jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (80 posts)

Bin Laden dead, auto industry alive, powerful simple message.

  1. mio cid profile image40
    mio cidposted 5 years ago

    Can the republicans diminish the significance of this  powerful truth ,as the republicans were against both these accomplishments by a democratic president?

    1. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Republicans were against the death of bin laden? Could you point me to your source for that simple truth? As for the auto industry Republicans were against giving power to the unions and screwing those who had skin in the game.

      1. robie2 profile image98
        robie2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        George Bush said that getting bin Laden was not important-- don't you remember that?  Of course he said that because he had failed miserably to get him which was doubly embarassing after all his " Wanted dead or alive" bravado.

        As for the auto industry, it was two weeks away from total bankruptcy. Failing to help would have meant not only the loss of thousands of jobs ( union and non union) it would also have plunged theeconomy into total depression if the third largest industry in the USA went under.. Obama saved the day and btw-- Ford didn't take any money and both GM and Crysler have  totally paid back the bail out loans and are now profitable-- what is your problem???

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Really, paid it all back huh. How about the 4.8 billion Bush gave them? You may want to check the truthfulness of your darling Obama, he tends to stretch the truth when it suits him.

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Ugh, so much misinformation.

          The auto industry was facing bankruptcy. Bush gave them emergency bailout funds. I oppose this practice. Romney opposed it. Romney said 'let them go through bankruptcy, restructure, and come out strong'.

          The bailout didn't work, so the government gave them more money. That didn't work, so they ended up filing bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.

          Now, they are currently doing well, yes, but they haven't paid back the money. In GM alone, we are about $25 billion short. If we ever sell the stock we might recoup $10 billion of that. In addition, GM doesn't pay any taxes for a while. They have a $45 billion tax break. The total cost of the bailout to GM, that isn't returned, is going to be between $55 and $70 billion dollars.

          If they had listened to Romney, the auto industry would have turned around sooner, they would be stronger now, and they certainly wouldn't be continuing to rip off taxpayers every year by not paying taxes. They actually get a refund check.

          How do you like that? Your poster-company GM, which went through the process Romney recommended, isn't paying any taxes, and is getting refund checks. Are you really going to tout that as a win for Obama?

        3. GA Anderson profile image81
          GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Although the question of whether a government bailout was the only possible remedy is still a hotly debated topic - most of the points in the above quoted paragraph are either incorrect or an opinion  - not facts.

          ie. GM HAS NOT paid back all the bailout money - and the majority of what they did pay back - was paid back with MORE TARP money - not GM generated money

          Not exactly argumentatively challenging you - but you should double-check those statements before you stand behind them as fact - rather than opinion.

          GA

          *edit - whoops! After reading the rest of the thread - I see this issue has already been well addressed

        4. Ralph Deeds profile image64
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "George Bush said that getting bin Laden was not important-- don't you remember that? "

          True, I'd forgotten that. Instead he started a futile, endless war and nation-building in Afghanistan.

      2. mio cid profile image40
        mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        KING: If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?

        MCCAIN: Larry, I’m not going to go there and here’s why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. I think the Pakistanis would want bin Laden out of their hair and out of their country and it’s causing great difficulties in Pakistan itself.                                                                                                                                                          Mc Cain INTERVIEW WITH LARRY KING.                                                                                                                            Romney to REUTERS:(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          What two republicans said hardly speaks for all of us. Just because liberals follow in Lock step with their masters doesn't mean we do.

          1. mio cid profile image40
            mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            you asked me to prove my statement is true and I did.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You didn't prove that republicans were against getting bin laden. You proved that two men would have done something different. Try again.

              1. mio cid profile image40
                mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You are good at spinning  something that was positive for the country  into something that can benefit your party politically, but the truth is that the person who would have been president had the republicans won the 2008 election and the person who will be president if he wins in november didn't think bin laden should have been killed in  the circumstances he was. You can not deem these republican leaders irrelevant , or you can but it's foolish.

                1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Obama is done, his only sensible decision won't save him.

                  1. mio cid profile image40
                    mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    That and the fact that he will probably get 80 percent of the hispanic vote could win him reelection.It will be an uphill battle but he can win.I wouldn't be measuring the drapes if I was a republican.

