PDA

View Full Version : Romney running on pointing his finger at Obama



gophangover
04-17-2012, 08:55 AM
What a great campaign strategy! Just try to keep pointing the accusing finger at Obama, and then the voters won't pay attention to the fact Romney is the 1% that caused the mess Obama has been trying to fix for the past three and a half years. Maybe the voters won't realize that if Romney becomes POTUS, Wall Street will be running the country again like they were when Shrub was in the White House. Don't let the fact that every time a Republican becomes president, they double the national debt. Raygun did it, Shrub daddy did it, and Shrub Jr. did it. It's call fiscal conservatism. Romney doesn't want the voters thinking about military spending doubling again to $1.2 trillion per year when becomes president. Don't worry about the U.S. starting a war with Iran that will cost another $6 trillion. U.S. global domination is good for America. And Wall Street bankers stealing America's wealth, that's just business, that's how Mitt got all his millions. While the American economy was going in the toilet, Romney's bank account got really fat. But if Mitt keep pointing his finger at Obama the voters won't notice the fraud behind the curtain. And destroying Social Security and Medicare, and throwing the elderly out in the street won't be given a thought if the GOP keeps pointing at Obama. And destroying education, well it's easier to herd the ignorant than the educated, don't think about it. Yeah Romney, just keep pointing that finger, what a strategy. You sure don't have any winning issues to run on.

Conley
04-17-2012, 08:58 AM
Yep, I just posted a list of Romney's "special advisors". They're not special and many are just recycled from GWB's time, just as Obama's were Clintonites. Nothing is going to change with either of these jokers. No hope and no change.

gophangover
04-17-2012, 09:08 AM
Yep, I just posted a list of Romney's "special advisors". They're not special and many are just recycled from GWB's time, just as Obama's were Clintonites. Nothing is going to change with either of these jokers. No hope and no change.

Obama is a closet con, but the alternative....eeeeyuck!

Mister D
04-17-2012, 09:11 AM
All of these people share the same ideals. The only difference is in how they think they can achieve those ideals. There is no alternative.

gophangover
04-19-2012, 08:38 AM
I saw Romney on the news this morning, about to give one of his inspirational speeches, and he had the same "deer in the headlights" look as when Shrub couldn't find the door in China. Remember this?...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHjIb6trxBI

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 09:07 AM
"What a great campaign strategy! Just try to keep pointing the accusing finger at Obama,"

As opposed to "It's the same Bush/McCain politics I (fill in the blank)"??

Chris
04-19-2012, 09:17 AM
Obama is a closet con, but the alternative....eeeeyuck!

Surely you jest! Romney is a closet liberal. Both talk all the time about what if elected government can do for you. As Reagan put it, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

annata
04-19-2012, 09:35 AM
watching morning joe. Couple points. Obama is not running on his record -still blaming Bush, as one of th panelists said:" You can go back to Regan, or even Cartr to see the beginning of the decline.
But the current POTUS -fairly or not-get the credit or criticism of the economy"

The other thing that gets me is "fairness" -what the heck is fair about capitalism? some win, some lose - ya I know the Repubs are out of touch when they refuse any comnpromise on raising taxes on cap gains - but no-one should have to pay 30% on SPECUALTIVE gains ( which can also be speculative loses).

"Fairness" means all have the equal opportuinty "to persure happiness" - there is no declaration of "the right to happiness", only the abilility to persue to one's desires/potential.I'd go back to the Clinton tax rates - the "Buffet Rule" would only add about 4$B/year -negligible

Romney is a 1% - doesn't disqualify him -but he would have to show me something, so far not much.

Obama and Libya, and the escalation of AfPak, the NDAA, and droning the fuck out of Paki= no way in hell am i voting for him

I've decided to go Green, if for no other reason then "ballot access" -any Green candidate ( and they have a good platform) is going to get my vote.
The very BEST thing that could happen to this country is an end to the duopoly (2 party system).
I'm tired of "toss the bums out -put in new bums -toss the bums out" - ad infinum.

