Hey Catfan

CatFan, we all know you like Obama, probably voted for him and will do so again. But why? Explain to us why you think he is so great and worth your vote.

You have read the lies here that his administration has said about the ME attacks two weeks ago, still lying today by obama himself. Still blaming it on a movie when everyone knows that Libya attack was by AQ, was preplanned and was an act of terror. Most anyone who reads knows AQ is not dead nor reduced as they have taken over many countries in Africa, trying to take over Europe, doing their best in Australia and have the middle east under their wing.

You have read what many of us here have said about the Obama policies on economics and how bad they are for the country, how they have hurt those of us that are small business owner...myself, Doc, and Citizen I know own our business...how Obama laughed about the 'shovel ready jobs not being really shovel ready' after he had spent close to a trillion dollars on his stimulus that was to end the recession. How they have changed the way unemployment is reported so as to not look as bad, even though it is constantly at 8.2 or above when it is actually around 14.6

He has lied about medicare to everyone, even has a experiment with 2 million seniors that was just introduced two weeks ago very silently to put them in HMO's.

He refuses to meet with world leaders at the UN this week but has time for Letterman, Beyonce and the View.

Can't decide if Egypt is an ally or enemy. Treats Israel close to being an enemy.

Acts like a tough guy about OBL, but was against the very interrogation procedures that lead to the killing of OBL. Had he had his way, OBL is still alive.

Has been mentored his entire life by anti Americans, some communists, socialists, marxists, terrorists...Ayers...anti white..his preacher....

Makes a good speech as long as he has something to read from but when he goes off his crutch, he stumbles, bumbles and makes a fool of himself.

Said he would be transparent, but hides everything about himself.

Had no experience in anything before being president.

Romney reads like an open book, about his education, how he stands on issues...yes he has changed on some but who hasn't changed on things as we grow into adulthood and into older years....has enormous amounts of experience in government and business. Is very faithful to his religion and makes no bones about it. Very compassionate person, gives more than generously to charity and not just for an election year but throughout his life. He is rich, so what, I wish I was rich. Am I envious of him, no I am proud of what he has accomplished.

So why are you voting for Obama? I understand stupid people, I understand black voting for just black, I understand those that are on the government dole, I understand the wacko's, the true liberals, the antiAmericans, the hispanics looking for a free ride. I hope you are none of the above

Jazy, I vote for Republicans all the time, but I don't think I can vote for a guy that got rich off of outsourcing American jobs. Romney is just as much of an elitist as John Kerry was imo, and I didn't vote for him either. I'm not the Obama lover you think I am, but if nothing changes between now and the election to change my mind, I will vote for the incumbent.

I get the impression that the GOP has become more about defeating the liberal horde than they are about helping America. They've let the fringe elements take over their party and there's now a big hole in the middle of it where leaders like Reagan used to govern. It's become the party of hate and exclusion instead of common sense and optimism. That's all just my opinion obviously, but you can be sure that if that's the vibe I get, lots of others get the same feeling.

It's my belief that the economy is recovering, albeit a lot more slowly than anyone wants, and with a little more time I think we will be out of the hole the previous administration put us in (also my opinion; I realize its probably not yours). Speaking of opinion, I know you probably think everything you wrote is factual, but I invite you to consider the possibility that at least some of it might be misinformation and distortions. It might help you keep your sanity if Obama wins reelection.

Just for the record, I'm a 51 year old white guy with a house and a family and an IRA, not a member of one of the fringe groups you seem to think are banding together to ruin America. Just a regular schmo with the same worries as everyone else, and I don't get a dime nor expect one from the government so I'm not one of the 47% Mitt has already written off.

Thanks for the answer but I think you are wrong on Romney and have read the spin on outsourcing jobs. Has some gone overseas, well yes as almost every company it seems is doing that. And Obama himself has outsources jobs with our tax dollars, over a billion dollars to one of the Scandanavian countrys..finland...to make a car with our money. Money to Brazil to drill for oil and buy that oil but he wont' allow the pipeline from Canada that would produce jobs here. And how many of his buddies took in hundreds of millions and possibly over a billion dollars in that stimulus money that ended up all going bankrupt with our tax dollars.