      3. profile image0
        LikaMarieposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Repair Guy,
        It's not so much that Republicans were against the death of Bin Laden, as much as more resentful that we got him under a democratic president.  I've heard so many things from my conservative friends downing Obama because "it was the conservatives like G.W. Bush that made it possible to get Bin Laden"...  Which ever way you slice it, we got Bin Laden, and that's a good thing, regardless of WHO is in power here, or who helped.  Bin Laden is gone.  Mission accomplished.  This should be a celebration for Americans as a whole.

        1. mio cid profile image40
          mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Republicans these days seem to have a very hard time recognizing any accomplishment by a democratic president.

      4. Ralph Deeds profile image64
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Bush failed to follow through and get Bin Laden. And he was diverted by the foolish, unnecessary, costly invasion of Iraq.

    2. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Wow I sure wish that right and wrong and one party against another and left and right were so clear cut and black and white. But Mio Cid you must know such is not the case. Blaming and criticism have always been the frustrated claims of those without a purpose. One good premise in favor of a position, is worth 10,000 tearing it down. When we forum in such a manner we may gain Rah Rahs and Kudos, but we lose education and provocative thoughts. Cheerleaders are seldom chosen for their raw intelligence. Mio Cid you can do better than feeding frenzies without deep thought.

      1. mio cid profile image40
        mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I think these are two great accomplishments by a president that the opposition party claims has no accomplishments to show. Isn't it important to have saved the auto industry that sustains millions of working families in a time when unemployment is such a  threat to the well being of the country?And isn't it important to have killed the brutal terrorist responsible for the death of thousands of innocent civilians and   destroyed some of the possibly  most iconic buildings in one of america's main cities, and created an economic storm that cost the country billions?                                                                                                                                                 I'm sorry I  have to disagree with you, and i do value your opinion highly, but if the democrats don't make the case for the president's reelection , and that is a truthful statement, than the false statements spewed by the republicans will go uncontested.and that is not right.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You may not understand Obama did not kill bin laden he gave an order to send men into harms way. Those men accomplished something not Obama. And before you bring up it being more than Bush did don't. Bush gave orders to liberate entire countries from brutal dictators. Rather pales in comparison.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            But sadly, they could never find bin Laden

            1. KK Trainor profile image60
              KK Trainorposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              They didn't find him while Bush was in office, but they found him using interrogation tactics that Bush allowed and Obama discontinued. The intelligence had already been gained and was being followed up on during the intervening years. How about a little common sense for a change, the credit lies with everyone involved from the time they captured those guys and put them in Gitmo.

          2. mio cid profile image40
            mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            As most republicans you are incapable of recognizing any achievement  by a president of the democratic party. Not surprising.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              If Obama had fast roped out of a helicopter in Pakistan I would be the first to recognise that. Alas he did nothing more than give the OK for the quiet professionals to do what they do. Was it the right order? Absolutely! But any President would have done it.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                But not all Presidents have been that successful. Ah recent history, it just seems to come back and bite the SILENT ones in the ass.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image87
                Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Howdy there Repairguy.  Thank you for sharing your opinions with us. I realize the two posts above where directed to Mio Cid and I hope he does not mind my jumping in here to reply.

                When it comes to the demise of Osama bin Laden, I believe Americans realize that President Obama’s “Mission Approved” action was far more effective than President Bush’s “Mission Accomplish” speech. 

                I agree with you that a great deal of credit goes to those navy seals that risked their lives on that mission. However, it saddens me to see opponents of the current administration trivialize the elimination of bin Laden to thwart the President’s re-election. In particular, I would like to address your objections “Republicans were against the death of bin laden?” and “But any President would have done it.” Since I believe actions speak louder than words, permit me to recap President Bush’s plan in his own words:

                "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
                - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

                "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'” -G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

                "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

                Finally, The Washington Post reported that the CIA unit dedicated to capturing bin Laden was shut down by President Bush in late 2005. {1}

                Now let us compare that plan to President Obama’s plan: 
                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6543020_f248.jpg
                On May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama delivered justice on behalf of the American people.

