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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
How much more do we have to sacrifice before you will declare Obama a failure?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … d-history/
Well Obama never told us the details of his plan either. I still don't know what it is except tax the rich.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
the basic theme of politics is divide and conquer... no matter who wins the ones that really pull the strings just keep pulling them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Take a look here:
University of California $706,931
Microsoft Corp $544,445
Google Inc $526,009
Harvard University $433,860
US Government $389,100
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...
Morning Star Co $10,000
Tower Energy Group $10,000
Double Springs Ranch $10,000
Ryan Inc $7,750
Welcom Products $7,500
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?
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.
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.
Obama promising transparency when it comes to donations, is just like any of his multiple other promises.... unfulfilled, because he throws them in the trash bin as soon as he says them.
Hollie Thomas is right about that proposed "anonymity" though! HA!
Nobody is perfect...not even Obama. He contributed some to the current issues.
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?
Did Truman have a Congress that blocked his every move?
Trueman had a democratic congress - just like Obama did - two years
24 months of carte blanche ???
Does that answer your question?
I guess he misplaced his magic wand then...
Obama has not had a Congress that blocked his every move.......... 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".
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.
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!
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
And yet, you completely ignore the fact that their tax rate...
wait for it...
will be lower!
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?
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%
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?
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.
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
Check this out! Tells the story! http://actually.org/
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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"
Anti Socialism Ad of Hungari-Born Billionaire Republican Thomas Peterffy - Freedom To Succeed
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.
...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...?
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?
...maybe because Socialism can lead to the other one... Communism and anyway, Socialism does not work either, as I have personally witnessed.
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…
You mean the ultra successful?
Would you say France is a good example?
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.
France will be taxing many successful people more than they make every year.
Never heard anyone say... we wanna be just like France. Ask any European!
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!
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.
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).
I imagine that tonight's debate will only have any clout with those who are undecided and yet to vote.
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.
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.
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!
Remember the one who could see Russia from her backyard?
Yes, the pair of them need to go back to school!
Why do you care so much about what Tina Fey said?
Tina Fey? No I just find it a bit disconcerting that a potential president is lacking when it comes to the geography department.
You guys keep talking about what Tina Fey said about seeing Russia from her house.
NO, we are NOT. We are talking about Sarah Palin
The line about seeing Russia from her house wasn't said by Sarah Palin. that's my whole point. It was said by Tina Fey, but people think/act like it was Palin.
You said "Remember the one who could see Russia from her backyard?"
That wasn't Sarah Palin.
I was actually talking about Romney, however, I was also under the impression that Sarah Palin did make those comments about Russia.
I think people are referencing a Tina Fey comedy act, though I can't find it online (perhaps someone else can?).
Tina Fey could easily pass as Sarah Palin as far as looks go, which is probably why the act did so well (so well that people think it was Sarah Palin).
Seriously? Like we don't know the difference between the Tonight Show and an interview with Gibson and than Kate Curic ?
I guess you are right and Tina Fey was running as the vice-president
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
No, she didn't say that.
Tina Fey said it in a skit on SNL. Not Sarah Palin.
I saw all the interviews with my own eyes and heard Palin's nonsense with my own ears, but let's blame Fay for Palin's ignorance.
I am sure you did not read or heard the interview about which new papers Palin reads - all she said Ha, ha, ha.... Another question was "Which one of the Founding Fathers do you admire most? "All of them" she said again without mentioning one single name.
The only attribute Sarah Palin ever had is a good pair of legs and I suppose that is what she has been using to make statements and judgements
She actually said you can see Russia from Alaska.
Thai is true, but not everybody want to admit to it - Tina Fey only made fun of such ignorance on her performance and it seems that more people are watching the Saturday Night show than the news. NOT too surprising....
Claim: During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sarah Palin said: "I can see Russia from my house."
The basis for the line was Governor Palin's 11 September 2008 appearance on ABC News, her first major interview after being tapped as the vice-presidential nominee. During that appearance, interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska":
As to the question of whether one can actually see Russia from Alaska, Governor Palin was correct: such a view is possible from more than one place in Alaska. A Slate article on the topic noted that:
In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/se … TTD1Pdu.99
Palin on her insight into Russian Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … XL86v8NoGk
You gotta admit... the porch one is funnier and fits her so well.
I know! I thought maybe we better add some world History and Geography teachers, to the Science and Math. There is a dire need.
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?
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.
Maybe you are joking and if if you are ... LOL
If you are not, you need to look at a map...
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.
not after Turkey starts bombing the hell out of it soon
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here are details from Reuters about another route to the Mediterranean for Iranian oil:
“Tupras [Turkey’s only refiner] used two Iranian tankers to bring Iranian crude from storage at the Egyptian port of Sidi Kerir. The port is the end-point of the Sumed pipeline, an alternative route to the Suez Canal for oil shipments coming into the Mediterranean from the Red Sea.”
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/0 … 7T20120904
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.
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?
@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:
Tyranny is becoming thicker and thicker and Romney is just another Corporate Party stooge obeying his Goldman-Sachs and Chase Manhattan masters.
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.
I appreciate how the debates have allowed for the summation of Mitt's foreign policy, and domestic economic policies, in one visual image
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.
@ 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.
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.
Tina Fey was making fun of it. That wasn't Palin on SNL.
You're wasting your time, they will say anything to make Palin look bad.
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.
Scary! If elected he might attack an ally rather then a foe! lol
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.
Presidential candidate senator Barack Obama stated that he was going to campaign in all 57 states.
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
Probably meant 47, but whomever wrote his speech cards made a typo.
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.
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"
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.
What a shame you find geography to be tedious.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Hello, Africa is not a country "Africa is a continent that consist of more than 50 Countries ".....Take note of that, thanks
by Dr Billy Kidd 8 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on the other guy. Is it Mitt who has the secret agenda? I surely don't know. Perhaps,...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 7 years ago
Now that all three presidential and one vice-presidential debates are history, the quintessential question begs to be answered. Are we better off economically compared to 4 years ago when Pres. Obama assumed the reins of the presidency? If some of us answers yes, then Obama...
by Dr Billy Kidd 8 years ago
Turns out that Romney showed the press a partial tax statement for 2010. It was discovered thereafter that a significan section of his tax form is missing. That part, by law, tells what the overseas investments do. For example, does Romney's company in the Cayman Island hold controllling stock in a...
by Susan Reid 8 years ago
WHat do you think?I think the Dems are finally learning to play in the mud. Yay!Democrats to Romnney: 'Stop whining' over felony remarkPosted byCNN's Kevin Liptak(CNN) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama campaign official that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by listing himself as...
by weholdthesetruths 9 years ago
Obama raised and spent 750 million during his presidential cycle. Additional political organizations, including the party, spent nearly another 100 million for Obama's campaign. Unions and other special interests spent almost 200 million as well. meaning the Obama presidency...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 6 years ago
Obama and his leftist ideology, coupled by sheer incompetence has come back to haunt/daunt him and bite him in so many places, that people are wondering if his Presidency would ever recover from the myriad scandals that has plagued his second term, from Benghazi to the IRS to the...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|