jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (171 posts)

The sunset of Obama's presidency

  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
    A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago

    The two recent Presidential and one vice-presidential debates have made it abundantly clear that  Obama and Biden  can not defend their indefensible 4 year record of bad economic and domestic/foreign policies. They have been, during those debates, grasping at false narratives made more incoherent and incomprehensible by obfuscation, that inevitably leads to obtundation.

    Current Gallup polls suggest that the  Romney/Ryan team is on the ascendancy, while Obama/Biden has  started to sink, literally and figuratively, like the sunset on the horizon. The dawning of the age of Mitt could herald a new era of presidential competence that was lost during Obama's 4 years of basically just enjoying the perks of the presidence and nothing more.

    1. 0
      Deb Welchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama keeps crtiicizing Romney's Plan if he is elected, yet Obama has not given any specifics as to how he will change the Plan he used for the past 4 years and failed.  I heard Romney make this observation on the radio this morning where he was campaigning.  How true - reading between the lines of rhetoric speaking - maybe turn it around to hear the true meaning.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes averting another depression and saving a million jobs and over thirty months of economic growth captured from the abyss of a great depression is certainly a failure.

        What you don't have is the patience to stomach the slow recovery. Romneys' plan is the same ole' Voodoo economics which even the CBO won't get behind. Too slow for you is your only point?

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The CBO is constantly wrong....constantly

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hi RepGuy. How accurate is the 10 year forecast for your repair business?

            I think you have just proven how a totally correct statement can be absurd and irrelevant at the same time!

            The CBO deals with analytical variables and time sensitive assumptions that can change from month to month. The biggest constants from the CBO are the level playing field and the lack of political bias, both of which can not be found anywhere else. The accuracy of CBO estimates are tested and tracked. They have been found to be equivalent to the average results found in business forecasts coming out of blue chip corporations.
            Q.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Then the  blue chip corporations must be constantly wrong!

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Only in your own mind. big_smile

        2. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's  ever so much clearer to me since I had it explained that the much lower gas prices when the President took office were an indicator of financial collapse. I feel ever so much better now that I can't afford to fill up.

          Jabberwocky!

        3. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @rhamson:

          If I recall right, the US was in only one so called Great Depression and that was in the 1930's. The recession that Obama inherited from George Bush obviously put the economy in a ditch, as Obama so famously said during the 2008 election. Unhappily, instead of getting the economy out of the ditch, Obama's policy of tax and spend pushed the economy into a raging river and is now sinking in a sea of red ink to the tune of 16 trillion dollars, six of which were incurred during Obama's 4 years in office.

        4. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You need a new pony. This one is worn out.

          Obama has not done the "masterful" work of saving us from the abyss.

          But, you can use these statistical facts from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank to see for yourself.

          It is not some blogger, media, or pundit's interpretation - it is a statistical comparison of 10 recessions that have occurred in the U.S. since 1948.

          You will see that:
          Yes, the recession Obama inherited was the deepest since 1948

          and that's all that can be said in his favor. The U.S. pulled out of  all previous recessions within 24 months, most within 11 - 16 months

          Were all those other presidents just lucky?

          Anyway, at least check out the stats - then you can consider them in whatever way you want.

          But your previous defense "facts" are just wrong.

          Here's the link:
          http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicati … rspective/

          GA

      2. movingout profile image60
        movingoutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I just wish Romney would tell us the details of this so-called plan? All i hear is the details will be released after he's elected? The POTUS has clearly stated his plan, and told the voters coming out of this "Great Recession", will take time and patience and sacrifice by all.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How much more do we have to sacrifice before you will declare Obama a failure?

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … d-history/

        2. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well Obama never told us the details of his plan either. I still don't know what it is except tax the rich.

        3. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @movingout:

          And what are his plans except for more  taxation that puts more money into the government and not into the pockets of people whose businesses depends upon the avilability of capital for expansion; more regulation that hampers businesses to move forward with hiring employees during those planned expansion; more spending  on inconsequential projects that does nothing to really improve the job market; more borrowing from countrie like China whose trade and monetary policies just does not go with a free market system; and more printing of money by the Feds, to keep up with Obama's incomprehensible spending ways.

          Sorry but those exactly are the plans that are now in place, and that  will  lead to the fiscal cliff the country will soon be facing come January 2013.

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't agree with a lot of what Obama has done but I know what I have with him. Which lie describes Romney and his plans best?

      1. Greek One profile image80
        Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        3 words..

        "Women in binders"

      2. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @rhamson:
        what is it exactly that you know you have with Obama?