                I repect your opinions, Repairguy, and I hope you are always able to pursue your bliss. However, we should never allow our zeal to shorten our memories.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00375.html

          3. Mighty Mom profile image87
            Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yet when Obama sends troops in to help liberate countries from brutal dictators he is vilified.
            Can't have it both ways.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image81
              HowardBThinameposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              That was just because he violated the War Powers Resolution to do it. Our laws are there for a reason - a president that goes off half-cocked like a maverick is worrisome.

              Had he gone through the right channels - that would have been a different story.

              1. mio cid profile image40
                mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                you know this reads and sounds lame right?

    3. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Awesome job here Mio Cid. You beat the Tuesday press to the punch. You work here is timely and in sync with the issues of the day.  What my problem is, is that I think we are really blessed in this country to have both these fine men compete for our support. Boy o Boy twenty years ago we could have neither a Mormon or a Black man even consider the position. I just love this country.

      1. mio cid profile image40
        mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        we should all be proud of our country, and we should all fulfill our civic duty and vote for whichever candidate we support on election day, each one of us has our reasons to support one candidate or another but the participation of more people make democracy and the country better.

        1. Ericdierker profile image59
          Ericdierkerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Amen Brother,   But please keep expounding, I do believe you are educating me, and hopefully some others

          1. mio cid profile image40
            mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            dialogue is always  enriching for those involved,  I really see no learning potential in only talking to people I agree with.

      2. KK Trainor profile image60
        KK Trainorposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Well Alan Keyes is black and he ran for the Republican nomination in 1996, so he was at least considering it. He's just a little bit too conservative for some Republicans and didn't get too far...

  2. peeples profile image93
    peeplesposted 5 years ago

    All the talk about the auto industry, no talk about all the thousands of other businesses that have closed, the lack of jobs, or the fact that our country is in debt? While I am thankful Bin Laden is gone and thankful the auto industry is alive, I don't see those being much in comparison to the current condition of our country.

    1. KK Trainor profile image60
      KK Trainorposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Saving the auto industry is most important to union workers who kept their jobs and Democrats who want to use it as a talking point. The rest of us have not gained anything from the bailout since it really only benefitted the unions while screwing the bond holders and stockholders in the companies. Were there lots of peripheral jobs saved along the way, sure. But bankruptcy would have been a much better alternative since the union contracts would have been renegotiated and money would have been saved. Funny how Ford did just that and they took no money; they are alive and well without the burden of government on their backs.

      No, the rest of us who are jobless or watching loved ones struggle can only wish that Obama had cared about the rest of the country as much as he cared about the unions. His payoffs to them come at the expense of the rest of us.

      1. mio cid profile image40
        mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Explain to me how it would be good for America to no longer have an auto manufacturing industry at all.

    2. mio cid profile image40
      mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Most people have forgotten where we were  four years ago, things are not great, but we have certainly come a long way from where we were then. if you want I'll post a bunch of stuff about that time and you'll see it's not just osama dead and gm alive, that is just a short bumpersticker example i posted but in reality there is much more than that.

      1. peeples profile image93
        peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I don't doubt there has been more good, but at the end of the day can you look at our country, at the people losing homes still, the people with out jobs, the children going hungry, the business owners filing bankrupcy, and believe our country is heading in the right direction? Now I am not saying Mitt is the answer or anything, however I don't see Obama being the answer either. No matter the good none of it makes up for those starving, homeless, and losing all hope.

        1. mio cid profile image40
          mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Back when there was  a republican president I had to remind people all the time we live in one of the richest and most exceptional countries in the world and although things might get tough we should be grateful and hopeful for what we have . having come from an underdeveloped country I and most immigrants know this too well,Now there is a Democratic president who I support and I still have to remind a lot of people of the same thing.

  3. Repairguy47 profile image60
    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago

    He may get 80% of the Hispanic vote. But he loses most of the independents,moderates and a big portion of the young who are four years older and a whole lot smarter.

