Why the USA is in Trouble

[Hugh_Hoy]

Agreed on Romney, tho' it shouldn't make a diff (happy for that tho' as his policies are crap).

2012'll be the end of the GOP for decades, if not forever.

 

Obama is a two-termer easily. The GOP has absolutely no one to put up, since they are married to the white, evangelical, over-60 crowd. That's not a demographic that wins today...

 

snipped, snipped, snipped:

 

First, the Demoncrats have done to themselves what the GOP did (according to you): shoot themselves in the foot by allowing the left-wingers of the party take control. CW is right: US citizens are basically moderate (and I'd add, conservative).

 

Romney would be a formidable opponent if A.H. Obama keeps dropping it in the sand. The change some people thought would take place hasn't transpired. In it's place, are policies that people had no inkling would play out...and they are not happy with the direction the Demoncrats are taking the country. November will probably reflect that attitude, though I doubt to the extent that would allow the GOP to wrestle away control of both the Senate and Congress.

 

Here's a "wiki" synopsis of Romney I just pulled up. Take a look at his policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney#Second_Amendment_Rights

Probably not enough "leftist" for you, but certainly measured and moderate. I agree with almost all of the policies listed there.

 

I'll ask a question asked more than once: Would you rather have your frat bro leading the country or somebody who really knows what the fuck they're doing. (Actually, I think A.H. Obama actually does know what he's doing: orchestrating the demise of the country to achieve a socialist/communist nation.)

 

Romney is probably the closest potential candidate that I would vote for. Unless somebody not currently mentioned decides to run, I'll vote for him today.

 

I think CW was smoking some pretty good stuff when he mused regarding the achievement of a middle east peace. In 1000's of years, that hasn't been possible. Of course, there wasn't a Nobel Peace Prize dude involved.

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

You cons live in a fictional world:

- trickle down

- tax cuts add revenue

- the magic hand (aka unrestrained free market)

- "they hate us for our freedoms"

- "they thank us for liberating them"

- faith-based anything

 

 

Those making more then $75,000 a year should not pay taxes. This will stimulate the economy.... or at least that s what some tell me.

[USVirgin]

It will stimulate those making more than 75K a year, not the economy.

 

Leaves a hell of a lot of families not paying taxes, doesn't it?

[allistar]

HH, I remember you railing about B.O.'s political inexperience during and after the 2008 election. I just looked up Romney's bio and besides his one term as Mass. governor and his financial savy in the financial sector (which I knew), he was also President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 winter Olympics. As I recall, these Olympics were known as possibly the most corrupt Olympics in history, with "gifts" and outright bribes being offered to Olympic committee members to get Salt lake City awarded the 2002 Olympics. If elected President, he should feel right at home dealing with Congress and Big Business, not to mention the lobbyist in Washington.

[chuckwoww]

I think CW was smoking some pretty good stuff when he mused regarding the achievement of a middle east peace. In 1000's of years, that hasn't been possible. Of course, there wasn't a Nobel Peace Prize dude involved.

 

HH

 

I don't think it has a chance either Hugh. I don't see how they can ever come up with something that pleases Israel and the Palestinians but they are very good at putting on the happy face in Washington. Look at the 'vast improvements' in Iraq and the 'progress' in Afghanistan.

 

Strictly rum and orange juice these days BTW.

[dave32]

Palin will remain an influential figure in politics but will not be president inn 2012. I'll give you or OH 4 to 1 odds' date=' 100USD. Not kidding.

 

Is it a bet?

[/quote']

 

 

...OH: this is a sucker bet. Vegas will give you 10-1 vs. dave32’s 4-1.

 

http://www.allpro.com/exotics-betting/to-be-elected?/exotics/lines-odds/1043/Odds-on-2012-US-Election-Mens-Group.htm

 

Shame on you dave32, trying to butt-fuck OH.

 

HH

 

 

Interesting. Good link. Honest, honest, honest -- I didn't check to see if bookies were laying odds already, just came up with that number off my head. Apologies to CW and OH.

 

Well, I'm not going to give 10-1 and HH is right, you'd be a fool to bet me 4-1 if you can get 10-1 from a bookie.

 

What is interesting about the odds sheet is that 10-1 puts Palin in second place behind Obama (who's way ahead at 5-4).

 

The pros see Obama as almost a shoe-in at this point. And Palin as #2.

 

Strange days indeed.

 

 

 

 

[dave32]

The predicament the Republicans find themselves in is that they whored out to the Evangelicals to get Bush elected and now that element is a dominant force in their ranks.

You must be a young 'un. They did that with Reagan in 1980. The GOP has been a laughing-stock ever since.

 

Cheers' date='

LK -- an Ike Republican, but considered a commie now...[/quote']

 

Yeah. I get confused about party positions all the time. I think both sides have lost their potency and meaning. Democrats come across as spoiled middle-class whiners who spout high falutin ideals with diminishing connection to reality. And republicans, yikes, they come across as creepy used-car salesman wearing cheap aftershave and embracing a return to the great WASP ideals of ???

 

Or something like that.

 

 

[Hugh_Hoy]

HH, I remember you railing about B.O.'s political inexperience during and after the 2008 election. I just looked up Romney's bio and besides his one term as Mass. governor and his financial savy in the financial sector (which I knew), he was also President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 winter Olympics. As I recall, these Olympics were known as possibly the most corrupt Olympics in history, with "gifts" and outright bribes being offered to Olympic committee members to get Salt lake City awarded the 2002 Olympics. If elected President, he should feel right at home dealing with Congress and Big Business, not to mention the lobbyist in Washington.

 

Of course I criticized Obama's lack of experience. You may disagree, but I'm highly convinced that: 1. Governor of Massachussettes is a much more responsible/demanding job than a U.S. Senator; 2.)the SLOC Presidency prepares one for political office to a greater degree than a position of "community organizer"; 3.) A successful business background is much more helpful in understanding the economy than editing the Harvard Law Review.

 

Romney's "moderate" credentials are dramatically presented by the fact that he was elected to a governorship in a heavily Blue state. FYI, Romney was the successor to the previous SLOC president who was involved in the scandal you mentioned. He was not on board with the SLOC when that stuff took place and had no part in those shenanigans. His leadership enabled the SLOC move forward and put on a specularly successful Winter Olympics. If you are implying that (compared to Obama) Romney would be more easily accessible to lobbyists/special interest groups than Obama, clearly you haven't been following Obama's presidency very much.

 

The choice between Romney and Obama should be the easiest to make ever. Romney would be the clear choice for anybody other than a hardcore, left-wing Demoncrat.

 

HH

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

Obama might not have much experience but you must remember when Conservatives were told to register as Democrats so as to vote for Obama; leaving Hillary out of the race?

 

These characters are the real nut cases. They helped elect him. No wonder they bitch like whining women over their actions.

[Flashermac]

I know some Yellow Dog Dems at home who are registered Republicans simply so they can vote for the weakest candidate in the Republican primaries. Works both ways.