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Less money and more taxes!

    3. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm a Romney supporter, but I still think Obama will win. Right now, Ohio is the key, and I think Obama will take it.

    4. nightwork4 profile image61
      nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      after all you folks in the U.S. have been through in the last 20 years, one would think that Mr. Obama would be a welcoming change. he has done more for your country in 4 years then any other president in recent history. in a way i hope he loses this upcoming election so i can see how all you folks against him are going to explain the problems you will be in after 4 years of someone else.think i'm wrong? vote for romney, please.

    5. RichusFridum profile image60
      RichusFridumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I dont fully support either candidate but if someone has the ability to obfuscate their speech then i believe that would rule out any obtundation on their behalf

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @Richus:
        Obfuscation on the part of Obama... that leads to the obtundation of the people hearing his obfuscation.

    6. Neil Sperling profile image89
      Neil Sperlingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      the basic theme of politics is divide and conquer...  no matter who wins the ones that really pull the strings just keep pulling them.

      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7293759_f520.jpg

  2. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
    Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago

    I find it highly amusing that Romney and Ryan keep referring to "the last 4 years" when Obama has spent the last 4 years cleaning up a mess that Bush made in the previous 8 years. We have an incredible national debt because Bush and Cheney were war mongers, and managed things very badly, even for war mongers.

    We have a huge mess to clean up that hasn't been this bad since the Great Depression. Even economists have stated over and over that they were too optimistic about how long it would take to recover. As nobody can predict the future on something this big, I find it dishonest and disingenuous for R & R to be referring to "the last 4 years" as if Obama caused the national debt that Bush handed to the American people. I also find it very interesting that Bush is not being asked to stump for Romney the way Clinton is being asked to stump for Obama. That says a tremendous amount right there.

    1. aguasilver profile image88
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As I check this today October 19th 2012, that debt per citizen has now risen to $51,453

      On the 21st August in 2000 the same debt was $20,186 per head.

      Check it out for yourself: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

      If you look at it per taxpayer, then the current debt (October 19th 2012) is $141,318...each.

      In 2008 it was $95,278, so as a taxpayer, you are now $46,040 worse off than you were in 2008, or to put it another way, each taxpayer has been losing $11,510 per year for the last four years.

      Without getting into the vagueness of who is to blame, one thing is apparent... neither of the 'candidates' are fit for purpose, both are bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banksters crew.

      That is what needs to be changed.

      1. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
        Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that big money needs to get out of government, and that both candidates are bought and paid for. I just think that, of the two choices we have, Obama is the least bad. I don't trust that Romney even knows what the term "middle class" means, and he certainly has never seen the financial problems of the middle class impacting his own household.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        both are bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banksters crew.

        If this is truly the case, why have the bankers invested three times more into the Romney campaign then they have into the Obama Campaign? Even when Romney was lagging in the polls? Not just hedging their bets!
        Why have the Murdoch press made it their mission to discredit Obama whenever they can~ After all, the Murdochs are the bankers best friend! The Murdochs are the war mongers best friend. Why has Obama been asking the public for campaign funds, yet Romney doesn't need to?

        I agree that to some extent GS (or grasping sharks as I prefer to call them) have some control over the POTUS, whoever that maybe. However, it boils down to who they can control completely, and that appears not to be Obama.

        1. aguasilver profile image88
          aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There is no such thing as the lesser of the two evils, voting for the lesser evil, is still voting for evil.

          The fact that GS may prefer Romney, does not change the fact that they also are happy to horse-trade with Obama, and he is happy to accept their 'payments'.

          A whore is a whore, now all we are doing is haggling over the price.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I disagree that he's accepted their payments, I do agree that he's bended to their will when he feels that he's had to. If he'd accepted their payments, he wouldn't be asking for five dollars from each voter! He wouldn't need to, the next four years would be assured.

            Why would GS prefer Romney? Is it because he's a nice guy? Why the all out assualt on Obama from the Murdoch press?

            It's not about voting for the lesser evil. It's about voting for the party which will grant the evil less power.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are not getting what you think you are getting.
              I have dealt with both parties. I f you think one is wearing a white hat and the other black and that is that you are wrong. You are seeing the charade the press wants you to see and the parties keep mum about. It's a seditious game that has been played in American politics for far too long.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                JS, I'm 46 years old, I've NEVER received from politicians what I would like to get, never, from left nor right. It's not the white hat hat, black hat scenario. The way the world works, the parties I'd vote for (the Greens, Respect, the Labour Party of yesteryear) will never see power, because it is not in the interests of Big Business. However, in the interim there are those parties who GET this, but how much power they are willing to give to the nasties is the issue. Each will have to give some, unfortunately, it is what it is. Nevertheless, when you see the banksters piling their money into one party far more than another, you can bet your bottom dollar that the particular party is one which will allow the nasties (banksters) to get their way! That party will operate in their interests, not yours.

