If the economy (also read unemployment) doesn't pick up dramatically between now and then that would be a mistake. politicians are masters at spin. And it will be easy to spin unemployment and gov't spending against Obama.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
If the economy (also read unemployment) doesn't pick up dramatically between now and then that would be a mistake. politicians are masters at spin. And it will be easy to spin unemployment and gov't spending against Obama.
Newt's plan to solve unemployment is to fire adults working for the government and let kids take their jobs so they learn "work ethic." Hell, he'll have them in the mines again in no time. Maybe on those moon mines that he and Mitt talked about.
But seriously, the country is not in a good place right now. Why would anyone vote for a man who abandoned his wife while she was battling cancer to go be with his next wife? That's not the dedication and commitment we need. If things go poorly, will he just leave and go help Putin out with some "advice"(not lobbying) for more money or a hot new wife?
He's a hypocritical scumbag.
But seriously, the country is not in a good place right now. Why would anyone vote for a man who abandoned his wife while she was battling cancer to go be with his next wife? That's not the dedication and commitment we need. If things go poorly, will he just leave and go help Putin out with some "advice"(not lobbying) for more money or a hot new wife?
He's a hypocritical scumbag.
the dems have not engaged as yet.
it will get ugly.
the GOP congress can make it easier for themselves if they passed bills that actually help ordinary people instead of the anti-abortion nonsense and anti regulation stuff they did on behalf of big business.
it will get ugly.
the GOP congress can make it easier for themselves if they passed bills that actually help ordinary people instead of the anti-abortion nonsense and anti regulation stuff they did on behalf of big business.
Anyone have the drawing/photoshop ability to make a picture of Newt Gingrich dressed as Santa Claus in a sleigh full of tax breaks for the wealthy being pulled by little kids? I think it would make a nice Christmas card.Axlerod is an idiot.
Based on what ? He strikes me as a brilliant political tactician.
afraid you lot have the market corned for idiots
So you're thinking that comment was fine for the political arena? It's those types of things that have most Americans frustrated with politics. I'm tired of the tactics being used. I think most voters are the same. It might be fun to watch just to see the foolishness but it doesn't make me think Axlerod is some type of tactician. It makes me think he's trying to enhance his mans position by demeaning another. He should talk about Newts failures in policy and not about making comparisons to a monkeys ass. Just my opinion.
You didn't read the article, did you?
I've seen the entire quote. I know exactly what he's refering too. He learned it from one of his old Chicago buddies. Great political model to follow BTW. I'm talking about the "return to civility". Where is it? Or is only one side supposed to adhere to it?
You didn't understand the quote, did you?
Cali, do you have any actual objection to the quote other than the fact that it makes reference to a lower primate's hindquarters, or are you just so offended by the imagery that you're incapable of allowing anything else to enter your mind in relation to what was said?
I fully understand. He's saying that the more we look at Newt and the more he becomes the focus, the less we'll like because he's a complete tool. And I agree with him on that.
My actual objection is that Axlerod is trying to be a flame thrower. He is most likely using a truism about Gingrich but doing it in a way that repubs will over react too. Therefore he's atempting to incite the exact reaction he wants to try and condemn. Again, he's an idiot. Politically smart? Maybe. Probably. But so so was Carl Rove. Like him much? Me neither.
If you think what Axelrod said is inflammatory then you'd better put your hands over your ears for the next 11 months.
Like you have to go out of your way to get Republicans to overreact. When Obama said that the pre-1967 borders should be the "building block" in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, (which has been the general doctrine of all recent administrations of either party,) Gingrich called it "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel."
I'm thinking about it....
Agreed. To be fair I think they (repubs) are more apt to say stupid things. But the top levels of the dems are just as skilled at these things. Pelosi might be the standard bearer. Perhaps Maxine Waters.
FFS, the rhetoric you hear about Obama and his crimes against America at every repube debate is outrageous.
Just thinking about it, imagine if somebody on the right had used the monkey butt quote for Obama!
Agreed. But the same is true when Bush was in office and when Clinton was in office.
Care to give some examples from the 2004 Democratic debates that match what we've heard out of the GOP candidates this year?
Bush was unpatriotic, according to Obama. Sounds like a repub speech to me. Kind of hypocrytical his speech on spending, no? He's had out a much larger credit card and used it quite liberally.
This took me all of 5 seconds to find. I'm going digging because of you think Bush was not absolutely blasted you're not being honest with yourself.
EDIT: Not sure if the video is working. It's Obama at a campaign stop. He calls Bush unpatriotic for the high gov't spending. I'll see if I can get it to work.
But either way for me it's normal Washington politics. dems calling rebpub that and repubs calling dems this other. For someone to act like dems don't do it as well is laugable.
The video isn't working. Less important, that was 2008, not 2004. Further, it'd be wonderful if you could supply actual quotes, not your paraphrasing.
EDIT: Nevermind. A few minutes of my own google work pulled up a bit from the 2008 campaign that passed around the right-wing echo chamber on August 24 of this year. Here's Media Matters' article on the video.
The full text of the portion of the speech which includes the word you've mentioned, which is almost impossible to find unedited on any of the RW sites I looked through before finding it on MM, follows:
While the RW types ignore the fact that Obama took office with a $1.2T deficit, (and the fact that the GOP has continued, successfully, to maintain every dollar of the Bush tax cuts,) it seems to me you've really missed the point. This is what you equate to Gingrich calling a sensible comment on a difficult foreign policy issue "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president"? This is what you equate to Perry's ad referring to "Obama's war on religion"?