Let me add that while you think the GOP is more about taking over versus what is good for America I can point out that the democrats have done virtually nothing to help this country for 6 years. They were in charge of both houses of congress the last two years of the Bush Presidency and according to the constitution...which they really don't seem to care much for....the congress is in charge of the money and they sat on their hands and did nothing in order to make the republicans and Bush look bad and allowed us to go into that recession in order to win control of the WH along with both houses of congress. And then they spent like drunken sailors for the next two years giving away money right and left to cronies while calling it a stimulus. If you listen to speeches by Obama when he ran for the president and then compare it to how he governs i is the complete opposite of each other. They have taken care of the enviromentalists, the unions, the fringe groups, while sticking to the business's in this country who create the jobs, who put money back into the economy, the oil industry, they have all but shut down the coal industry and want to put it out of business entirely. imo the democrat party cares nothing about this country, but only about their power. Look at Reid, the very worst senate majority leader in history, he blocks everything that isn't by the democrats, won't even allow a debate on the floor, has not put forth a budget in 3.5 years, will do or say anything to destroy anyone who gets in his way, will lie about everyone and anyone to keep his power. He is a dispicable individual who doesn't deserve the gavel he is allowed to handle. While they blame the republicans for all the mess, they take no responsibility especially the housing market where they forced banks to loan money to people who had no business buying the houses they did. Dodd who was the head of the senate banking committee was as crooked as they come.


Many companies today are thriving because of Bain Capital and Romney buying them at a time they were going to fail but with the infusion of money made it long term or at least for several more years before they went down the tube. Where would hte Olympics in Utah have gone had it not been for Romney?

Is he rich and among the elite, yep, and I wish I was there. Kerry was totally different, he married his money, after divorcing the other wife because her multi millions were not as much as the Heinz money. He gave verylittle to charity where Romney gives multi millions.

Are there fringes in the gop, yep, but look at the fringes in the democrat party they are so far left they have fallen off California. Bill Mahr, Moore, Soros, Ayers, the enviromentalists that won't let us drill and the democrats are beholden to them. The anti gun and hunting organizations that want to take away my rights to enjoy myself. And there are many, many who are anti religion and anti Israel.

And I dont' believe the economy is growing, the growth as of today is going backwards toward another recession as if we ever got out of the other one. Unemployment still up, debt going thru the roof, deficit up, interest rates so low it is hurting the senior citizens who live off investments and CD's. I see it every day in my retail store, people afraid to spend money other than what they have to have. Parents who are not letting their kids do all the activities they once did, private schools whose enrollment has dropped.

Everything I wrote is factual. He did lie and continues to lie about what happened in Libya, the president of Libya has come out and said it was preplanned and by terrorists. He was mentored by those that were anti American, communists, marxist, terrorist..Bill Ayers...anti white..his preacher. he does have a hard time without the telepromter...he did say we had 57 states, he did say he had been to every state except one, Alaska and Hawaii. He also said in an interview 'my muslim faith' and when the interviewer said something, he immediately changed it to his christian faith.

You and I are alike in many ways, although you are rather young :), and probably have a better IRA than I do since World Comm kinda screwed me on that one royally as my daughter was about to enter college.

I hope you will think about how you vote, while you think Obama is for the middle class he really isn't, and with another term w/o any accountability what he can do to this economy and this country is a scary thought.

Don't just listen to me, listen to Doc, Citizen, badrose and dan, all are intelligent, all post links here w/o just posting their opinion, listen to those of us that own a business, a truly small business and not one that the government says is a small business. We are scared, scared what this can do to all of us.

And thanks for answering.

Overseas jobs? When you have the time, google "FISKER AUTOMOTIVE". Its an American based company that took millions of tax dollars under the Obama administration to outsource their manufacturing to Finland. Our tax dollars creating jobs in Finland yet it Romney that is the outsourcer?
Of course we could also talk GE, where top Obama advisor David Immelt is CEO of GE, a company that has outsourced 25 thousands of jobs to China and yet Romney is the outsources.

here is a nice link. Of course that is a Breitbart link and thus must be bias. Does a Huffington Post link work better?

Hey, I'm fine with voting for who you like. Its your vote after all. But I would hope that any and every voter would do their best to be an informed one, look at both sides and determine what is best for the country. Personally I don't base my vote on how smooth a guy is or how likable he is or how good looking he is, or the color of his skin....I vote because of what I believe they will do or what they have done. In the 4 years Obama has been in office, In my opinion, he has done far more harm to the economy and foreign relations than any president in my lifetime.

You guys can't give up on Obama now. One of these days he's going to have UK coming out on top at the end of his bracket. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

You guys can't give up on Obama now. One of these days he's going to have UK coming out on top at the end of his bracket. :)

---

No, what I can't and won't give up is the misrepresentation of the facts. Some would call it lying, others call it politics as usual. Unfortunately politics and the way people vote often comes down to 30 second commercials put out by the candidates and superpacs that are inaccurate at best. My wish in life is to see informed voters, not lemmings. Vote for Obama but at least be informed about what he really is

As for his bracket pick...I could not care even the slightest bit less. I've always known his handicapping skill are about the same as his presidential skill, which would be lacking.

I guess this is the wrong thread to try to be funny in.

I'm not going to engage in a debate on misrepresentations and distortions except to say that surely you guys know that Rupert Murdoch pioneered the art. I think part of what upsets the right so much is that the American voting public is NOT a bunch of lemmings and are capable of making their own decisions on who they want to vote for. It hasn't always been that way but with the explosion of electronic media people are better informed than ever before. There's also possibly somewhat of a backlash effect causing people to vote for the candidate they feel is being unfairly attacked the most.