              2. RichusFridum profile image60
                RichusFridumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                JSChams speaks truth

            2. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Take a look here:

              http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

              Interesting reading!

              Barack Obama
              University of California    $706,931
              Microsoft Corp    $544,445
              Google Inc    $526,009
              Harvard University    $433,860
              US Government    $389,100

              Mitt Romney
              Goldman Sachs    $891,140
              Bank of America    $668,139
              JPMorgan Chase & Co    $663,219
              Morgan Stanley    $649,847
              Credit Suisse Group    $554,066

              Oh, and that third guy, the other one who should get a fair chance...

              Gary Johnson
              Morning Star Co    $10,000
              Tower Energy Group    $10,000
              Double Springs Ranch    $10,000
              Ryan Inc    $7,750
              Welcom Products    $7,500

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I agree that the third guy should be given a chance, I do. But you can hardly compare O's funding with that of Romney's. As far as I'm aware, universities do not create wars for oil and large profits for the defense industry.

                And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama at least attempt to have more transparency when it came to party funding?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, no. There is controversy over Obama accepting anonymous credit card donations without security codes, and the possibility of many of those donations coming from overseas.

                  Obama is NOT the guy to look to for transparency, lol.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If these payments are truly "anonymous" how can anyone speculate that they are from overseas donors? Emm.

                    Furthermore, and correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Obama the one pressing for  transparency when it came to donations? Don't recall the Republican party advocating for the same.

    2. kathleenkat profile image91
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.320.320/p403x403/69543_542363802459744_24569486_n.jpg

      Nobody is perfect...not even Obama. He contributed some to the current issues.

    3. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Even Obama has slacked off blaming Bush - it's been 4 years
      If you still want to blame the past - why not skip on back and blame George H. too.

      Obama's recession was only approx. 1.3% deeper than Trueman's 1948 recession - yet Trueman turned his very deep recession into a spectacular recovery within 16 months.

      These are stats from a federal reserve bank - so form your own opinion.
      http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicati … rspective/

      While Obama has barely gotten his head above water after 40+ months.

      Was Trueman just lucky?

      GA

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did Truman have a Congress that blocked his every move?

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Trueman had a democratic congress - just like Obama did - two years

          24 months of carte blanche ???

          Does that answer your question?

          GA

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I guess he misplaced his magic wand then...

            1. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Obama has not had a Congress that blocked his every move.......... smile  He had it his way and I suppose he should slap Pelosi on the back for the bulk of his accomplisments beyond his carte blanch excutive orders . . . that in fact do seem to be established via a "magic wand".

  3. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
    Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago

    Obama is not blatantly accepting the money that Romney is. However, all of Washington is having to keep in mind the next election and where the money will come from. Obama is getting mostly money from  the people, and that's one of the main reasons I voted for him the first time. However, nobody in Washington is able to avoid the money totally these days. The cost of an election is too high. You can bet that Obama has made some trades for favors, too. That's why we need a constitutional amendment to declare corporations as businesses and not as having the same rights as human beings. We also need to change our lobbying rights.

    1. SpeakUpStandOut profile image60
      SpeakUpStandOutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that Corporations are considered individuals. I doubt this will be overturned any time soon.

  4. SpeakUpStandOut profile image60
    SpeakUpStandOutposted 4 years ago

    If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, I think I might move out of the country. He might have had, "binders full of women", but the President has a real plan for the country. I listened to the debates, and Mit Romney talks about the President and his shortcomings but says nothing about how he is going to change America. The President inherited a mess, that he's taken steps to clean up. Romney will only be president to 53% of Americans because the other 47% arent his problem. Romney will not release his tax returns, what does he have to hide? He is going to remove taxes for people who earn under 200,000 on capital gains. Really? I wonder how many people who make between 30 and 50 thousand dollars (middle class) have capital gains. How helpful would this tax cut be to people who cant afford to have capital gains? He is also going to take tax credits away from the middle class. Romney is an RX for disaster!