Sounds to me like a shallow and simplistic false equivalency.
EDIT: Nevermind. A few minutes of my own google work pulled up a bit from the 2008 campaign that passed around the right-wing echo chamber on August 24 of this year. Here's Media Matters' article on the video.
The full text of the portion of the speech which includes the word you've mentioned, which is almost impossible to find unedited on any of the RW sites I looked through before finding it on MM, follows:
While the RW types ignore the fact that Obama took office with a $1.2T deficit, (and the fact that the GOP has continued, successfully, to maintain every dollar of the Bush tax cuts,) it seems to me you've really missed the point. This is what you equate to Gingrich calling a sensible comment on a difficult foreign policy issue "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president"? This is what you equate to Perry's ad referring to "Obama's war on religion"?
Sounds to me like a shallow and simplistic false equivalency.
Relax mate. Seems like you have a hard time looking at repubs with the same enthusiam as demos. Not a big deal and more a sign of the current political climate. As I've said, Gingrich is an idiot. And as I've said repubs are more apt to these things than dems. Perry has pretty much been givin up as a fool. Gingrich has long been known as a bag of hot air. But in the end nearly all politicians are the same. There's no difference. If you think dems are on your side, great. Their not but if that's what makes you sleep well at night, good for you.
The rhetoric and vitriol spewed about Bush was much more vile from the left than anything about Obama has been. Most on here agree with what was said so they refuse to see it for what it was. Obama recently assinated a US citizen. Right? How is that any different than the things Bush did during the war? It's not. And why would I go dig up quotes when you can do it yourself. There out there but dems refuse to see it.
I'm not a dem or a repub so I think the whole thing is funny. I'm more closely aligned to a Libertarian. Therefore all my guys are whackos.....HAHAHAHA! But I'm fine with it.
Who? Anwar al-Awlaki?
Yes. Is that of importance? Because I think I distinctly remember Obama saying these people should be afforded trials. But maybe that was candidate Obama and not President Obama.
I'm not opposed to taking Awlaki out really but should the president be able to decide alone which US citizens he kills. Just a question.
Of course it is. To quote Salman Rushdie:
"There is a crime called treason, and when people commit the crime of treason, join the enemy and fight against their own country, they usually sacrifice a few rights."
Everyone should be afforded trials, but not everyone can.
Ok. So treason is now the line for the president to decide. What's treason?
What exactly are you arguing? That the U.S. should've left Awlaki alone simply because he was a U.S. citizen? He joined the enemy, he fought against his own country, he lost. As simple as that. If someone from one of the Allied countries had joined Nazi Germany during WW2, should he not have been killed?
The second you commit treason of that sort you should lose your citizenship, and you do in my view. I have zero problems with Obama assassinating that cnut.
Personally I think adding $4 trillion to the national debt is patriotic.
You're not going to find many squeaky clean campaigns in politics these days. That said, Obama's 2008 campaign was astonishingly civil and well run. One of the reasons he won is because he went positive and minimized the type of mudslinging that had gone on in past campaigns. Axelrod was pivotal to that.
I've next to no enthusiasm for most Democratic politicians in this country.
I just can't stomach lazy "they're all the same" thinking like you've done here, chalking up any and all transgressions as "a sign of the current political climate", and throwing out all discussion of exactly what happened to cause that climate, never mind the blatantly obvious fact that yes, one side is in fact significantly worse than the other.
Then it should've been easy for you to find an equivalent example from the Democratic debates and campaigns. I'll make it easy to narrow down by requesting that you please limit your search to actual elected officials and policy makers, like we've seen from Governors and legislators and the like out of the GOP, and not some blogger with a Bushitler license plate. Prove your assertion by providing actual quotes, and this time, try to find something actually remotely as incendiary as the rhetoric coming from the right, not a fairly tepid criticism of Bush's economic policy.
that is the most significant fact.
Cali needs to list what significant laws the Republican congress has passed since they took control in 2010 that has helped reverse the unnecessary burden the policies of Bush and Chenney has placed on this country by quadrupling the national debt.
And it is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel to complain about Obama taking out Al Zawari.
He could have risked American military personnel lives by trying to take him alive. Would that have been preferable?
The simple fact is the Republicans since Bush and Company have helped bring this country to its knees.
Obama for all his faults was and is a move in the direction. The ordinary people in this country need to take back this country. simple.
By the way, in NDAA 2012 and SOPA, both parties are fecking all of us. Corrupt, fascist assholes.
How long until tonight's debate starts?
1.5 hrs. FNC have actually had a countdown on screen for most of the day!
I'm interested to see how cnut Wallace talks to Ron Paul. He and the other establishment repubs are doing their best to spin his increasingly-likely strong showing in Iowa as being of little consequence to the race as a whole.
I'm interested to see how cnut Wallace talks to Ron Paul. He and the other establishment repubs are doing their best to spin his increasingly-likely strong showing in Iowa as being of little consequence to the race as a whole.
I'm interested in what they think about potential US contributions to Eurozone bailouts via the IMF. I read something the other day about a senior Republican calling for US contributions for this purpose to be blocked.
Also, Ron Paul on the 2012 National Defence Authorization Act should be interesting.
Also, Ron Paul on the 2012 National Defence Authorization Act should be interesting.
I doubt your first question will even be raised.
- Status