Usa Thread

[Hugh_Hoy]

However, I don't see a President but a head of a department in the administration. Someplace he can run like a corporation where he's the boss.

 

I guess you can call "stubborness" a committment to your beliefs. That is different than "intolerance", for sure. I see in Obama both. Maybe Paul would make Cain the head of the Fed. 55555555555

 

Interesting article someplace on Yahoo "news". Claimed that a composite of "Newtcain" for President would be big, big trouble for Obama. jing jing (Of course, I'd vote for Joe the Plumber over Barry. Big news, no? 5555555555555) Seriously, Newt has vastly more experience overall applicable to leading the country and extremely knowledgable regarding (particularly) foreign affairs. Cain, as VP, would be expotentially an improvement over Biden. I mean, WTF has Biden contributed to the country. I know not his fault that there haven't been any foreign heads of state who have died; accordingly, no funerals to attend on behalf of the country. But he has been given the "lead" on important initiatives by the WH and nothing was ever really produced.

 

The GOP may be fortunate or unfortunate this time around. But it is certainly blessed with having 4 or 5 potential nominees much, much better for the country than Obama. Obama has attempted to divide the country by "class"; demonizing those who have achieved success and attempting to reward laggards with the fruits of others' labors. He's a fucking Marxist. And, for those with religious backgrounds, I can easily see a viewpoint that he is an "anti-Christ" and a "devil's diciple".

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

I guess you can call "stubborness" a committment to your beliefs. That is different than "intolerance", for sure. I see in Obama both. Maybe Paul would make Cain the head of the Fed. 55555555555

 

Interesting article someplace on Yahoo "news". Claimed that a composite of "Newtcain" for President would be big, big trouble for Obama. jing jing (Of course, I'd vote for Joe the Plumber over Barry. Big news, no? 5555555555555) Seriously, Newt has vastly more experience overall applicable to leading the country and extremely knowledgable regarding (particularly) foreign affairs. Cain, as VP, would be expotentially an improvement over Biden. I mean, WTF has Biden contributed to the country. I know not his fault that there haven't been any foreign heads of state who have died; accordingly, no funerals to attend on behalf of the country. But he has been given the "lead" on important initiatives by the WH and nothing was ever really produced.

 

The GOP may be fortunate or unfortunate this time around. But it is certainly blessed with having 4 or 5 potential nominees much, much better for the country than Obama. Obama has attempted to divide the country by "class"; demonizing those who have achieved success and attempting to reward laggards with the fruits of others' labors. [color:red]He's a fucking Marxist. And, for those with religious backgrounds, I can easily see a viewpoint that he is an "anti-Christ" and a "devil's diciple".[/color]

 

HH

 

The early Christians would be considered in your lingo HH [color:red]"fucking Markist"[/color]

[color:white]

.

.

.

.

[/color]

So what does that make you?

[Coss]

It's a shame that they (surgeons) don't throw in a brain (patients) whilst they there.

 

A rat's brain should suffice.

[Steve]

The country has come a long when when people can even seriously consider these folks as the leading choices for US president. I wonder what MLK would think.

 

I agree. As a country we've come extremely far in a very short time. I can tell you my parents didn't think they'd live to see a black president and they were optimists. We discussed the election and they thought maybe if I lived long enough maybe...just maybe...but such was the America they knew in the '60s. It was inconceivable at that time they'd see such a change in their lifetime or their children's.

 

Europe was ahead of America with regards to women in office. It wasn't till I would say a decade or so ago that a woman could conceivably win a general election. Had Madeleine Albright the former Sec State been American born she would have a decent shot I think in the '90s. Hillary would have been president had she beaten Obama. No doubt about that.

 

However, as progressive as Europe and England have been considered in terms of race relations with blacks over America, its America ironically that a black person has the best chance of not only political leadership but corporate leadership. Blacks in America have been head of some of the biggest corporations in America: Time Warner, Merrill Lynch, etc. Also in seats of political power. Blacks have been appointed to or elected to the highest seats of power: Defense, Sec State, Supreme Court, President.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the countries in Europe with the best reputation for accepting blacks France, England, Netherlands have not been close to having any black person there in any political or corporate leadership positions. England being the most surprising possibly.