When 95% of the anti-Obama rhetoric posted here originates with Fox News, it should tell you something. Are they the only news organization left that still tells the truth? Or is there an agenda there?

WEll you certainly have bought into the Fox lies from the left and only the left tells the truth. The left media is so far left they won't even report actual news. And for your information I believe Doc, Citizen, badrose, dan and myself get our news from many places unlike a ton of the Obama voters. All one has to do is read the letters to editors in the papers and you can pick out Obama voters w/o ever reading their names or where they live as they recite vertatim the Obama spin machine. I doubt any of them ever even look at anything other than what they are told to say. In polls with the left media they admit over 90% vote liberal democrat ticket, so please explain to me how they are truthful.

Vote for Obama all you want, he will lead you down the path of higher taxes, no return on your investment, loss of freedoms, and a foreign policy that will get someone killed in the US as he is a total wimp. You will lose more independence of your health care..ask independent doctors that have not aligned to him...you lose more and more the right to pray in any place that even remotely looks like a government building of any kind where even football coach's are not allowed to pray with their players before a game..that is fact...and you will see this country become more and more hispanic as they will continue to cross the borders and drain our entitlement programs all for that vote. Do you like the fact that schools on the texas border teach in Spanish, not english, in California kids are suspended for wearing an American Flag shirt because they offend the hispanic illegal children?

I could go on but it is worthless, you have bought the hype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

I guess this is the wrong thread to try to be funny in.

I'm not going to engage in a debate on misrepresentations and distortions except to say that surely you guys know that Rupert Murdoch pioneered the art. I think part of what upsets the right so much is that the American voting public is NOT a bunch of lemmings and are capable of making their own decisions on who they want to vote for. It hasn't always been that way but with the explosion of electronic media people are better informed than ever before. There's also possibly somewhat of a backlash effect causing people to vote for the candidate they feel is being unfairly attacked the most.

When 95% of the anti-Obama rhetoric posted here originates with Fox News, it should tell you something. Are they the only news organization left that still tells the truth? Or is there an agenda there?

---

Which is why I linked the Huffington post.

I 100% disagree about informed voters. I'd say the vast majority of voters are uninformed and I don't associate any party to that because I see it on both sides. Political candidates rely on that. It's why we have political adds that are false and misleading. No doubt there are many members of the GOP that are uninformed too. There are many who tout the "he isn't a US born citizen" crap, or his a closet marxist crap, etc and I go after them just as much. Your post above not voting for Romney is an example. While companies Romney is associated with might have outsourced over seas, Obama's record is no worse (at best) to far worse (at worse) than Romney. The Obama administration has taken US tax dollars and shipped them overseas. That is my money and your money. For him to then go out on the stump and attack Romney for doing it with private funds it hypocrisy at its finest.

As for lemmings, when people have to be paid to participate in an anti-Romney march at a Romney campaign event, that is being a lemming. When you admit you vote for Obama because he gave you a free cell phone, that is being a lemming. When you believe that Obama is going to pay your mortgage and gas bill "from his stash" you are being a lemming. If that is all it takes to buy your vote, a free phone or the promise of some other gov't give away, then all I can say is that the Obama strategy (and to be honest its a strategy shared by nearly every politician regardless of party in Washington) is a winner. Too bad because to give something away to somebody you have to either produce it or take it from somebody else. Unfortunately the gov't produces nothing but red tape, thus every free phone they give away, every $4,000 for a car (cash for clunkers), every "green energy" rebate they give, etc...comes out of another American's pocket.

Alright, show me something positive about Romney instead of just negatives about Obama and I'll reconsider voting for him. I've got to warn you though, I've got a pretty good handle on these two guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

Alright, show me something positive about Romney instead of just negatives about Obama and I'll reconsider voting for him. I've got to warn you though, I've got a pretty good handle on these two guys.

---

To be honest, all I want is informed voters. As for positives, I'm sitting in a bar with my wife who just got back from 5 days in Columbia SC. I'll reply more tomorrow to make a case for Romney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

I think part of what upsets the right so much is that the American voting public is NOT a bunch of lemmings and are capable of making their own decisions on who they want to vote for. It hasn't always been that way but with the explosion of electronic media people are better informed than ever before. There's also possibly somewhat of a backlash effect causing people to vote for the candidate they feel is being unfairly attacked the most.

---

They are lemmings, plenty on both sides, and it's only getting worse as electronic media evolves.

there are several reasons, but one is the short attention span of the average American. They consume things in very short bursts. We've gone from "stumping", where candidates went around and gave entire speeches to lots of groups (without paid attendees and paid protesters), to 15 second ads on TV where many if not most swing voters draw their conclusions.