Obama's donors are big corporation and bundlers, he's shown me very little, Kagan is a ridiculous SCOTUS appointment.
Surely he could have found a JUDGE qualified outside his Adm.

All that said, the Repubs show me nothing, but "tax cuts for the rich". I have no confidence in this crew .

Throw ALL the bums out, and get some Greens into Congress - it's prolly a pipe dream, but i'm not buying into 4 more years of sameness corptocratic, wars. Enough
.

gophangover
04-19-2012, 10:14 AM
Good morning Annata, good to see you.



watching morning joe. Couple points. Obama is not running on his record -still blaming Bush, as one of th panelists said:" You can go back to Regan, or even Cartr to see the beginning of the decline.
But the current POTUS -fairly or not-get the credit or criticism of the economy"
The Supreme Court gave corporations control of everything, government included, with the ruling the corporations are people and money is speech. Wall Street owns all the politicians.

The other thing that gets me is "fairness" -what the heck is fair about capitalism? some win, some lose - ya I know the Repubs are out of touch when they refuse any comnpromise on raising taxes on cap gains - but no-one should have to pay 30% on SPECUALTIVE gains ( which can also be speculative loses).

The Supreme Court dictates what is fair.

"Fairness" means all have the equal opportuinty "to persure happiness" - there is no declaration of "the right to happiness", only the abilility to persue to one's desires/potential.I'd go back to the Clinton tax rates - the "Buffet Rule" would only add about 4$B/year -negligible

Pursuit of happiness is only available to those that can buy it.

Romney is a 1% - doesn't disqualify him -but he would have to show me something, so far not much.

Obama and Libya, and the escalation of AfPak, the NDAA, and droning the fuck out of Paki= no way in hell am i voting for him

The U.S. economy is based on war. This country must have war to keep the economy afloat. The U.S. spends $662 billion per year on the war machine. If we don't have war, the war machine contractors get laid off. Must have war so they can keep making more war machine.

I've decided to go Green, if for no other reason then "ballot access" -any Green candidate ( and they have a good platform) is going to get my vote.
The very BEST thing that could happen to this country is an end to the duopoly (2 party system).
I'm tired of "toss the bums out -put in new bums -toss the bums out" - ad infinum.

The two parties have the game rigged so that they can be the only players. You only have a choice to vote for the which of the two is the lesser of two evils, but it's still voting for evil. But voting is futile, because corporations have the money to decide who's in and who's out.

Obama's donors are big corporation and bundlers, he's shown me very little, Kagan is a ridiculous SCOTUS appointment.
Surely he could have found a JUDGE qualified outside his Adm.

All the republican political tv adds comes from corporate PAC money.

All that said, the Repubs show me nothing, but "tax cuts for the rich". I have no confidence in this crew .

Throw ALL the bums out, and get some Greens into Congress - it's prolly a pipe dream, but i'm not buying into 4 more years of sameness corptocratic, wars. Enough
.

The republican sheep will continue to vote for their same stupid politicians, and the democrat sheep will continue to vote for their same stupid politicians. And the INDEPENDENT voters only have the choice to vote for one of those to A holes or waste their vote on a third party candidate who doesn't have a chance because their aren't enough revolutionary voters to vote the two parties out of power, even though the majority of this country is sick of them.

Chris
04-19-2012, 10:19 AM
There's another choice. As PJ O'Rourke put it, Don't Vote It Just Encourages the Bastards.

http://i.snag.gy/nsdfI.jpg
(image source: http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lp4f324bd1.jpg)

gophangover
04-19-2012, 10:28 AM
Surely you jest! Romney is a closet liberal. Both talk all the time about what if elected government can do for you. As Reagan put it, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronnie Raygun promised to balance the budget in his first four years. He never submitted one single balanced budget in eight years, and almost tripled the national debt. Raygun was a politician for twenty years before becoming POTUS. Raygun hosted the Taliban in the White House, calling them "Freedom fighters" and gave them a half billion dollars worth of war machine to terrorize the Ruskies with. He also sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, which Saddam used on his own people. Raygun also went behind the back of congress and the American people and bought cocaine from Noriega, sold it and used the profits to give weapons to Nicaraguan rebels. It was called Iran/Contra. Raygun should have been imprisoned for treason.