    1. Petra Vlah profile image61
      Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I started a forum "Romney tax increase through the back door" precisely because the elimination of capital gain tax for middle class is a way to actually tax the middle class more (income of $53.000 a year according to the Census Bureau).
      By eliminating essential deductions (mortgage, children allocation, etc.) we will pay more taxes NOW, hoping for an eventual brake later (should it be anything left from our investments that have lost 30-40% of their value - so no gain to be taxed or exempt  whatsoever)
      No doubt more middle class people have mortgages  and children rather than capital gains. Whatever little investments regular people had was eaten by the financial disaster 
      All Romney is doing is trying to get us drank on pure water

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And yet, you completely ignore the fact that their tax rate...

        wait for it...

        will be lower!

        1. Petra Vlah profile image61
          Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Should we hope for 13%? to be at the same rate with Romney?
          Did Romney told anyone what lower means? 1% of what I am paying now is still lower, so I should be happy he is taking the deductions away, right?

          1. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Binders

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He's told you. 20%

            FYI... the MOST you will pay in taxes at 53k.... is 13%.

            If you are married, that drops to 8%.

            Married with 1 kid... 5%

            1. Petra Vlah profile image61
              Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I did not say I was making $53 k a year, so go back and read again what I said and then go and read the Census Bureau statistics to find out what the reported average income for middle class is

              And by the way, why should a person making 53k pay 20% in taxes when Romney pays ONLY 13% while making millions?

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I know. That's the figure you brought up for the middle class. I was just explaining what that income bracket already pays.

                EDIT: I was also telling you what Romney has been saying about lowering the rates.

                1. Petra Vlah profile image61
                  Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What you did not tell me is WHY a 53k should pay 20% and Romney pays 13% while making millions. Tell me how is this fair and I will vote for Romney, promise

                  1. movingout profile image60
                    movingoutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Check this out! Tells the story! http://actually.org/

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't say that.

                    You asked how much he would reduce tax rates by. I said 20%.

                    Currently, it is basically impossible for someone making $53,000 per year to pay more than 13%.

                    Have YOU read a thing I've said?

    2. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @Speakup:

      I heard it through the grapevine that if Obama does not get re-elected, he is going to immigrate to France, where after a few years of being a French citizen, he will run for the presidency of that country. I'm sure he will be elected because he will promise that he will make  France more socialst than what it is now. So how is your French?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's funny. Obama is nowhere close to being a socialist and the "real" socialists in France would laugh at anyone who said he was.

        1. kathleenkat profile image91
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think he has socialist tendencies, but is moderate at best. I think he is trying to take some elements that work in socialist countries.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He is no more socialist than Franklin Roosevelt was.

        2. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @Uninvited:
          The French, just like Joe Biden will laugh at  anything... so them laughing at me for saying Obama' would add to their already profuse socialism is not entriely surprising.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Only... Obama is not a socialist...

      2. SpeakUpStandOut profile image60
        SpeakUpStandOutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        at least in France I would not have to worry about if I can afford to see a doctor when I'm sick. So, if Obama goes to France to be President, I might just as well follow him.

        1. Greek One profile image80
          Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I heard Mitt will be moving to China, take over a couple of the companies there, and ship back a few of the jobs he sent gave them while in the private sector.

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          France is going to be in huge trouble. They have basically told rich people to stay away, and to leave if they are already there. It's not smart to kick out the people paying the most taxes already.

          Great if you want free stuff... sucks if you're really successful. If Romney lived there, and made $20 million this year, he would pay about $50 million in taxes. You think that's a great country?

        3. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @Speakup:
          Bon Voyage.

          1. 0
            Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The typical answer... if you dont like the way we do it... get out.

  5. 68
    logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago

    obama sees the handwriting on the wall.  That's why he is getting more vicious and less statesmanlike.
    He knows that people really don't want four more years of what he has given us in the last four.
    Trillion dollar yearly deficits.
    7-8% unemployment
    4-5 dollar a gallon gas
    funneling money to campaign contributors in the guise of small business loans and grants
    failed foreign policy-lack of respect by the world community-poorly secured embassies
    so on and so on.
    Gallop 7 day tracking poll shows Romney gaining a point a day the last 2 days.  Well beyond the margin of error.
    The handwriting is on the wall.  Even heard a rumor that some in the obama administration are putting out resumes.  Insider information perhaps?

  6. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 4 years ago

    I believe you have it backwards, it would more likely be Romney moving to France and running there for president! After all, being president "anywhere", would suffice his birth right of being a president.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not France.