Far from having more facts, what they have is more knee-jerk propagandized beliefs, again on both sides.

Yes Fox is primarily right of center. Why did CBS news bury the Obama comment in their interview of him that some of his ads were misleading? Well b/c they're left of center. Most of the media is left of center. In fact it's not even hard to prove. Surveys for years have shown that up to 90% of White House correspondents vote Democratic in the election. I don't know why journalism/media careers (few are really journalists) selects for liberalism, but it does. I've known several, not one of which believed in free markets.

What I don't get is why Fox gets such a rap for being biased instead of all of them getting a rap for being biased. "Agenda"? You have to look far and wide to find a media outlet without an "agenda" if you mean having a certain political view that flavors their coverage.

Saw an article where Media Matters was in near real time correspondence with a White House spokesperson, even sending copies of stories for review. They hold themselves to be a media watchdog entity, but they're funded by long time democratic donors and the emails obtained through an open records request show they are all but a mouthpiece for this administration.

Rupert Murdoch is so far from the pioneer of distortions I dont' really know where to start. Yellow journalism as a phrase was coined during the later 1800s between Hearst and Pulitzer which peaked around coverage of the Spanish American war in Cuba and the sinking of the Maine. It was always around but that's when it reached an art form in american journalism.

That tradition never really left, it just got smarter and less obvious. You pick your stories carefully, jumping on the comment by one guy and not reporting the comment by the other. ESPN reports Terrance Jones' car wreck when he wasn't driving and wasn't at fault on Sportscenter, but takes weeks to barely mention UNC's scandal. They defend it with broad "we reported the facts in the UK case" and "it wasn't a major story at the time" stuff. Nonsense.

I see no distortions from Fox that are any worse than anything put out by CBS or NBC or CNN. They cherry pick their stories as well, and slant them with the facts they choose and the opinions they bring.

There are lots of studies that focus on word counts in stories as at least one objective way to measure bias and when they do the pro-left slant of the major networks lights up like Christmas.

Fox has become the new whipping boy for the left, replacing Rush, and anyone who cites them or takes the same position is just a lapdog following their lies.

I read a Fox story now and again, but in truth the details of each day's events aren't really relevant or needed for decision making. All these things have happened before and will happen again. Iran and Israel? Happened already in the 80s with Israel attacking the Osirisk facility in Iraq. The outcome will change but the politics, incentives, and policy options are the same. So no need to read what journalists and writers and talking heads and spin doctors think really, just look at Obama and his policy choices and whether they make sense within a region and structure that hasn't changed for 60 years.

That's where Obama fails so massively. Nearly everything he's proposed or supported has been tried and failed in the past, and none of them were successes. There's no need to speculate and predict, we have sound empirical evidence of the options and outcomes. It's a long list:

1) Gun control. He wants to reinstate the Clinton "Assault weapons" ban. That ban existed for 10 years and showed no reduction at all in gun violence or any reduction the one man lunatic shootings like Aurora or Va Tech. In fact in many areas gun violence went up over those years, and no study not put out by anti-gun groups shows it helped at all.

It failed b/c banning magazines with more than 10 rounds a) doesn't matter when there are millions of them already available, and b) when 99% of people killed by guns weren't killed with the 11th round from the gun. They were killed with guns that don't even hold 10 rounds of ammunition.

So we know it won't work. Nothing has changed since then that in any way impacts its success. He just wants to do the same thing again, and it will fail again. Dont' even need to read the news to figure it out.

2) Placating the middle east. Already tried it with Carter. Play nice, write huge checks to buy off Arab nations (Egypt), didn't fix or change a thing. In fact all it did was encourage our enemies (overthrow of the Shah and subsequent hostage crisis) and as soon as the regime changed or the money stopped (Egypt) it went right back to where it started.

Why read about what's happening? It already happened. You don't have to worry about bias b/c we have empirical data that shows time and again the only things that work in the Middle East are a) buying governments off and b) threat of massive retaliation. We tried everything Obama has tried and has proposed from being apologists to being "open minded" etc.

FWIW even NPR has pointed out he's only angered the Arab world by promising "open minded" then doing nothing to engage the situation. He's done what Carter did, raise expectations they would see a fundamental shift in US policy only to be disappointed and even more angry at us. That's from National People's Republic Radio for Heaven's sake. There is no way to claim conservative bias on that one. Also I know experts in Arab studies and they say the same thing.

3) Health care. the most tired of all. This mess started in the 1960s with medicare and their decisions to do things like push med schools to produce more specialists and fewer general practitioners. Ever since we went down the road of government making these decisions costs have soared. Obama only extended existing failed approaches, all of which remove the customer (the patient) from making decisions based on either the cost or quality of services rendered.

You show me a market where purchases are made without regard to quality or cost and I'll show you a very screwed up market. Nothing he's proposed or done has in any way changed the approach we have taken to health care since the 60s. He's just marching farther down the same road.

4) economic invigoration. This is almost comical. This is classic Keynesian economics, spending and borrowing your way out of an economic downturn, even down to spending primarily in infrastructure instead of focusing on business incentives to hire employees or expand production. It's classic, right from the Great Depression. Not even the neo-Keynesian approaches of the 70s forward, old school tax and spend fiscal policy.

There's a library full of info on that on both sides that Fox/CBS can never touch in quality if they ran it 24/7. Of course most voters wouldn't know Keynes from Gilligan.


Now as to the GOP, it's true they primarily want to be in power. So do the Democrats. both sell out our nation time and again for their petty and short term gains. Obama has done it wholesale, more than any President I can recall, and I thought Bush II was setting a record with his drunken spending. Halliburton has nothing on the green technology funding Obama has done to donors and allies.

So no I don't think Romney is some savior or is some pure servant of the People. I just think Obama is the worst President in my lifetime and it's not close, and is far and away the most anti-American (if we define America as individual liberty and free markets) President in history, surpassing even LBJ.

It's what it always is, a choice between two very imperfect parties and leaders, but in this case the gap is so wide b/c one candidate is so fundamentally more dangerous to the nation. I don't say that lightly b/c to me Bush II, Gore, Kerry, all those guys (Mondale, Ford, Clinton) are all basically shades of the middle. Obama is a true ideologue, a true Leftist. He's the anti-Reagan. Reagan saw greatness in the American story, Obama sees shame.

Fox news is simply NBC for the other side. Judicial Watch the Media Matters of the other side. There's no "objective reporting" and hasn't been ever. All that's changed since the 40s is that papers no longer delcare themselves to be "a democratic paper" or "a Republican paper" as they once did. Now they are just sneakier, but they're still just spinning their version of the world.

Fortunately this is one election where they need not be consulted. History is what needs to be consulted and it tells us to get Obama as far away from power as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

Alright, show me something positive about Romney instead of just negatives about Obama and I'll reconsider voting for him. I've got to warn you though, I've got a pretty good handle on these two guys.

---

I'll take that on, but will have to do it over the weekend. I just broke down fundamentally why Romney is the better choice simpley as a matter of having to pick between two imperfect options, but I'll happily lay out the view from the other side of that coin not just why Obama is worse but Romney better.

FWIW I don't think Romney is "the answer" and I won't sell him as someone who will sweep in and fix all the problems. Only about 5 Presidents in history qualify for that status. He's just a better option b/c of his choice of directions and approaches as to how to attack those problems, as is the case with 90% of Presidential elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

Alright, show me something positive about Romney instead of just negatives about Obama and I'll reconsider voting for him. I've got to warn you though, I've got a pretty good handle on these two guys.

---

First off let me say that I was a bit disappointed when you decided to not participate in the political discussion so having you back in the game is good. I alway try to see the otherside and try to be respectful of those who hold differing political views. I find political discourse an interesting conversation point.

So as far as positives for Romney/Ryan ticket:

A Balanced Budget: for me the biggest political issue at this time is the lack of any type of fiscal responsibility. I'm not talking about wasteful spending, entitlements, etc....I'm just referring to having a plan to spend no more than you take in. Romney has done that on the state level. Massachusetts requires a balanced budget and he met that requirement. Part of that might be a tax increase and for me that would not be an issue so long as there was a plan. Currently (and not just under this administration) any raising of taxes simply results in more spending. That isn't balancing a budget. It isn't decreasing the deficit. Its increase revenue by 10% and increasing spending by 20%. Now I understand you want the "positives" of Romney and perhaps you don't want the "negatives" of Obama. If so, stop here and go to the next topic. In comparison, Obama has yet to present a balance budget. He has been in office for nearly 4 years and still nothing that is passable. You can't bring the deficit under control without a plan.

A Solid Ticket: Personally I love the selection of Paul Ryan. In that choice we have a V.P. who actually brings something to the ticket and one who will likely be an active part of policy creation. I see him much like Dick Chaney, where the VP was used. One might disagree with Chaney and what he did but there is no doubt he was active. Contrasted to the king of gaff, this is a big up grade. And before there is an accusation of political hackery, there have been many republican VP's who thankfully have been uninvolved. Dan Quayle is the classic and most recent example.

Working with Political Opponnets. As governor of a "blue state", Romney was force to and was able to work with the other side. Compromise IS part of politics. Democrats have a philosophy and the people who follow that ideology have a right to be represented. Likewise Republicans have the same right. As President you are no longer the leader of your party but the leader of all Americans. IMO you have a responsibility to consider the ideas of the opponents.

"He is Rich": In other words he knows how to be successful and what it takes to be successful in the private sector. IMO the government never "creates private sector jobs". That isn't the gov't job. What they should do is create an environment that encourages private sector job creation. That means stability and the sense that business owner know what is going to happen.

I'm going to take a time out now but will continue later.

A vote for Romney is simply a vote against Obama. There is one thing to read and another to see first hand. Do I think Romney will be a great president? No I don't. Can Obama in a 2nd term take us places we have never been (and for the bad), yes I do. I would not vote for Romney, I would vote against Obama. Eyes open sees what is coming, eyes closed sees the USA as never before. I don't like either canidate, but I do see the difference. The lessor of 2 evils is very much in play here. Anyone who would vote for Obama is blind and only sees what is in it for him or just plan blind. So Romney has money, does that make him a bad person because he understands how to run a business? Why don't we select a homeless person living under a bridge? Fact of the matter Romney is a smart business man and that is what this conutry needs. A some point you have to get real and see where this country is and where it is headed for. At this point we are in deep do do and headed for the sewer.

Healthcare/Obamacare: Initially it was "repeal it", then it became there are portions I like. Is this not a good thing? I means the left was for it (obviously since its 100% theirs w/o any input from the right) and attacked anybody who wants to repeal it. Now they attack because he acknowledges some of it is good. I don't expect him to repeal it but I do expect him to modify it, and do so for the better. AHCA was sold to us under the notion that the uninsured get catastrophic illness, can't afford the bill associated with that and then go bankrupt. Now its about giving away free birth control. Quite a jump, huh? I'm not overly religious and am a firm believer in birth control yet I can understand why the Catholic Church would have an issue paying for it. Also, under the current plan, it is a tax hike on the middle class. Are some aspects good? Sure. Do whatever you can to encourage, not force, people to have coverage. I'm for elimination of payment caps. But I'm also for tort reform. I'm for allowing coverage across state lines. But the bill in its current state is terrible. Had the correct process been done initially, had the bill been read before passing, then this could have been avoided.


Divisive politics: I alluded to this above. Currently we have American pitted against American. Its a war on women, a war on gays, a war on races...etc. All are fabricated. I don't know that Romney won't engage in such tactics but I feel it would be difficult to see him supporting anything close to what is now going on. I strongly feel its the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE, and as such they should represent all Americans, not just those who you agree with politically. Romeny has shown he can lead from the center enough to make both sides content. He did it in MA which is a very liberal state.


Social issues: This has not been a talking point on the Romney stump. For me personally, I'm glad. To me the number one priority needs to be economics which includes addressing the deficit and economy in general. Next would be foreign affairs. The other stuff is junk IMO. However:
-abortion. I'm pro-choice as is my wife. Her concern is making it illegal. I'm not as concerned because it will be extremely difficult unless there is an "executive order" (LOL). Romney has not made that a focus.
-welfare and other entitlements. I'm all for helping out those in need or who have fallen on hard times. Currently we are becoming a what can I get for free state. So while this might not be a positive for Romney per se, its certainly a move away from where we are going.

Political stance: He is a moderate/centrist to slightly right of center. Currently we are heading far left. Personally I'm not pro either extreme. I'd have a hard time voting for an extreme right candidate. For many, that is the biggest complaint about Romney...that he isn't a "true conservative", that he is a RINO, etc. Well leading from the middle is what made Clinton a good president (as an aside, I always felt Clinton did a good job as far as leading the country. I said that back in 2000). Some criticize Romney for "flip flopping". Personally I don't see that as bad. I've never criticized Obama for changing his stance because that happens. Heck, my sister was a die hard liberal. She was into the smoking the peace pipe, holding hands and singing Kumbya. She was that way until she got a job and saw what the gov't took from her paycheck. Well people change their political stances. Sometimes they are "evolving". Sometimes its because one has access to more information such as the President has, sometimes its done in an effort to lead and come to compromises. The idea that Romney isn't going to stick his heals in the ground is something I see as positive. We have heard that nothing gets done in Washington because folks can't compromise.

If peopel have to continue to tell you the negatives about Obama and his administration and the positieves about Romney then you don't have a good handle on either. All you have sighted so far is the negatives..which are mostly democrat spin...about the GOP and Romney w/o once saying anything about Obama and how you think the economy is doing good and how you think he is going to improve it for the next 4 years. The reason you haven't is because you can't site specifics.
Every person that has responded to you so far is a small business owner, we all know what is going on, we see it every day and the results of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

Alright, show me something positive about Romney instead of just negatives about Obama and I'll reconsider voting for him. I've got to warn you though, I've got a pretty good handle on these two guys.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

FWIW I don't think Romney is "the answer" and I won't sell him as someone who will sweep in and fix all the problems. Only about 5 Presidents in history qualify for that status. He's just a better option b/c of his choice of directions and approaches as to how to attack those problems, as is the case with 90% of Presidential elections.

---

I 100% agree. Personally I'm just hoping to hang on until 2016. I'm a big Rubio guy and can see him going all in then.

I actually like Romney, but it is more about him personally than anythng else. I think he is a compassionate person, strong to his faith, great husband and father, and if I needed something and knew him, I know I could turn to him for help. Very charitable, very humble in many ways. There is a lot I admire about him.

He has also done a great job of leading his capital company, not all worked but the majority of them did.
Interesting how many liberal leaning organizations have their money in Bain
...retired teachers in California over a billion dollars
...almost ever Ivy League school including Harvard has huge amounts of endowment money invesed in Baine, if it is such a bad company, why would they invest.

But there is also some great young republicans out there, so those stuffed shirts that are holding the party back need to get out of the way or be run over. Rubio is one, the hispanic governor is another, the black young lady who is running for congress is yet another. Jindol also, and there is a black congressman from S Carolina that I really like. I really like West even though he isn't a young person, but I love his tenaciousness, plus he held a gun next to a terrorist and pulled the trigger to get info from. my kind of guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

I 100% agree. Personally I'm just hoping to hang on until 2012. I'm a big Rubio guy and can see him going all in then.

---

One thing that I don't understand is, why it's so hard for people to see that creating more Government jobs, is really a drain on the economy and a burden to the tax payer. Government created jobs help only the person that gets the job and their salary is a burden to the tax payer in that everything except the tax that he (or she) pays in comes from the tax payers pocket, where as private sector jobs, such as factory jobs builds the economy, as well as providing more tax money for Uncle Sam. Not only does the owner of the factory pay taxes, but his employees do also, As do the people that transports the product made by the factory to the retailer, who in turn pays taxes and wages to his employees, who also pays taxes. Uncle Sam don't pay for any of this or create any of the jobs, but it's payed for by the private sector, which hopefully makes a profit and is able to expand their business and create more jobs. Sure the Government builds the roads to transport the product over, but he builds it on the tax payers dime. So where does that leave Obama's "you didn't build this quote?"
A good example of this is the lady that landed a job at the Pentagon making $60,000 a year. Her job was to study the flow of different brands of ketchup. Now can anyone point out to me how she was able to help build the economy, or create more jobs by working at this job. Her job was a drain on the economy, as well as a burden to tax payers, as all Government jobs are.
Now before someone jumps me and accuses of saying our Police Officers or Postal workers are a burden, I realize that these are not only necessary, but they provide a critical service to our communities and country and I have nothing but respect for them. I'm just P. O. d over the jobs created by government just for the sake of being able to point to them and say, here is 10,000 people we have put to work, so as you can see our economic plan is working, when it is actually working against the economy.

4) economic invigoration. This is almost comical. This is classic Keynesian economics, spending and borrowing your way out of an economic downturn, even down to spending primarily in infrastructure instead of focusing on business incentives to hire employees or expand production. It's classic, right from the Great Depression. Not even the neo-Keynesian approaches of the 70s forward, old school tax and spend fiscal policy.

Good post above, but I disagree with this part. When Obama took office, no one was buying anything. No one was spending anything. No one was borrowing anything. And we were on the verge of a global depression. The bank bailout wasn't perfect, but imo it was a great success story. The mortgage debt buy up was a plan created when Bush was still in office, and was supported by McCain as well as Obama.

Divisive politics: I alluded to this above. Currently we have American pitted against American. Its a war on women, a war on gays, a war on races...etc. All are fabricated. I don't know that Romney won't engage in such tactics but I feel it would be difficult to see him supporting anything close to what is now going on. I strongly feel its the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE, and as such they should represent all Americans, not just those who you agree with politically. Romeny has shown he can lead from the center enough to make both sides content. He did it in MA which is a very liberal state.

The surreptitious video of Romney writing off 47% of the American public didn't really reveal much about his character, contrary to what the pundits would have everyone believe. It did however raise the question of whether he would even attempt to be a president to all Americans or not. Whether that's fair or not, it's an image he needs to disprove and so far has not done so, leaving the impression that maybe he really doesn't care.

I'm going to try to extricate myself from this discussion now, but first, Jazy you say I can't come up with positives for Obama. . . . The main reason I plan to vote for him for a second term is that I think it will be in the best interest of our economic well-being to continue the path we're on. I think we were a whole lot closer to a depression than what most people have been led to believe and I credit Obama and the advisors he gathered for heading off that disaster. There are other reasons, but they all pale to the economy imo.

CF73- I like you and I certainly respect both you personally and your opinion, but I could not disagree with you any more than I do on this subject. However, to each his own.
I think that Obama the man is probably a decent man, but Obama as the POTUS has been a naive, narcissistic, uncertain, and inexperienced, and it shows in almost everything he says and does. He just has not been the leader and "unifier" that he himself said he would be. In my humble estimation Obama has been anything but a true American President with the best interests of ALL Americans at heart. He has been the worst President in my lifetime, LBJ and Jimmy Carter notwithstanding.
That is all I can say. We will just have to agree that on this one we disagree.

He's no Ronald Reagan for sure. He's not even Bill Clinton. He has shepherded the country through some pretty difficult times though. My IRA and I wish the economy would pick up a little more for sure, but I don't blame Obama for how protracted and low-key the recovery has been. The alternative could have been a lot worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

Divisive politics: I alluded to this above. Currently we have American pitted against American. Its a war on women, a war on gays, a war on races...etc. All are fabricated. I don't know that Romney won't engage in such tactics but I feel it would be difficult to see him supporting anything close to what is now going on. I strongly feel its the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE, and as such they should represent all Americans, not just those who you agree with politically. Romeny has shown he can lead from the center enough to make both sides content. He did it in MA which is a very liberal state.

The surreptitious video of Romney writing off 47% of the American public didn't really reveal much about his character, contrary to what the pundits would have everyone believe. It did however raise the question of whether he would even attempt to be a president to all Americans or not. Whether that's fair or not, it's an image he needs to disprove and so far has not done so, leaving the impression that maybe he really doesn't care.

---

What he was stating was correct. There is a large chunk of the population, his guess of 47%, will vote for Obama regardless. Likewise there is a large segment that will not vote for Obama regardless. The ecomony sucks and our foreign policy is a disaster yet there are many (47%?) that won't even consider another option. He is saying that the 5% of truly undecided is where the focus needs to be. The lady with "the Obama-phone" is never going to vote for Romney. The life long welfare recipient isn't going to vote for Romney. The people expecting the govt to pay their mortgages are never going to vote for Romney. The people who want free birth control are not going to vote for Romney, etc so he sees that and acknowledges it. That does not mean as President his decisions would not be based on what is best for the nation rather than pandering to a group with a divide and conquer approach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

I'm going to try to extricate myself from this discussion now, but first, Jazy you say I can't come up with positives for Obama. . . . The main reason I plan to vote for him for a second term is that I think it will be in the best interest of our economic well-being to continue the path we're on. I think we were a whole lot closer to a depression than what most people have been led to believe and I credit Obama and the advisors he gathered for heading off that disaster. There are other reasons, but they all pale to the economy imo.

---

As convinced as you are that Obama and his policies saved the nation from financial collapse, I'm equally convinced that the melt down was a direct result of policies that were implemented by the liberal wing of congress where banks were forced into unsound lending practices. I'm equally convinced that had the free market been allowed to work, we would be well on our way to recovery. The ecomony has always had bumps here and there. We had the "dot-com" back under Clinton and it all corrected. Ditto under carter were interest rates were over 20%. Yet none of those recoveries took 5 years to get thru because the free market was allowed to adjust. The Great Depression was what it was because politicians interfered with the recovery under the guise of helping the common man. The longest recoveries of all time have been under far left administrations for a reason.

Reagan won by 10 points in 1980 and 18 in 1984, so there had to have been all kinds of Democrats voting for him. A part of today's Republican base is undoubtedly some of those Reagan Democrats, but there is also undoubtedly a big chunk left of the Democratic party that would vote for the Republican nominee if there were a candidate that was preferable to Obama to them. To say 47% of registered voters would vote for Obama regardless is absurd, insulting, and a cop-out. I suspect Romney was merely pandering to his audience, but it also conveniently excuses him from trying to win those votes and show them that he would actually make a better president.

I think it actually would be more accurate to say that most registered Republicans would vote for the Republican nominee against Obama no matter who it was. I think if Romney were a loaf of Wonder bread, he'd probably be polling right about where he is.

If not for Ross Perot, I suspect Clinton would have won the election for 2nd term by 55-56 percent over Dole, even though Clinton had the albatross of Gore around his neck. I know a lot of republicans and independents that voted for Clinton the 2nd time around. If Romney had been running against Clinton, I think the margin of victory for Clinton would have been even larger than it was. jmho

I can not vote for President Obama's policies as I see them as destructive to the country as a whole. As I have said before, I am not voting for Romney as much as I am voting against those failed and dangerous policies of the current administration.

I thought Ross Perot ran against Bush 41 and Clinton in 92.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyRay

I thought Ross Perot ran against Bush 41 and Clinton in 92.

---

You know, I had forgotten that Perot ran in 92. He ran again in 96. He garnered 19% of the popular vote in 92 and almost 9% in 96.

It's about 40% give or take on either side in an average election, 30% hard core not voting against their party no matter what. About 20%-30% in the middle decide the outcome. That can vary 10% here or there by candidate and election cycle, but the general idea is sound and accurate. Reagan v Mondale was a landslide but the Dems put up a sacrificial lamb in Mondale and Reagan was one of the 5-6 most popular and persuasive Presidents in US history.