Chris
04-19-2012, 10:59 AM
Ronnie Raygun promised to balance the budget in his first four years. He never submitted one single balanced budget in eight years, and almost tripled the national debt. Raygun was a politician for twenty years before becoming POTUS. Raygun hosted the Taliban in the White House, calling them "Freedom fighters" and gave them a half billion dollars worth of war machine to terrorize the Ruskies with. He also sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, which Saddam used on his own people. Raygun also went behind the back of congress and the American people and bought cocaine from Noriega, sold it and used the profits to give weapons to Nicaraguan rebels. It was called Iran/Contra. Raygun should have been imprisoned for treason.

Seems you missed the point. I'd still vote for Reagan's rhetoric over Romney's or Obama's. Only good President we ever had was Goldwater, and he lost the election. Now you can mudsling slogans at him.

gophangover
04-19-2012, 11:04 AM
Seems you missed the point. I'd still vote for Reagan's rhetoric over Romney's or Obama's. Only good President we ever had was Goldwater, and he lost the election. Now you can mudsling slogans at him.

Since he never was POTUS it's rather pointless. Wish in one hand and chit in the other, and see which one fills up.

MMC
04-19-2012, 11:08 AM
Since he never was POTUS it's rather pointless. Wish in one hand and chit in the other, and see which one fills up.


Oh is that like the Demos theory about shit rolling down hill.....but then forgot about it backing up and overflowing, stinking up all places that it runs off to? :wink:

annata
04-19-2012, 11:13 AM
Good morning Annata, good to see you.

there is a choice, ( and thanks for the good morning -back at ya) and not to buy into the 2 party system.
My first vote was for McGovern in '72 ( me and like 4 other ppl in the US -LOL), and I've always voted for Dem's -not out of reflex -but out of the 2 choices.
I think i even voted for Carter 2x -despite the "misery index" of 1980. I liked what he did with the Sinai ( Begin and Sadat)

I can't reply to your individual quotes, since i'm pressed for time, but i largely agree - Obama will get his fair share of PAC money too.
( as to your point "all Repub money comes from PAC.)

He's lost me; this is the guy who CLAIMS he was agianst going into Iraq -so what does he do? Escalate AffPak
( he even tried to stay in Iraq past the SOFA agreement Bush timeline, until al_Malaki, and al_Sadr told him "you stay, you're under Iraqi law.").

I won't go into his freaking drones, but he's damaged what little good faith there existed between Paki and the west.

I find him unbelieveable, governing by convenience - whatever today's campaign slogan is about.
I'm also a Federalist, and find the use of the Commerce Clause for the HC mandate, a hyper-extension,
that HOPEFULLY SCOTUS ( which allowed Gonzalez v Raich) will finally see a limitation on the ICCLause.

He cannot conceive of the idea of curbing any spending - supply side is worthless - but there are limits to Keynesianism too - when our debt is growing with unfunded mandates.

The only credit i'll give him is "the lessor of 2 evils". I'm tired of it, i'm in a swing state ; and neither "side" is getting my vote.
Because I have absolute nada confidence from the duopoly. I realize i'm tilting at windmills here, but that's what im reduced to doing.
No way, no how will I vote for these same old hyperpolarized politicians
the republican sheep will continue to vote for their same stupid politicians, and the democrat sheep will continue to vote for their same stupid politicians. And the INDEPENDENT voters only have the choice to vote for one of those to A holes or waste their vote on a third party candidate who doesn't have a chance because their aren't enough revolutionary voters to vote the two parties out of power, even though the majority of this country is sick of them.[/QUOTE]

gophangover
04-19-2012, 11:28 AM
there is a choice, ( and thanks for the good morning -back at ya) and not to buy into the 2 party system.
My first vote was for McGovern in '72 ( me and like 4 other ppl in the US -LOL), and I've always voted for Dem's -not out of reflex -but out of the 2 choices.
I think i even voted for Carter 2x -despite the "misery index" of 1980. I liked what he did with the Sinai ( Begin and Sadat)

I can't reply to your individual quotes, since i'm pressed for time, but i largely agree - Obama will get his fair share of PAC money too.
( as to your point "all Repub money comes from PAC.)