    1. mio cid profile image40
      mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You may be right, maybe he will loose, but I will work hard   for him to be reelected, and  if he doesn't just like the METS, there's always next season.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Its lose not loose
        And you are working hard, doing exactly what most Obama followers do. Spreading misinformation hoping to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

        1. Xenonlit profile image61
          Xenonlitposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Ow! Cliche attack! That hurts. Those two sentences contained not one fact or thought.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I believe one fact was there unless you think its spelled loose too. Hows that for thought? Drrrrrrrr

        2. mio cid profile image40
          mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          thanks for the spelling lesson,I'll take a win in November rabbit out of the hat or not.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sure you wouldn't mind how the election is won. Maybe it will come down to hanging Chad's again.

            1. mio cid profile image40
              mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              After the election is over whatever the outcome it will stand, it is said that Nixon had an election stolen from him and Gore had an election stolen from him, none of that matters except as an anecdote , I will celebrate a democratic victory if it materializes, but in any case I still will have to go to work the next day, and life goes on ,it won't be the first or the last time we've had a bad president, that is the beauty of democracy, we always have a next election to look forward to, and having lived under a dictatorship that is not a small thing , believe you me.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Lets revisit Bush/Gore shall we. Bush won the initial count and then the recount. The only thing stolen was the time spent trying to change those FACTS. Thank God the Supreme Court put a stop to typical democrat B/S.

                1. mio cid profile image40
                  mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  oops ,you meant to say thank god right?

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I did.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Analysis based on indisputable data and facts. The Repairguy is so funny. lol

  4. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    Mio, do you care to address my points about the auto industry?

    GM did go bankrupt, after taking billions of taxpayer dollars. They are still short in paying us back, and they don't have to pay $45 billion in taxes.

    Why do you think GM is an example of Obama's success, when what Bush and Obama tried with GM failed(bailout didn't work), and GM went bankrupt(like Romney suggested).

    Why do you think you should tout a company that is getting tax refunds, instead of paying taxes, as a success of Obama? Is it fair for GM to pay no taxes?

    1. mio cid profile image40
      mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Commentary
      Feb. 28, 2012Drew Winter | WardsAuto
      EMAIL
      INSHARE



      COMMENTS 17
      Confronted with a resurgent GM and Chrysler, Romney has invented a pipedream that allows him to deny both the Obama and Bush Administrations credit for the two auto makers’ recovery.

      Advertisement

      Half-truths are a staple of all political campaigns, but Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is wrecking his viability as a candidate by making statements that are 100% untrue just to discredit the success of the government rescue of General Motors and Chrysler.

      This may work playing to the base in Republican primaries, but it will ruin him in the national election against Barack Obama if he makes it that far.

      Romney argued against a government bailout in a famous 2008 editorial in the New York Times, saying it would be good for the auto industry if Detroit auto makers were denied government assistance and allowed to go bankrupt.

      Now confronted with a resurgent GM and Chrysler, Romney has invented a pipedream that allows him to deny both the Obama and Bush Administrations credit for the auto makers’ recovery while avoiding accusations he did not care about the consequences of a vast auto industry meltdown.

      It’s a cynical ploy to dupe voters into believing Detroit could have done just as well going through a privately funded managed bankruptcy rather than an $82 billion government-orchestrated rescue. It also is an insult to Michigan voters who know better.

      To those of us who closely follow the auto industry, the bailouts are a spectacular success. GM and Chrysler now are back in the black, adding thousands of new jobs and pushing Michigan’s unemployment rate from 14.1% in 2009 to 9.3% today.

      More importantly, preventing the auto maker shutdowns in 2009 averted an economic catastrophe that would have devastated the entire North American auto industry and cost more than 1 million jobs, according to the Center for Automotive Research.

      Government coffers received $28.6 billion in higher personal income taxes, Social Security receipts and other benefits in 2009-2010 simply because GM and Chrysler did not go belly up, CAR says. And they paid back their outstanding loans in 2011.

      In late 2008, then-President George Bush was keenly aware the failure of GM and Chrysler could push the U.S. economy into a full-blown depression, so he stepped in and signed off on $17.4 billion in loans, requiring GM and Chrysler to develop restructuring plans under President Obama's watch.