 

Ironically, many American blacks, mostly entertainers fled America to France since the 1920s as they got fed up with discrimination, racism, etc. in America but decades later its America that offers the best chances for personal wealth and power.

[Flashermac]

Ommagawd!

 

 

CNN makes an oops.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MrSLna8lto&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Steve]

The polls I've seen

http://www.nationalpolls.com/2012/obama-vs-cain.html

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

 

doesn't have Cain doing well against Obama.

 

Also, national polls mean nada. Its how any candidate does agaisnt Obama in the key states that matter. NY and California will vote Democrat. Texas will vote Republican. Its how it is. Its how each candidate does against Obama in Florida, Ohio as well as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that matters. About 40 of the states will vote Dem or Republican no matter who runs.

 

I dont think Cain is intolerable. None of them are. I think even Paul is a realist and knows that even if he's elected there are some things he won't be able to do. Cain may make a great President. Just my opinion from what I saw in the debates I think it will be over his head. I could be wrong but its just the impression I got. I'd vote for Paul and Huntsman and I like the 2011 Newt much better than the 1994 Newt and wouldn't be opposed to him as well. The rest I'm wary of for varying reasons.

[Steve]

Ommagawd!

 

 

CNN makes an oops.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MrSLna8lto&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

I saw this on another site and heard it really didn't really happen. Its a joke. Not sure if it is but that's what someone said on another site.

[Flashermac]

It could be a spoof from a company party. The TV stations sometimes do that and it gets out. I saw one (on Youtube maybe) where the news presenter stripped topless. Turned out it was made for a staff party. But even if this is a joke, it's hardly in the best of taste. A college fraternity would catch hell over it.

[Flashermac]

Poll: Ron Paul v Obama a dead heat in Fla.

 

 

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning polling firm, shows Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., trailing President Obama by a mere one point in their latest poll of Florida voters. Obama has a 56 percent disapproval rating in the swing state.

 

PPP shows Paul trailing Obama 45-44 in a hypothetical general election match-up, while Romney lags Obama by the same margin, 46-45. Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, has a 7 point deficit on the president, 50-43 - likely because 63% of voters polled disagree with his characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.

 

That said, PPP made a point of noting that Perry's deficit to Obama recalls Dewey's loss to President Truman, which might say as much about how PPP wants Republican voters to see Perry as it does about Perry's chances in this election.

 

 

My link

[Steve]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Bears-Hall-of-Famer-Hampton-refuses-White-House-?urn=nfl-wp8216

Former Chicago Bears defensive tackle Dan Hampton won't be attending the team's visit to the White House next month. The Hall of Famer told WLS-890 in Chicago that his decision is based on a "personal choice."

President Obama invited the 1985 Super Bowl championship team to visit Washington, D.C., earlier this month. The Bears had been scheduled to meet with President Reagan in January of 1986, but the Challenger disaster forced the White House to cancel the planned meeting.

Hampton gave three reasons for not attending:

1. Wives and children of the players weren't invited.

That does seem like an oversight by whoever planned the meeting. Granted, children of the players are most likely adults by now so it's not like a 5-year-old is getting snubbed, but surely the White House could have pulled out some more folding chairs for the event.

2. He says he's "not a fan of the guy in the White House."

A frequent reason given by those who decline White House invites, whether it be for Obama or any president who came before him. This sounds lame and takes a tremendous lack of perspective. Declining an opportunity to go to the White House and shake hands with the President of the United States because you don't like the guy's opinion on health care seems petty. Does Hampton not have any friends who are Democrats?

3. "It was 25 years ago. Let it go."

I'm sort of on Hampton's side on this one (though not enough to make it a valid excuse for declining). It's not like every Super Bowl team was going to the White House back then; the Bears were only the second team to get the invite. The 25-year-old canceled visit is a thinly veiled excuse to invite the team from Obama's adopted hometown for a visit. What about other championship squads? Where's John Riggins' and The Hogs' invite? The 1974 Dolphins can't get any love?! (And Florida's a swing state, Barack!)

 

My view is its an honor and often a once in a liftime opportunity to visit the White House and meet the President. As much as I despised the Bush administration were I a Super Bowl or World Series winner I'd still consider at honor to visit the White House but that's me.

 

I consider things like this to be something that should be political free.

 

Not going is a political statement. His choice and his right. I just disagree with not going because you don't like the guy in office.