He's lost me; this is the guy who CLAIMS he was agianst going into Iraq -so what does he do? Escalate AffPak
( he even tried to stay in Iraq past the SOFA agreement Bush timeline, until al_Malaki, and al_Sadr told him "you stay, you're under Iraqi law.").

I won't go into his freaking drones, but he's damaged what little good faith there existed between Paki and the west.

I find him unbelieveable, governing by convenience - whatever today's campaign slogan is about.
I'm also a Federalist, and find the use of the Commerce Clause for the HC mandate, a hyper-extension,
that HOPEFULLY SCOTUS ( which allowed Gonzalez v Raich) will finally see a limitation on the ICCLause.

He cannot conceive of the idea of curbing any spending - supply side is worthless - but there are limits to Keynesianism too - when our debt is growing with unfunded mandates.

The only credit i'll give him is "the lessor of 2 evils". I'm tired of it, i'm in a swing state ; and neither "side" is getting my vote.
Because I have absolute nada confidence from the duopoly. I realize i'm tilting at windmills here, but that's what im reduced to doing.
No way, no how will I vote for these same old hyperpolarized politicians
the republican sheep will continue to vote for their same stupid politicians, and the democrat sheep will continue to vote for their same stupid politicians. And the INDEPENDENT voters only have the choice to vote for one of those to A holes or waste their vote on a third party candidate who doesn't have a chance because their aren't enough revolutionary voters to vote the two parties out of power, even though the majority of this country is sick of them.[/QUOTE]

I voted for Nader the last four times. If the voters would have made him POTUS in the 2000 election, we would still have a balanced budget today, and the national debt would have been paid off with the $300 billion annual surplus Clinton gave us. That would have made everyones taxes a half trillion a year less, because the interest on the national debt is $500 billion per year now. And we wouldn't have lost $3 trillion in the Iraq war. America would still have global credibility, health care would be affordable, the economic collapse wouldn't have happened, renewable energy would be much more advanced, and both parties would be well on their way to becoming extinct. Sigh...oh well.

annata
04-19-2012, 11:34 AM
I voted for Nader the last four times. If the voters would have made him POTUS in the 2000 election, we would still have a balanced budget today, and the national debt would have been paid off with the $300 billion annual surplus Clinton gave us. That would have made everyones taxes a half trillion a year less, because the interest on the national debt is $500 billion per year now. And we wouldn't have lost $3 trillion in the Iraq war. America would still have global credibility, health care would be affordable, the economic collapse wouldn't have happened, renewable energy would be much more advanced, and both parties would be well on their way to becoming extinct. Sigh...oh well. Can't change the world, only can change what we do. I'm not an activist anymore - i did my protesting for Vietnam - the US is a war based country -maybe we learned to coolit -but i doubt it, one of the "other posters" ( sorry I'm new, and don't know all the usernames that well yet) mentioned something about Clinton trying to intervene in Syria -maybe we're already doing so.

Point is we're addicted to war/oil; and "wars for oil" we might eventually learn something, but it is what it is.

For me? personal liberation, some sense of satisfaction i'm not supporting this corrupted system.

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 12:06 PM
Point is we're addicted to war/oil; and "wars for oil" we might eventually learn something, but it is what it is.

Sigh..the old slogans make me so nostalgic. Where did we get any oil for going to war?

MMC
04-19-2012, 12:11 PM
Point is we're addicted to war/oil; and "wars for oil" we might eventually learn something, but it is what it is.