      During a recent speech, Bush said he had no regrets about the auto bailout and would do it again “Because I didn’t want there to be 21% unemployment.”

      But as candidate Romney knows all too well a stunningly high number of Michiganders still think the government rescue was a bad idea.

      An NBC/Marist poll recently found that only 42% of Michigan Republicans who were likely to vote supported the government’s actions, while 50% were opposed and apparently willfully ignorant enough to swallow the whopper he has concocted.

      At the heart of Romney’s big fat lie is the idea that GM and Chrysler could have obtained private financing for managed bankruptcies, an idea that economists and auto industry insiders alike label “delusional.”

      “That sounds like a wonderfully sensible approach – except that it’s utter fantasy,” Steven Rattner, the former leader of the Obama Administration’s auto task force writes recently in the New York Times.

      “In late 2008 and early 2009, when GM and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines. If Mr. Romney disagrees, he should come forward with specific names of willing investors in place of empty rhetoric. I predict that he won’t be able to, because there aren’t any,” Rattner writes.

      Not only was there no private capital available to provide debtor-in-possession financing for a managed bankruptcy, (the money required to keep a company running while it is being restructured), there was no access to capital for other auto companies interested in buying up valuable pieces of each auto maker, such as Jeep, during a liquidation fire sale.

      Without government aid, there would have been no managed bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler would have closed their doors, laid off their workers and the North American auto supplier base would have fallen like dominoes, plunging the U.S. into a 1930s-style depression.

      Fearing their own economic meltdowns during the same time, the governments of most other major industrialized nations from China to Europe also provided bailouts of some kind to their auto industries. 

      And thanks to U.S. government help, GM posted a record $7.6 billion profit for 2011 and took back the title of world’s largest auto maker from Toyota. Chrysler showed a $2 billion full-year operating profit in 2011 and sales were up 37.4% for the year, according to WardsAuto data, allowing it to pass Honda in U.S. deliveries.

      Meanwhile, Mitt Romney’s fate as Republican front-runner grows more tenuous by the day. If he loses the Republican nomination or the national election to Obama, GM and Chrysler will prove success indeed is the best revenge.

  5. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    Ugh, I hate when people won't discuss, they just copy other peoples' words. I don't want to argue with wards auto.

    GM has NOT paid back all it's money. The total tax bill will end up being between $50 and $75 BILLION. That will never be paid back.

    GM did not need all the money it received. We bailed them out and continued to let them operate at a loss. If we had just fixed the problem then, we wouldn't have had to spend so much on them. Think of it this way. How much more would it have cost if we bailed them out for another year, operating at a loss?

    Try to make your own arguments.

    Do you think it is fair that we are not taxing GM even though it has record profits? Is that an accomplishment to cheer about?

    1. mio cid profile image40
      mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well all i'm saying is that just as you believe saving gm in the way Obama did it was wrong and a negative result was obtained, and your view is valid. there are many of us who believe saving the auto industry was worth the investment and  many experts have expressed publicly that the Romney way would not have  saved the auto industry,of course being that he specialized in profiting from closing companies I'm sure somebody would've profited from such closing so that would've been fine with him . but the people who agree with the bailout  don't think that would be the best for the country, and i think that too is a valid position.

  6. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    Yeah...

    Trying to have a real conversation is like pulling teeth sometimes.

  7. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 5 years ago

    The American madness may soon lead to a grave.  In 2012 the greatest danger facing America is brutal internal propaganda zealots employing devilish hostile-folly as a scavenging tool.  It resonates through a multifaceted, complicit, corrupt, and subversive political madness occurring under the guise of societal fairness, immoral equality, and religious freedom.  The diabolical ballyhoo inflicted upon the highly agitated American society explodes into a satanic fissure of suffering and ominous imminent danger. 
    Wailing fanatical and immoral factions are purposely inflamed by ruthlessly cunning glib-politicians, drug-cartels, and jihad-activists; each determined to decisively destroy America by whatever means it takes.  Clamoring concerned patriots formally joust with disreputable government tinkle-vultures in an attempt to salvage and protect the endangered Constitutional reins.  The patriotic quest instinctively designed so citizens may recover, restore, and rebuild the dominant society now weakened by the hands of radical exterminators who wish to bury the nation in an immoral and deranged-terror grave.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You are referring to the Tea Party, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al, I assume?

      1. mio cid profile image40
        mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        the  people dictating to romney how to run his campaign are dick the toe sucker morris,and frank luntz,rush limbaugh and sean hannity.

  8. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 5 years ago

    Bin Laden dead - courtesy of Seal Team 6

    auto industry alive - not quite yet, since they still owe more than they make.

    powerful simple message - not achievable in today's diabolical politics

    The nation is facing the worst distressful economic financial crisis since 1929.  The country is additionally at risk due to the inflammatory embellished political rhetoric being focused on the citizenry who seek a solution to this distress.  It is natural for humans to spoil in the deceptions of hope because many are apt to shut their eyes against the truth.  This is not the path of the wise man, but those who seek inappropriate change to our foundational liberty.   

    We can no longer deceive ourselves or allow the politicians to impose their tricks on us, because the anguish and suffering being levied upon this great land is weakening our ability to preserve the nation.  The battle that we face is not a simple one of nation against nation, but of a perceptual deviate leadership that pits deceitful brother against devious brother.

    This is a serious endeavor because the siege that we are attempting to terminate is a covert internal one that has never before been encountered.  Even when compared to our “Civil War”, this current siege dwarfs those embattlements and parapets that inflicted social and physical havoc within the land.

    1. mio cid profile image40
      mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      you are too extreme for my taste , and seem to speak in the language of the larouchies and that doesn't  inspire me to respond to your comments

      1. taburkett profile image60
        taburkettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        sometimes the truth hurts........

  9. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    It's fascinating (hilarious) how fast and furious the slogans and soundbites are flying.
    Whatever happened to "You didn't build that" which got claimed as "We built that" which is now 3 colossal Twitter promoyrf campaign failures for Team Romney in as many days.
    Today' is #16TrillionFail.

    This says it all:
    $360,000+ paid by @MittRomney to Twitter for 3 days of 3 failed promoted trends? That's what I call sensible spending! #16TrillionFail

  10. tirelesstraveler profile image80
    tirelesstravelerposted 5 years ago

    I don't believe Toyota, Mazda or Honda got any of the bail out and they make a ton of cars in the US. Your correct that the car industry is alive and well in the US.  GM and Chrysler are small potatoes in the car industry. .
    http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Nation … d_ST_U.htm

    1. mio cid profile image40
      mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Toyota mazda and nissan didn't need any bailout because they are subsidized and supported by the japaneese government, in the same way bmw and mercedes benz and the german auto industry is supported and subsidized by the german government,and fiat is supported and subsidized by the italian government, and renault and peugeot  is subsidized and supported by the french government.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Their plants in the South were subsidized also with tax breaks and other incentives by our own states.

        1. mio cid profile image40
          mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          YES! How could i forget to mention  that,thanks for the reminder.

  11. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    WWRD?
    (What would Romney Do)?

    President Obama's campaign suggests Romney would not have ordered the raid by pointing to a 2007 interview with The Associated Press in which Romney said: "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." ...
    That quote tells us that Romney was endorsing the George W. Bush approach to bin Laden ("I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you"). And that's the problem: Not only does Romney's statement suggest that bin Laden would be alive if Romney were president, it suggests that Romney will meekly go along with GOP orthodoxy at all times.

    Everyone knew that President Bush began prioritizing Iraq over Al Qaeda shortly after Tora Bora -- or before. Mitt Romney had the opportunity in the 2008 campaign to distinguish himself from Bush -- and he either didn't think there was anything wrong with the Bush approach or didn't have the guts to make a break with Bush.

    What this tells us (as if we didn't already know) is that Romney is no leader. He'll slavishly follow whoever sets the tone in his party. And that's what we really need to take away from that moment in 2007.

    1. mio cid profile image40
      mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What romney would do in this as in any other case is what his personal "Dick Cheney" tells him to do.simply because he is a man with no character and no conviction or principles.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Lmao, no conviction or principles...

        Sorry, that's just... lol

 
working