings/

They're Republicans - they're not allowed to approve of anything Obama-like, even if they themselves proposed it. In case you may be wondering why some parts of the bill aren't in effect yet, it's because in order to get this through the Republican minority in Congress (pre-2010), he had to concede certain points and agree to delay the full effects of the bill. This way the American people would not really know the bill or how it will really help them until after the election. I had forgotten about her. Yes, she gave an excellent speech, but in no way compares to Bill's.

IMO Obama doesn't belong on that list. Neither does Eastwood. I'd say Clinton, Michelle, Patrick, Granholm, Kerry, Ryan, Biden, and Princess Ann.

This is nonsense. I have given you, Taro, Matrix and the Michigan guy facts and figures to support my position. In fact I have taken a more critical view Obama's acceptance speech...good, but not great...and I gave my reasons. I have also stated that he came into the office naive to the ways of Washington and it cost him. I don't recall anyone from the right making similar comments about Romney's lackluster acceptance speech, his secrecy, or his lack of specifics on any position he takes. So before essentially describing me as a left wing hack, take a long look in the mirror.

And next, we'll have a thread on religion and see who else we can offend.

Simple retort to this. Check on the number of Republican filibusters over the past four years. It sets a national record by a very large margin. There's the proof of obstructionism.