Sigh..the old slogans make me so nostalgic. Where did we get any oil for going to war?

Well Myself.....I thought it was coming out of Canada as we sell anything we pump out of the ground.

gophangover
04-19-2012, 12:21 PM
Where did we get any oil for going to war?

That was the GOP plan in Iraq. Everybody keeps asking, "what did we win?" The best laid plans.......

MMC
04-19-2012, 12:24 PM
That was the GOP plan in Iraq. Everybody keeps asking, "what did we win?" The best laid plans.......

You forgot.....the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs wanted to bring some of that New Form of Democracy over there. You know.....that Humani-terroism, with Elections.

annata
04-19-2012, 12:30 PM
Point is we're addicted to war/oil; and "wars for oil" we might eventually learn something, but it is what it is.

Sigh..the old slogans make me so nostalgic. Where did we get any oil for going to war? LOL
officially we didn't, it's been debated back and forth.

rather then me post, here's a link, that supports that view. I understand not everyone is in agreement,,but check it out if you wish
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=705:surprise-surprise-iraq-war-was-about-oil

annata
04-19-2012, 12:33 PM
You forgot.....the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs wanted to bring some of that New Form of Democracy over there. You know.....that Humani-terroism, with Elections.
it's possible to have dual interests. Yes. the whole thing was based on ...whatever the neocons invented... but checkmou the link i posted.

It's one of those things, you either buy into or not

gophangover
04-19-2012, 12:33 PM
You forgot.....the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs wanted to bring some of that New Form of Democracy over there. You know.....that Humani-terroism, with Elections.

And they're both still beating that poor dead horse.

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 01:09 PM
LOL
officially we didn't, it's been debated back and forth.

rather then me post, here's a link, that supports that view. I understand not everyone is in agreement,,but check it out if you wish
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=705:surprise-surprise-iraq-war-was-about-oil

Interesting article, but too many holes in the story.

Let's assume the war in Iraq was for oil.

Where is it? - Did the evil oil companies take it and not tell us?

Did we use it to pay for the war? - We should have, we would have no deficit today if we did.

Is gas cheaper? (rhetorical)

The writer forgets - in Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein set the oil feilds in Kuwait on fire to cover his army's escape. Pure speculation here, but I would hope any attack planned would take that into consideration - hence the need for detailed maps.


Further, a FIRED White House advisor - maybe one with an ax to grind - is quoted as a credible source.


Too many deficiencies in this article to call it credible.

Chris
04-19-2012, 01:11 PM
LOL
officially we didn't, it's been debated back and forth.

rather then me post, here's a link, that supports that view. I understand not everyone is in agreement,,but check it out if you wish
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=705:surprise-surprise-iraq-war-was-about-oil

Way I always read the neocons was the war was not fought to take the oil but to keep it flowing in free market and not let Saddam hold the world hostage with it. Iraq is a monor source of our oil imports:

Sources of U.S. Oil Imports (http://www.infoplease.com/science/energy/us-oil-imports.html)

Canada 11%
Mexico 11
Saudi Arabia 9
Venezuela 8
Nigeria 7
Iraq 4
25 other countries 8


Not, btw, intending to excuse the ex-Trotskyite liberals-mugged-by-reality neocons at all.

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 01:15 PM
Allow the Keystone Pipeline, and most of these countries can go to hell.

Chris
04-19-2012, 01:48 PM
Thought Keystone was to pipe Canadian crude to US refineries and then export to Europe and Latin America.

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 02:01 PM
Thought Keystone was to pipe Canadian crude to US refineries and then export to Europe and Latin America.

While it wouldn't surprise me if some oil went overseas, it is primarily for US markets. It would also create 20,000 direct jobs, and as many as 80,000 other jobs.

Chris
04-19-2012, 02:05 PM
While it wouldn't surprise me if some oil went overseas, it is primarily for US markets. It would also create 20,000 direct jobs, and as many as 80,000 other jobs.