      Lets say Romney is worth $250 million, and earns $20 million this year. His taxes in France(not counting anything other than income tax and wealth tax) would amount to something like $50 million per year.

  7. BloodRedPen profile image72
    BloodRedPenposted 4 years ago

    Save your voice Romney supporters - The Obama supporters on this thread have voters remorse and just can't be wrong. So your wasting your breath. They can't hear you over their shouting.

    1. kathleenkat profile image91
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I voted for O' in '08. I didn't vote for him this time, because, to be frank, he has become sorely disappointing to me. I have no remorse for my vote, because I thought he was the best choice for the country, at the time. It saddens me that that 1., people are remorseful, and 2., people use that as an excuse to insult people who support another candidate.

  8. 0
    Justsilvieposted 4 years ago

    I must live in the dumbest part of America. They just had a commercial if you don’t vote Republican we will wind up like Communist Era Hungary... This is getting surreal!

    1. Petra Vlah profile image61
      Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If the commercial would have omitted the word "communism" and would have mention only Hungary, almost the entire US would have been in geographic  panic.
      Remember Bierce? He rightfully said: "War is God's way to teach Americans Geography"

      1. 0
        Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Anti Socialism Ad of Hungari-Born Billionaire Republican Thomas Peterffy - Freedom To Succeed
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzh-9LBDsGQ

        They did not use the word communism I did. They replaced it with Socialism...Thomas Peterffy grew up behind the Iron Curtain and his HUGE LIE would make you laugh unless you realize that a portion of the population has no clue what the difference between the two are.


        People ought to visit Hungary today, because they are much better off then many of us here. They are parliamentary democracy with a decent social safety net and I am betting Peterffy has at least one home there.

        1. aguasilver profile image88
          aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ...and you think they achieved that because of socialism or communism?

          Maybe the Hungarian Revolution never happened and Russia did not send in the tanks to suppress the freedom that was desired...?

          1. 0
            Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Everyone knows Communism did not not work, but what has that got to do with Socialism? Why is it so hard for people to distinguish between the two?

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ...maybe because Socialism can lead to the other one... Communism and anyway, Socialism does not work either, as I have personally witnessed.

              1. 0
                Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I agree to an extent Socialism on its own does not work either.

                But people keep throwing around the words without any real clue to what is what. Most successful countries are smart enough to merge capitalism and socialism into a functioning marriage and that is a workable solution for everyone, except the ultra greedy…

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You mean the ultra successful?

                  Would you say France is a good example?

                  1. 0
                    Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not all successful people are ultra greedy. But is funny that we talk and talk about the despots in the Middle East and Africa taking their countries riches for themselves, with no consideration for their citizens, we fight for their so called democratic rights, but here, our attitudes are that there are those who are trying to take advantage of the poor misunderstood wealthy class... those damn socialists.

                    If you let the ultra wealthy keep going on the same path and you won’t see much difference here.   

                    I have no problem with people being rich, but I think greed has really clouded their judgment and the bottom line will be they will have to live in their castles with their bridges up because they are going to have to fear everyone else because those who have to live without long enough will eventually get fed up and take what they want and history will again repeat itself.

          2. Greek One profile image80
            Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            no... they achieved that because the removed Obama and his politburo Kenyan-born Islamist friends from office...

            then, when Russia sent in the tanks, they were ready for them!

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/4th_Light_Horse_Regiment_soldier_1916.jpg/220px-4th_Light_Horse_Regiment_soldier_1916.jpg

            1. Pearldiver profile image87
              Pearldiverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol  Apparently.... so too were the Diggers of the Australian Light Horse Brigade....

            2. 0
              Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That was one of the best retorts of the debate... I think that is going to follow Mitt for years to come.

  9. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    Don't know about the sunset of Obama's presidency, but watching Romneys' performance in tonight's debate makes me think that the sun has set on any chance Romney may have had. His performance is embarrassing.

  10. kathleenkat profile image91
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    Maybe. But many have already submitted their votes. I was surprised to see another debate after I had already dropped my ballot on the mail (I thought there were 2 prezzy and 1 vp).

  11. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    I imagine that tonight's debate will only have any clout with those who are undecided and yet to vote.

    1. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Romney embarrassing . . . . hmmm . . . nice try, the sun is in fact rising on the USA once again - no matter the so-called outcome of the official election.

      1. kathleenkat profile image91
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I find Obama to be equally as embarrassing. Neither of them know how to listen to each other. How many native-born, college-educated Americans over the age of 35 are there to choose from? Why these two? People with law degrees...they both have law degrees. They argue like lawyers. I'd like to see a debate with people from another field asides from law. Perhaps economics.

        1. KFlippin profile image60
          KFlippinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps economics . . . that just chokes me right up...... smile

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nice try, I'm not trying anything. I'm merely stating that a candidate who believes that Iran's only route to the sea is Syria, seriously needs some geography lessons. Now that is embarrassing!

        1. Petra Vlah profile image61
          Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Remember the one who could see Russia from her backyard?

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, the pair of them need to go back to school! big_smile

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you care so much about what Tina Fey said?

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Tina Fey? No I just find it a bit disconcerting that a potential president is lacking when it comes to the geography department.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You guys keep talking about what Tina Fey said about seeing Russia from her house.

                  1. Petra Vlah profile image61
                    Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    NO, we are NOT. We are talking about Sarah Palin

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Tina Fey? What about her?

            1. Petra Vlah profile image61
              Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I guess you are right and Tina Fey was running as the vice-president

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ?

                1. Petra Vlah profile image61
                  Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I had the same ??? plus a hundred !!!!! when I heard the ever so bright Sarah Palin making the statement during the Gibson interview.
                  But wait, it gets better....Africa is a country and North Korea has been our allay for a long time

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, she didn't say that.

                    Tina Fey said it in a skit on SNL. Not Sarah Palin.

                  2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    She actually said you can see Russia from Alaska.

        2. 0
          Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I know! I thought maybe we better add some world History and Geography teachers, to the Science and Math. There is a dire need.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, also loved how Romney's take on the economic opportunities in Latin America amounted to, wait for it, language opportunities. What on earth was he prattling on about?

            1. 0
              Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well his party said his stance this round was to attract women voters... so that says it all… He thinks we are dumb!

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Are we the 47% perhaps?

        3. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @Hollie:
          Romney was saying that Syria's route to the sea is Iran, not the other way around. We all know that Syria is a land-locked country.

          1. 0
            Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe you are joking and if if you are  ... LOL

            If you are not, you need to look at a map...
            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7296560_f248.jpg

            1. A.Villarasa profile image80
              A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @Justsilvie:

              LOL. of course I'm joking.. just to dampen the rabidity of those who would  hold on to the idea that  Americans learn geography by going to war.

              1. 0
                Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Unfortunately those people are not far of… It is a large planet and unless we accept the fact we are a global society, there is little interest to learn more about the rest of the world.

          2. Greek One profile image80
            Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            not after Turkey starts bombing the hell out of it soon

          3. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @ A.Villarasa.

            It doesn't matter which country he meant (although I admit that he does appear unable to articulate *exactly* what it is he means) he was wrong on both counts.

            "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world," he said. "It's their route to the sea."
            Iran actually has a long southern seacoast along the Persian Gulf. In the north, it borders the Caspian Sea. Syria has a coast on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea.

            1. kathleenkat profile image91
              kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Access to the Mediterranian Sea would be worth making an ally for. They can get their goods to Europe, Africa, and accross the Atlantic easily.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, but that's not the issue. Romney appears to think that either (and it's not exactly clear what he's thinking, I agree) Iran has no access to the sea, or Syria has no access to the sea.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  He was probably referring to the Mediterranean sea... after all, lots of iran's oil goes to turkey, and to europe. It doesn't make sense to send it around africa to get to europe.

                  1. 0
                    Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Iran is also able to reach the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal, plus since the sanctions have been put into place Europe does not import Iranian Oil… But explanations aside the man needs to take a geography class FAST.

            2. A.Villarasa profile image80
              A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @Hollie:

              So now one of your criteria for selecting a president this November is that he knows his  world geography well.... like the back of his hand.  One of  my  criteria is that he knows the US geography well... Obama seemed to think that there are 57 states in the union, but I'm sure his teleprompter was malfunctiong that day in Oregon.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, one of my criteria for electing one of the most powerful men in the world, a very unstable world at that, would be that when he was discussing foreign policy he would at least be able to accurately pinpoint the countries in question and whether they have access to the sea. Given that we are discussing Iran, Syria, crippling sanctions and trade routes, I do believe that extensive knowledge in this area should be a pre-requisite for any Commander In Chief, don't you?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                  A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  @Hollie:
                  Of course, but  those are very superficial issues. If Mitt Romney is not too steady about his geography, then Obama saying that Hirohito personally surrendered to MacArthur, also says much about his knowledge of history.

  12. lone77star profile image92
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    @A.Villarasa, your faith in Romney is misguided.

    He works for the Corporate Party, just like Obama and Bush.

    The Corporate Party agenda is,

    * More War!
    * More Tyranny!
    * More Economic Meltdown! With the national debt at $16.3 TRILLION and accelerating, that meltdown is coming sooner than later.

    Obama has his "Kill List" which includes American citizens. Obama has made it clear that Gitmo prisoners will stay there even if they are found innocent!

    And Obama signed, and Romney would've signed, the NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens -- no charges, no attorney, no trial, no phone call.

    The Corporate Party has done a slick job of demonizing the Constitution and those who would attempt to restore it. Romney is in that crowd.

    Spin control has tried to keep both presidential Demons looking pure, but it's pure delusion.

    Goebbels would be envious at how well the Corporate Party media spin doctors are working this. Americans have become deluded into thinking that everything is normal and that choice is still alive.

    Just look at the following videos from the two halves of the Corporate Party presidential convention:

    RNC Scripted:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE

    DNC Scripted:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY

    Tyranny is becoming thicker and thicker and Romney is just another Corporate Party stooge obeying his Goldman-Sachs and Chase Manhattan masters.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @lone star:

      Are you then suggesting that this election is an exercize in futility? I beg to disagree. Obama has shown his true colors the past 4 years, and I find his colors  appalingly  socialistic, anti-christian, and pro-muslim.

      Now we will soon find out what  Romney's true colors are if and when he gets elected POTUS. If  at the end of his term  we decide he was a disappointment, then we would have a chance to throw hiim out of office, and elect someone else. The cycle of American politics goes on.

  13. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    I appreciate how the debates have allowed for the summation of Mitt's foreign policy, and domestic economic policies, in one visual image

    http://www.mad4ponies.com/acatalog/503-0017.jpg

  14. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Coastal plain
    Along the Mediterranean, a narrow coastal plain stretches south from the Turkish border to Lebanon. The flatness of this littoral, covered with sand dunes, is broken only by lateral promontories running down from the mountains to the sea. The major ports are Latakia and Tartous. Syria claimed a territorial limit of 35 nautical miles (64.8 km; 40.3 mi) off its Mediterranean coastline. However, in 2003, Syria unilaterally declared its maritime zones, adhering to the 12 nautical miles allowed by the United Nations Law of the Sea.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Syria



    http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/middle-east/syria/map_of_syria.jpg

    hmm ?

  15. Repairguy47 profile image60
    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago
  16. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    @ Jaxonraine. I actually watched one of the series aired on Sky TV a few years ago, featuring Ms. Palin and heard her with my own ears, she clearly stated that on a clear day she could see Russia from her bedroom window. I'm going to try to find the footage, although Sky are a bit tight so it may take a few hours.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What, on SNL?

      That wasn't Sarah Palin!

      Sarah Palin said that you can see Russian land from Alaskan land. There are two islands that are within sight of each other.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk

      Tina Fey was making fun of it. That wasn't Palin on SNL.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You're wasting your time, they will say anything to make Palin look bad.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Don't be ridiculous. People don't have to even attempt to make Sarah Palin look bad, she manages to do it so well on her own.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, not on SNL. There was an eight part series about the life of SP, presented by SP, and broadcast in England a few years ago. And, Sarah Palin said "on a clear day I can see Russia from my bedroom window." You may not like this, but it happened. I told you, I'll try to find the footage.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't really care, I wasn't a fan of anybody last election... but I've never seen what you described.

          If you find it, I'll take back what I said smile

  17. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 4 years ago

    Scary! If elected he might attack an ally rather then a foe! lol

    1. 0
      Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol

  18. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Either Barack Obama needs a more thorough geography lesson than Mitt Romney or he entered an election in the wrong nation!  Talk about a "duh" moment!  I am sure Obama supporters have, what they feel, is a valid excuse for his incompetence!

    57 states and he was not counting Alaska and Hawaii.  I know, he had the wrong intelligence report, another case of having a valid reason to blame it on George Bush.  lol

    Presidential candidate senator Barack Obama stated that he was going to campaign in all 57 states. 

    The Truth: 
    The part about Obama referencing "57 states" is true, but the quote is slightly different than presented in the eRumor. 

    He did not say he was going to campaign in 57 states but that he already had.

    It was at a campaign appearance in Beaverton, Oregon, on May 9, 2008.  Obama said, "It is just wonderful to be back in Oregon. And over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states; I think one left to go."  His campaign said it was obviously a mistake.  Nobody believed that he really thought there were 57 states.


    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/ … states.htm


    Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He made one slip of the tongue and you guys have been going on and on about it for 4 years like he actually believed it.

  19. kathleenkat profile image91
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    Probably meant 47, but whomever wrote his speech cards made a typo.

  20. kathleenkat profile image91
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    I personally find it hard to memorize all the countries of the world, and where they are located in relation to water and geography.

    That said, I would surely make sure what I'm saying is correct before I start talking about it on a live television broadcast.

    1. Petra Vlah profile image61
      Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      World geography, as well as American geography is NOT part of our education system. No wonder Bierce said that "War is God's way to teach Americans geography"

      1. kathleenkat profile image91
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It actually was for me. I just forgot most of it. I can recall, specifically in grades 6 and 10, having to memorize world geography maps. It was tedious. I grew up in the States, in the 1990s.

        1. Petra Vlah profile image61
          Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What a shame you find geography to be tedious.

          1. kathleenkat profile image91
            kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, its is very shameful to find the prospect of filling in names on a map to be tedious. I think I'll go repent in the confessional, now.

            1. Petra Vlah profile image61
              Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is more fun to memorize historic dates? It is more fun to learn by heart chemical symbols?
              I guess ignorance is the most fun of them all! And that is what American students suffer from since nothing of this could be learned by playing games on the computer and posting on Face Book

              1. kathleenkat profile image91
                kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, Facebook didn't exist when I was growing up, and I didn't use a computer until I was 14, and needed it for research papers (typing was required at this point).

                Memorizing historical dates and chemical symbols is also tedious, for me.

                We all learn differntly. I find art, msuic, design, and engineering to be more mentally stimulating to me because I learn better with hand-on, interactive media. I don't know why, I just do. That's how I learned German; I spoke with and interacted in German, and the only way I could memorize terms was by hearing them spoken to me, and then I myself repeating them. I was a sucker for spelling too.

                Your comment on ignorance, and American students for that matter, is offensive. Looking at your profile, I see that you aren't even from America. Your knowledge on American schools is minimal at best, until you, yourself, have attended school here. But it's probably a little late for you to attend Elementary school.

                1. Petra Vlah profile image61
                  Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The one offensive and defensive here is YOU. You may need to live two consecutive livetimes to learn half of what I knew when I came to America with a Master degree and fluent in 5 languages.
                  My knowledge of the American school system is extensive so don't worry about that
                  Your last sentence:" But it's probably a little late for you to attend Elementary school" only proves once more that you have a need to be aggressive in order to defend the indefensible, but then again, I should not expect much

                  1. kathleenkat profile image91
                    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    WOW. That is more judgement passed in 100 words than I think I have ever seen on HubPages. You should win a prize.

                    Our schools are great. I received a great education. I have two college degrees, as well, but I'm not going to go around talking about how that makes me more knowledgeable than some random person I met online. Also, I speak more than one language, too. Guess I'm just less of a smart ass about it.

                    And DAMN STRAIGHT I am aggressive; you just INSULTED my country, my country's educational system, and me, by stating how sorry it was that I found the subject of geography tedious.

                    We all learn differently. We all have different interests. We all have different strengths and weaknesses. Oh, and America produces some pretty smart and innovative people, too. Some of them even have masters degrees, and speak multiple languages, just like yourself.

                    I don't like your condescending tone. And I don't know what you mean by living "two lifetimes." Last I checked, only cats had multiple lives, and that was just a figure of speech. And no, there is no way you know more about American primary schools unless you yourself have been there. Since you obviously could never have been an American kid growing up in America learning from our 'sub-paar' schools, are you a teacher? Then maybe you have room to say you "know more" than me, however, your profile says you write books, so who knows?

                    You have nothing but speculation as far as I'm concerned. Also, they teach you how to play nice in American Kindergarten, by the way.

                    Oh, and yeah, you are too old to attend Elementary school. I was right about that. Unless you're a child, in which case, you cannot write for HubPages under the age of 18.

  21. Xenonlit profile image59
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    How about the theft of another presidential election? Who could possibly cheer a take over by Republicans? There will be a November surprise. Voters are intense this year.

    1. BloodRedPen profile image72
      BloodRedPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You seem to forget - America has (for the most part) a two party system. I for one will cheer when a Republican takes the Whitehouse and hope the Senate too.

  22. DavidMarket profile image60
    DavidMarketposted 4 years ago

    Hello, Africa is not a country "Africa is a continent that consist of more than 50 Countries ".....Take note of that, thanks

 
working