Believe it will all be exported. Those jobs are for construction and refining. Nothing to slough off in this economy.

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 02:08 PM
Believe it will all be exported. Those jobs are for construction and refining. Nothing to slough off in this economy.

There's a lot of "he said/ she said" about where the oil will go. The CEO of TransCanada Oil stated that the oil is for American Markets. The jobs are not just construction and refining, but for the services that support them as well.

Chris
04-19-2012, 02:36 PM
There's a lot of "he said/ she said" about where the oil will go. The CEO of TransCanada Oil stated that the oil is for American Markets. The jobs are not just construction and refining, but for the services that support them as well.

Yes, services too. Yes, that's just what I hear and read.

annata
04-19-2012, 03:13 PM
Interesting article, but too many holes in the story.

Let's assume the war in Iraq was for oil.

Where is it? - Did the evil oil companies take it and not tell us?

Did we use it to pay for the war? - We should have, we would have no deficit today if we did.

Is gas cheaper? (rhetorical)

The writer forgets - in Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein set the oil feilds in Kuwait on fire to cover his army's escape. Pure speculation here, but I would hope any attack planned would take that into consideration - hence the need for detailed maps.


Further, a FIRED White House advisor - maybe one with an ax to grind - is quoted as a credible source.


Too many deficiencies in this article to call it credible. this seems to be the best way to look at it :
( from link)

Not Exclusively Oil

But the motivation to attack Iraq was not solely oil.
Nor was it solely to acquire permanent or “enduring” military bases. Nor was it only to make the Middle East safer for Israel.

In my view it was an amalgam of ALL OF THE ABOVE plus a few others like vengeance and what the Chinese used to call “great-power chauvinism.”
I am always surprised by those who take the position that just one of these motives was operative and insist on excluding others. Neither life, nor policy making, is like that.
A few months after the war started, I coined the “acronym” OIL to address U.S./U.K. motives. I must put my “acronym” in quotation marks, because Jon Stewart has rightly accused me of “violating the rules for acronyms” because
O was for oil; I for Israel; and L for logistics (the military bases),

Alias
04-19-2012, 03:36 PM
Since Obama made Ann Romney a target, let's look at the entire picture.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/why_do_they_want_to_pick_on_ann_romney.html

Alias
04-19-2012, 04:18 PM
nope

Unemployment went up again.

MMC
04-19-2012, 04:55 PM
Heya CL didnt we have a piece up on how much Oil we actually get from Canada. I remeber seeing the Chart but i don't know what thread it is in.

MMC
04-19-2012, 05:23 PM
We get quite a bit. The existing Keystone line provides sludge to the midwest, where it's refined. There's a glut right now, which is why Canada wants to build the pipeline to Texas.

From there, foreign countries will sell the refined product on the overseas market, avoiding all taxation in this country. All the while, over a billion in US subsidies will fund the refineries to prepare for the sludge.



Lose/lose.


What about the part of the pipeline that Obama said he he does back? That would be the Southern extension. Also I know we get quite a bit of Oil From Canada. Which is why I was asking CL that question. As we have a thread round here somewheres on it. But I can't remember how it was listed as a topic. Or if it was put as a link in response to something.

When using fracking methods. Does it leave sludge?

Chris
04-19-2012, 06:12 PM
We get quite a bit. The existing Keystone line provides sludge to the midwest, where it's refined. There's a glut right now, which is why Canada wants to build the pipeline to Texas.

From there, foreign countries will sell the refined product on the overseas market, avoiding all taxation in this country. All the while, over a billion in US subsidies will fund the refineries to prepare for the sludge.



Lose/lose.

" All the while, over a billion in US subsidies will fund the refineries to prepare for the sludge."

Gotta link to that, would like to read up on it.

MMC
04-19-2012, 06:15 PM
" All the while, over a billion in US subsidies will fund the refineries to prepare for the sludge."

Gotta link to that, would like to read up on it.

Ditto!!!!! :wink: