So now we are starting to see the trap Obama laid in the first debate.

Romney took the bait hook line and sinker! SUCKER!

WarMonger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So now we are starting to see the trap Obama laid
> in the first debate.
>
> Romney took the bait hook line and sinker!
> SUCKER!


Well nice tin foil hat. But maybe, Romney did double down on some claims that contradict his stump speeches and Republican primary campaign. Obama could totally crush him on it, but question is will he? I doubt it.

While initially dismayed that President Obama did not wack Mittens with his 47% blunder, I now see the brilliance of his restraint.

Had the President brought up the blunder, Mittens would have had the opportunity, before 67 million viewers, to disavow it, as he did before 2 million viewers of Sean "Water Carrier Extraordinaire" Hannity's show last night.

Instead, in the minds of most Americans, “the 47%” hangs as an albatross about Mitten’s neck.

Our President is a truly gifted strategist.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, losers.

Obozo is NOTHING without his teleprompters and answers somebody else wrote and he reads.

Can't wait to see that dummy go.

LOL. When Biden loses next week, it will be labeled a trap. When Obama falters the week after that, it will be called a set-up. After that, he has to defend his horrible blunders in foreign policy. Look for Romney to shred him in that one as well. Obama will try to fill an hour and a half retelling the story about how HE killed bin Laden.

hardworker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, losers.
>
> Obozo is NOTHING without his teleprompters and
> answers somebody else wrote and he reads.
>
> Can't wait to see that dummy go.

What can he say during a debate, how he spent five trillion dollars we didnt have in the first place and show no results? He is used to the last four years where the media pitched him softballs and everyone loved him erasing their white guilt.

I was the first to say that Romney crushed Obama in the first debate. He was aggressive, made all of his points and even co-opted most of Obama's key talking points: banking reform, medicare, Obamacare, education. He swung far to the middle from his usual stump speeches -- so much as to deny that he has tax cuts (they're "revenue neutral" -- not really a cut if that's the case right?).

However, I have read some stuff recently which made me reconsider the wisdom of these conclusions.

Maybe Obama played it right by being low-key, non-confrontational and "contemplative". Here's why:

1) Partisans are already decided on both sides.

2) Independents are looking for those who compromise -- not those who are there to score political points.

3) Mitt won by being the alpha-male -- he dominated Obama, dominated the moderator, he even fired Big Bird. This is attractive to male voters -- women not so much.

The average American voter is an odd thing. To the pundits and those who follow politics on a daily basis, we see the debate like a football game where each side scores points, debating the issues on the merits of both sides' policy positions.

However, the only people who could possibly be undecided at this point is the "low-information" voter. What is going through their minds when they watch the debate must be quite different.

I originally also thought Obama lost debate, but now I am reading between the lines for the long term.

Obama's calm non-confrontation demeanor shows he is in control and not worried. All the past presidents that have won have done so with calm cool stances in the debates.

The biggest part Obama avoided was to not make any gaffes. That's key to an opponent that is winning in polls.

Welcome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Obama's calm non-confrontation demeanor shows he
> is in control and not worried.

No, he looked uncomfortable, out of place and lost. That is hardly calm and in control.

There is no long term strategy.

Obama is a poor leader and paralyzed without a teleprompter and a supportive audience.

He looked stupid and you excuse makers look even stupider.

Obama got Romney to say on the record exactly what he wanted. Nuff said, Romney now has explain what he said in the debate.

It's heartening to see that even bitter partisans like Ito can be led to reason.

WOWBama! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama got Romney to say on the record exactly what
> he wanted. Nuff said, Romney now has explain what
> he said in the debate.


If Obama was trying to get Romney to make statements that make Obama look stupid and ineffective, Obama succeeded.

@ Ito

Don't over think it and take it for face value. First instincts are usually the correct instincts. Obama looked flat, he rambled on and could not articulate his points.

Again Romney had more to lose in the first debate than Obama. If Romney had performed like Obama then the election was probably over.

@ All the Obama fanboys what is the trap Obama set for Romney?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2012 11:32AM by Hay Zeus.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ Ito
>
> Don't over think it and take it for face value.
> First instincts are usually the correct instincts.
> Obama looked flat, he rambled on and could not
> articulate his points.


Obama looked like every President in their first debate of their reelection. Not good, the first debate is almost a gimmie to the challenger. Reagan first debate was a disaster, but we know how that turned out.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [W]hat is the trap Obama set for Romney?

Give that a little thought, Zeus, and get back to us.

hidenow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reagan first debate was a disaster, but we know
> how that turned out.

Don't forget how Kerry thumped ol' W in their 1st debate.

Trappster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > [W]hat is the trap Obama set for Romney?
>
> Give that a little thought, Zeus, and get back to
> us.

Reagan also had record to run on that was creating jobs and improving the economy, and Americas world standing.

As a honest human being with integrity my mind does not think like grifter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2012 11:43AM by Hay Zeus.

Might have set up Romney but remember he is just a President while you are posters on a forum on Friday morning

I swear oromney looked like he was on crack.

I could be wrong but I'm right 99% of the time

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a honest human being with integrity my mind
> does not think like grifter.

I bet you suck at chess, too.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reagan also had record to run on that was creating
> jobs and improving the economy, and Americas world
> standing.

You are a fool if you think that your opinion of Obama's job performance univerally held.

The whole past 4 years has been an elaborate setup.

Obama let the economy go to hell and employment go up so Mittens Romney would start criticizing him.

And then when the time was just right, Obama came out and started to fix it all and now Mittens has egg all over his face for ever saying Obama was so bad!

Where's my free stuff?

Lloydster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I swear oromney looked like he was on crack.


Given the bullshit you post here, I am sure you see what someone on crack looks like in the mirror every day.

I see it took you a while to recover from Obama's horrific performance.

The economy is a setup! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama let the economy go to hell

Correction: Obama STOPPED the economy from going to hell.

Correction Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The economy is a setup! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama let the economy go to hell
>
> Correction: Obama STOPPED the economy from going
> to hell.

+2


Everybody forgets that it was republican policies under Bush that almost took this country to brink of a great depression. And that is fact!

Romney Care Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Correction Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The economy is a setup! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obama let the economy go to hell
> >
> > Correction: Obama STOPPED the economy from
> going
> > to hell.
>
> +2
>
>
> Everybody forgets that it was republican policies
> under Bush that almost took this country to brink
> of a great depression. And that is fact!


Actually, economy was doing just fine untel Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid got control of the purse strings and all other Congressional power.

timeline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, economy was doing just fine untel Nancy
> Pelosi and Harry Reid got control of the purse
> strings and all other Congressional power.

Who held the veto pen from January 20, 2007 to January 20, 2009? Oh, that's right: Bush. Who's fault is it that the economy tanked in 2009? Bush.

Correction Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Who held the veto pen from January 20, 2007 to
> January 20, 2009?

How many bills did Pelosi and Reid send up that would have addressed the crisis even though Bush sent them numerous requests to consider legislation to stave off the housing crisis? That's right: ZIPPY. Democrats denied there was an impending crisis.

> Who's fault is it that the economy tanked in 2009?


Pelosi and Reid.


I see you have fallen for the stale talking point of blame Bush. Think for yourself once.

Trappster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As a honest human being with integrity my mind
> > does not think like grifter.
>
> I bet you suck at chess, too.

What a lovely mean spirited comment. My point it is i prefer to expend energy being poisitive and doing positive things, not concocting ways on how to fuck people over.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2012 12:24PM by Hay Zeus.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> prefer to expend energy being poisitive and
> doing positive things, not concocting ways on how
> to fuck people over.

Fuck people over? We're discussing politics here. Specifically, we're talking about lulling one's debate opponent into a false sense of security in which s/he will say or do something that we can, later, use against him/her. Politics is a battle, it is war.

Perhaps your sensibilities are too sensitive for political discourse.

Trappster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > prefer to expend energy being poisitive and
> > doing positive things, not concocting ways on
> how
> > to fuck people over.
>
> Fuck people over? We're discussing politics here.
> Specifically, we're talking about lulling one's
> debate opponent into a false sense of security in
> which s/he will say or do something that we can,
> later, use against him/her. Politics is a battle,
> it is war.
>
> Perhaps your sensibilities are too sensitive for
> political discourse.


I love this new line of thinking. For two days, Democrats were shitting their pants because Obama shit the bed. They tried to blame the moderator and they tried to blame the altitude. Now they come up with this whole, "it was a trap" bullshit. You can't make this stuff up.

What will be the excuse when Biden shits the bed next week?

and? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lloydster Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I swear oromney looked like he was on crack.
>
>
> Given the bullshit you post here, I am sure you
> see what someone on crack looks like in the mirror
> every day.
>
> I see it took you a while to recover from Obama's
> horrific performance.

And another zinger hitting brain-dead mongo Lloydster right between his beady eyes. Perhaps mongo Lloydster should have stayed in his mom's basement a couple more days.

excuse machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For two days

Well, it was 1 day, tops. More like 12 hrs.

> Democrats were shitting their pants because Obama
> shit the bed.

Your analysis of the Democratic response is quite shitty.

> They tried to blame the moderator

It is an objective fact that Lehrer performed very poorly as moderator.

> What will be the excuse when Biden shits the bed
> next week?

Prediction: Ol' Lunch Bucket Joe will wipe the floor with Ryan.

There is a reason Obama has not released his college records, grades and such.

And it is not because he is smart.

Thomas Sowell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a reason Obama has not released his
> college records, grades and such.

Have you ever -- I mean ever seen someone's college records? Seriously.

Thomas Sowell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a reason Obama has not released his
> college records, grades and such.
>
> And it is not because he is smart.

True true true - magna cum laude is for the dummies.

Trappster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your analysis of the Democratic response is quite
> shitty.

Nah, it was the Democratic candidate's performance and the ensuing Democratic response which were the shittiest.


> It is an objective fact that Lehrer performed very
> poorly as moderator.

First, it is mostly a subjective determination by any account. If you were using objective metrics then yes, I suppose he did perform poorly as he allowed President Obama more time than Governor Romney. By that objective standard, he failed in his duty to be fair and impartial and showed favortism towards the President. Even with that advantage, the President still shit the bed.

> > What will be the excuse when Biden shits the
> bed
> > next week?
>
> Prediction: Ol' Lunch Bucket Joe will wipe the
> floor with Ryan.

And when he doesn't, because he can't, I am sure you will claim it is all part of some grand plan. LOL.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Sowell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is a reason Obama has not released his
> > college records, grades and such.
> >
> > And it is not because he is smart.
>
> True true true - magna cum laude is for the
> dummies.


He graduated from Columbia magna cum laude? Please post proof of that as I have never seen that documented before.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Sowell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is a reason Obama has not released his
> > college records, grades and such.
>
> Have you ever -- I mean ever seen someone's
> college records? Seriously.


Yes, seriously.

http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp

news to me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 more years, II Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thomas Sowell Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There is a reason Obama has not released his
> > > college records, grades and such.
> > >
> > > And it is not because he is smart.
> >
> > True true true - magna cum laude is for the
> > dummies.
>
>
> He graduated from Columbia magna cum laude?
> Please post proof of that as I have never seen
> that documented before.

Magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. In case you didn't know Harvard is considered a pretty good college.

My guess is you could barely get into a community college get above C's.

Econ 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> news to me Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4 more years, II Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thomas Sowell Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > There is a reason Obama has not released
> his
> > > > college records, grades and such.
> > > >
> > > > And it is not because he is smart.
> > >
> > > True true true - magna cum laude is for the
> > > dummies.
> >
> >
> > He graduated from Columbia magna cum laude?
> > Please post proof of that as I have never seen
> > that documented before.
>
> Magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. In case
> you didn't know Harvard is considered a pretty
> good college.
>
> My guess is you could barely get into a community
> college get above C's.


Actually, college and law school are not the same thing as college is usually used to refer to undergraduate studies. Law school is a post graduate degree.

While I did not attend Harvard, I am a graduate of a top 10 law school. So, your ridiculously stupid assumption concerning community college is about as stupid as someone claiming that "Harvard is considered a pretty good college" when in fact, Harvard is a UNIVERSITY, not a college.

Any other dumb assumptions you want to make. My guess is that your feeble mind has no shortage of them.

news to me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Econ 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > My guess is you could barely get into a community
> > college get above C's.
>
> While I did not attend Harvard, I am a graduate of
> a top 10 law school.

How small is your dick that you felt the need to respond to such an inane ad hominem attack?

Little River Rider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> news to me Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Econ 101 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > My guess is you could barely get into a
> community
> > > college get above C's.
> >
> > While I did not attend Harvard, I am a graduate
> of
> > a top 10 law school.
>
> How small is your dick that you felt the need to
> respond to such an inane ad hominem attack?


Pretty small, but I make lots of money to make up for it as well. We are all born with different talents. How small is yours to make such an inane ad hominien attack in the first place? Do you at least make a bunch of money to make up for it?

Trappster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > prefer to expend energy being poisitive and
> > doing positive things, not concocting ways on
> how
> > to fuck people over.
>
> Fuck people over? We're discussing politics here.
> Specifically, we're talking about lulling one's
> debate opponent into a false sense of security in
> which s/he will say or do something that we can,
> later, use against him/her. Politics is a battle,
> it is war.

I understand we're talking about politics. I am not a politician and do not work in politics. As i stated before I don't spend my time trying to concoct ways to fuck people over. Maybe you do which is why i asked what the "trap" is. However you seem to be more interested in defelecting the question rather than answering it. Which means you don't have a clue.
>
> Perhaps your sensibilities are too sensitive for
> political discourse.

I'm excited about the VP debate next week!

Go Biden!

I could be wrong but I'm right 99% of the time

Lloydster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm excited about the VP debate next week!
>
> Go Biden!

A battle of wits where each contestant is unarmed.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However you seem to be more interested in defelecting the
> question rather than answering it.

I am not going to spoon-feed you, Zeus. Consider what occurred during the debate, how the participant acted and reacted, what was said and what was not. Draw your own conclusions.

Trappster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > However you seem to be more interested in
> defelecting the
> > question rather than answering it.
>
> I am not going to spoon-feed you, Zeus. Consider
> what occurred during the debate, how the
> participant acted and reacted, what was said and
> what was not. Draw your own conclusions.

Ok don't answer the question.

recap and forecast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL. When Biden loses next week, it will be
> labeled a trap. When Obama falters the week after
> that, it will be called a set-up. After that, he
> has to defend his horrible blunders in foreign
> policy. Look for Romney to shred him in that one
> as well. Obama will try to fill an hour and a
> half retelling the story about how HE killed bin
> Laden.

It's scary we have millions of Americans who believe Romney. It's scary that people are oblivious to facts and are incapable of checking the facts on their own. Romney supporters need tin foil caps to protect them from his BS.

"There is a reason Obama has not released his college records, grades and such.

And it is not because he is smart."

Yes, lets dwell on his grades because its an accurate reflection of someones intelligence.

Obama had been drinking his own kool-aid. He went into that debate thinking he was going to mop the floor with Mitt. Because we all know that Mitt is not a good debator he suck during the primaries or was that his plan all along. To make you Dems vote for him during the primaries because Obama can surely whip this mormon fool. You can spin this all you want Obama got his ass handed to him during the last debate.

Firrrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> recap and forecast Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL. When Biden loses next week, it will be
> > labeled a trap. When Obama falters the week
> after
> > that, it will be called a set-up. After that,
> he
> > has to defend his horrible blunders in foreign
> > policy. Look for Romney to shred him in that
> one
> > as well. Obama will try to fill an hour and a
> > half retelling the story about how HE killed
> bin
> > Laden.
>
> It's scary we have millions of Americans who
> believe Romney. It's scary that people are
> oblivious to facts and are incapable of checking
> the facts on their own. Romney supporters need tin
> foil caps to protect them from his BS.
>
> "There is a reason Obama has not released his
> college records, grades and such.
>
> And it is not because he is smart."
>
> Yes, lets dwell on his grades because its an
> accurate reflection of someones intelligence.

First Romney is milquetoast now he's "scary". You should probably get your talking points correct lest you be sent to a reeducation camp.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First Romney is milquetoast now he's "scary". You
> should probably get your talking points correct
> lest you be sent to a reeducation camp.

Really?

I see that reading comprehension just isn't your thing.

Firrrat Wrote:
> > It's scary we have millions of Americans who
> > believe Romney. It's scary that people are
> > oblivious to facts and are incapable of checking
> > the facts on their own. Romney supporters need tin
> > foil caps to protect them from his BS.

Meaning, it is YOU and your ilk who are scary. Not Willard.

sumguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama had been drinking his own kool-aid. He went
> into that debate thinking he was going to mop the
> floor with Mitt. Because we all know that Mitt is
> not a good debator he suck during the primaries or
> was that his plan all along. To make you Dems vote
> for him during the primaries because Obama can
> surely whip this mormon fool. You can spin this
> all you want Obama got his ass handed to him
> during the last debate.

Let's say you and I got into a debate about the actual color of an object within an enclosed case. Our goal is to gain the trust of our voters so they elect you or me. We both know the color can be viewed as blue or green depending on a persons perception. I argue that the color can be blue or green, depending on your perception, to the public. You argue that the color of the object is blue to the people who perceive cyan to be blue and you argue that the object is green to the people who perceive cyan to be green. The elected leader must determine a color for the object once it is exposed to the public, and it must be either blue or green.

This is how Romney Bull shits. His 47% speech was basically telling his small audience what they wanted to hear, so they'd elect him. He was favored for the Oct, 3rd debate, because everything he said was pretty much music to the ears of the American people.

If you have a better analogy please do share. I gave it a shot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2012 05:22PM by Firrat.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Firrrat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > recap and forecast Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > LOL. When Biden loses next week, it will be
> > > labeled a trap. When Obama falters the week
> > after
> > > that, it will be called a set-up. After
> that,
> > he
> > > has to defend his horrible blunders in
> foreign
> > > policy. Look for Romney to shred him in that
> > one
> > > as well. Obama will try to fill an hour and
> a
> > > half retelling the story about how HE killed
> > bin
> > > Laden.
> >
> > It's scary we have millions of Americans who
> > believe Romney. It's scary that people are
> > oblivious to facts and are incapable of
> checking
> > the facts on their own. Romney supporters need
> tin
> > foil caps to protect them from his BS.
> >
> > "There is a reason Obama has not released his
> > college records, grades and such.
> >
> > And it is not because he is smart."
> >
> > Yes, lets dwell on his grades because its an
> > accurate reflection of someones intelligence.
>
> First Romney is milquetoast now he's "scary". You
> should probably get your talking points correct
> lest you be sent to a reeducation camp.


Please explain the errors in my talking points. I'd like for you to better understand my points, since this text does not play through an audio device for you.

The problem is Romney ran his mouth as usual in the debate. Now democrats can chop up his debate and use it against him.

OBlomneyCare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is Romney ran his mouth as usual in
> the debate. Now democrats can chop up his debate
> and use it against him.


Which only other Dems will even hear. Other than to the extent that the media parrots it at least.

But it won't make up for the hurt put on Obama among undecided/independents who aren't as responsive to that kinda crap. Most understand that the vast majority of "fact checking" and sound bite stuff is bullshit. They're not as dumb as Dems tend to think that they are.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trappster Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hay Zeus Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > [W]hat is the trap Obama set for Romney?
> >
> > Give that a little thought, Zeus, and get back
> to
> > us.
>
> Reagan also had record to run on that was creating
> jobs and improving the economy, and Americas world
> standing.
>
> As a honest human being with integrity my mind
> does not think like grifter.


Spoken like a person who likely wasn't even alive in 1984. Unemployment was 7.5% at election day for Reagan term 1. Many thought that was too high for him to be re-elected. He also was dealing with an ongoing afghanistan problem (oh btw it was Reagan who put the Taliban in power... yes your precious neocon sure knew how to pick the winners didnt he). He had a handful of debacles that hurt him in his first term, but the key was that he was seen as strong against the soviets and reliable during a period of hardship which was showing upward trends.

OBlomneyCare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is Romney ran his mouth as usual in
> the debate. Now democrats can chop up his debate
> and use it against him.
Attachments:

Lets learn the facts people Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trappster Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hay Zeus Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > [W]hat is the trap Obama set for Romney?
> > >
> > > Give that a little thought, Zeus, and get
> back
> > to
> > > us.
> >
> > Reagan also had record to run on that was
> creating
> > jobs and improving the economy, and Americas
> world
> > standing.
> >
> > As a honest human being with integrity my mind
> > does not think like grifter.
>
>
> Spoken like a person who likely wasn't even alive
> in 1984. Unemployment was 7.5% at election day for
> Reagan term 1. Many thought that was too high for
> him to be re-elected. He also was dealing with an
> ongoing afghanistan problem (oh btw it was Reagan
> who put the Taliban in power... yes your precious
> neocon sure knew how to pick the winners didnt
> he). He had a handful of debacles that hurt him in
> his first term, but the key was that he was seen
> as strong against the soviets and reliable during
> a period of hardship which was showing upward
> trends.


True but progress was much greater getting to that point and the trend was much stronger. Inflation was in check, interest rates were falling, gas prices and supply were better, Iran done with, etc., etc. Things were notably and much more obviously "better" to most folks versus where we were prior to. As evidenced by his overwhelming reelection.

I'm not sure of the exact mechanics of what's changed since then as far as unemployment metrics but at the same levels it sure seemed a lot worse then. I remember seeing "No Jobs," "Not accepting applications" and similar signs on businesses everywhere around here and it felt like it hurt more. This one was worse as far as it being a more sudden "crash" and the depths hit by the markets and has dragged out longer.

You know, you need to realize that Ronald Reagan was famous for his tax cuts, but he signed a shit load of bills that contained tax increases as well. He had his own terrorist debacles to deal with -- including, ironically, Hezbollah bombing the U.S. embassy in Beirut not long before the election.

Stuff was not all coming up roses at the end of the Reagan first term -- but people could see things improving. That is the reason why he came up with his "Morning in America" campaign.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, you need to realize that Ronald Reagan
> was famous for his tax cuts, but he signed a shit
> load of bills that contained tax increases as
> well. He had his own terrorist debacles to deal
> with -- including, ironically, Hezbollah bombing
> the U.S. embassy in Beirut not long before the
> election.
>
> Stuff was not all coming up roses at the end of
> the Reagan first term -- but people could see
> things improving. That is the reason why he came
> up with his "Morning in America" campaign.


And was caught up in a love triangle with Jodi Foster and got shot.

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And was caught up in a love triangle with Jodi
> Foster and got shot.

There were two things from the Reagan years that stick in my mind. The day he was shot by John Hinkley and the day the Challenger exploded.

As a kid both those things were pretty surreal.

Old dude who was there Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets learn the facts people Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hay Zeus Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Trappster Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hay Zeus Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > [W]hat is the trap Obama set for Romney?
> > > >
> > > > Give that a little thought, Zeus, and get
> > back
> > > to
> > > > us.
> > >
> > > Reagan also had record to run on that was
> > creating
> > > jobs and improving the economy, and Americas
> > world
> > > standing.
> > >
> > > As a honest human being with integrity my
> mind
> > > does not think like grifter.
> >
> >
> > Spoken like a person who likely wasn't even
> alive
> > in 1984. Unemployment was 7.5% at election day
> for
> > Reagan term 1. Many thought that was too high
> for
> > him to be re-elected. He also was dealing with
> an
> > ongoing afghanistan problem (oh btw it was
> Reagan
> > who put the Taliban in power... yes your
> precious
> > neocon sure knew how to pick the winners didnt
> > he). He had a handful of debacles that hurt him
> in
> > his first term, but the key was that he was
> seen
> > as strong against the soviets and reliable
> during
> > a period of hardship which was showing upward
> > trends.
>
>
> True but progress was much greater getting to that
> point and the trend was much stronger. Inflation
> was in check, interest rates were falling, gas
> prices and supply were better, Iran done with,
> etc., etc. Things were notably and much more
> obviously "better" to most folks versus where we
> were prior to. As evidenced by his overwhelming
> reelection.
>
> I'm not sure of the exact mechanics of what's
> changed since then as far as unemployment metrics
> but at the same levels it sure seemed a lot worse
> then. I remember seeing "No Jobs," "Not accepting
> applications" and similar signs on businesses
> everywhere around here and it felt like it hurt
> more. This one was worse as far as it being a
> more sudden "crash" and the depths hit by the
> markets and has dragged out longer.

Iran was done with? Ok you just showed your ignorance. Iran Contra happened the next year (totally done with) not to mention Reagan's isolationism towards iran allowed the mob mentality of the 70s there embed itself into a full fledged religious despotism (or atleast oligarchy). His lack of opening dialogue with Iran over political fears is the reason why to this day a country which has a majority of people with western educations and are progressives remain crippled under a police state.

Dear god the bloveating that comes from Reagan-idealists would make it seem that the world was a perfect place in the 80s. Reality check shit wasn't all roses in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s... and reality check for your clinton-idealists, things weren't perfect then either. Afterall Clinton and Greenbergs move to make houses affordable for everyone through "innovative mortgages" is atleast 1/3rd of the reason why we had the economic collapse in the late 2000s.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoylentGreen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And was caught up in a love triangle with Jodi
> > Foster and got shot.
>
> There were two things from the Reagan years that
> stick in my mind. The day he was shot by John
> Hinkley and the day the Challenger exploded.
>
> As a kid both those things were pretty surreal.


As an adult as well.

I'm sure it happened prior to this, but the release of the hostages in Iran just before Reagan took office?

A story circulated that he or his people had negotiated with the Iranians to hold on to them till he was elected.

It is funny when people try to compare this campaign to the 1980 election. I understand how much people dislike Obama, but it really isn't close to what it was back then. There was a bipartisan dislike of Carter -- the oil crisis (people could only buy gasoline on even or odd days depending on your license plate -- and even then there were lines), the boycotted Moscow Olympics and the 444 days of the Iran hostage crisis (Carter's failed Desert One rescue attempt). I remember interest rates were in the teens. Unemployment was as high as it is now (I'm not looking it up to verify). The economic term for the conditions at the time was "stagflation" -- a stagnant economy and high inflation.

Shit was seriously bad. The timing of the bad shit under Obama is different. It was really bad at the beginning and now its just like a polished turd. In the last year under Carter it was akin to the last year under Bush -- shit was just bad everywhere you looked and seemed to be getting worse.

However, then, as now, there was a mistrust of electing a Republican back in power because of what happened with Nixon and Watergate. Like the 2008 election with Obama, they gave Reagan the chance then just to get a new face in the White House. It could be that way now, except for the fact that there are a large number of people who really, really like Obama. They do exist. There really weren't that many people who were really for Carter that year. His greatest accomplishment, the Camp David Accords, was just a distant memory by the time election day came around.

On the release date for the hostages... I have read a bunch of stuff about this and the Reagan "Iran-Contra" scandal that happened later. From what I have read it was really just the final kick in the groin from the hostage takers to Jimmy Carter. They knew Carter wanted more than anything to have this release happen under his administration, but the hostage takers waited until the day Reagan was inaugurated just for spite.

History is your friend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Iran was done with? Ok you just showed your
> ignorance. Iran Contra happened the next year
> (totally done with) not to mention Reagan's
> isolationism towards iran allowed the mob
> mentality of the 70s there embed itself into a
> full fledged religious despotism (or atleast
> oligarchy). His lack of opening dialogue with Iran
> over political fears is the reason why to this day
> a country which has a majority of people with
> western educations and are progressives remain
> crippled under a police state.
>
> Dear god the bloveating that comes from
> Reagan-idealists would make it seem that the world
> was a perfect place in the 80s. Reality check shit
> wasn't all roses in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s...
> and reality check for your clinton-idealists,
> things weren't perfect then either. Afterall
> Clinton and Greenbergs move to make houses
> affordable for everyone through "innovative
> mortgages" is atleast 1/3rd of the reason why we
> had the economic collapse in the late 2000s.


The Iran HOSTAGE situation Poindexter. Which was a huge drag hanging over the country at the time that he came in versus where we were and the general feeling in the country 4 years later.

It already was a full-fledged religious domination from the time they took over. It was at the heart of those who arranged and manipulated the revolution and there was little to nothing that we were going to do about it. Particularly given other priorities at the time from any number of perspectives. Sorry, trying to make friends and influence our new pals in Iran who had arranged for a 444-day sleep over for 52 of our people just wasn't real high on the list at the time. lol

I don't care to even get into the rest of your rant. I wasn't a Reagan fan particularly (I was about ready to choke some of the idiots with jellybeans on all of their desks), but, like him or not, between the time that he came in to the point of his reelection to any objective view "Are you better off" was very easy question to answer.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It could be that way now, except for the
> fact that there are a large number of people who
> really, really like Obama. They do exist.

Hell, Ito......everybody likes the guy. Well, most people do anyway. He plays basketball with his kitchen staff, goes on late night talk shows all the time. He's done a very good job of promoting himself to the public.

It's his bone headed moves when it comes to regaining ground with the economy, how he's running the country and the way he's handled the rest of the world that's the problem.

People don't give a shit about numbers. They hear stories about Solyndra and the rest failing and GM still being under water. They don't give a shit about Mexican drug cartels but they keep getting fed little bits and pieces slowly, painfully about Fast and Furious. And they've yet to hear the truth out of the president about Stevens. The FBI wont be investigating the attack until after the first of the year? It's too dangerous to send them there?


Frankly, this country has become a joke. In years past we'd gotten ourselves into much deeper ditches and far greater pinches but our standing in the world then kept a lid on all of it much better. And just like in business when a company falters, the CEO is the first to go. It was never his or her fault. Just a PR move to appease the money lenders. And the next one in line usually does a worse job......but they always get replaced....or go belly up.

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> It could be that way now, except for the
> > fact that there are a large number of people
> who
> > really, really like Obama. They do exist.
>
> Hell, Ito......everybody likes the guy. Well,
> most people do anyway. He plays basketball with
> his kitchen staff, goes on late night talk shows
> all the time. He's done a very good job of
> promoting himself to the public.
>
> It's his bone headed moves when it comes to
> regaining ground with the economy, how he's
> running the country and the way he's handled the
> rest of the world that's the problem.
>
> People don't give a shit about numbers. They hear
> stories about Solyndra and the rest failing and GM
> still being under water. They don't give a shit
> about Mexican drug cartels but they keep getting
> fed little bits and pieces slowly, painfully about
> Fast and Furious. And they've yet to hear the
> truth out of the president about Stevens. The FBI
> wont be investigating the attack until after the
> first of the year? It's too dangerous to send
> them there?
>
>
> Frankly, this country has become a joke. In years
> past we'd gotten ourselves into much deeper
> ditches and far greater pinches but our standing
> in the world then kept a lid on all of it much
> better. And just like in business when a company
> falters, the CEO is the first to go. It was never
> his or her fault. Just a PR move to appease the
> money lenders. And the next one in line usually
> does a worse job......but they always get
> replaced....or go belly up.

Wow seriously, everything you said has literally been disproven. Lets start with Fast and Furious which after proper audit (instead of over-reaction for political gain attempted in Congress) it was determined that the State of Arizona was the party at fault for allowing the plan to move forward, it was never sent through the proper channels by Arizona because of the fact that they believed the government at the federal level was not aggressive enough. So they went vigilante lead by GOP statehouse, to move forward and thats what happened. Moron

Secondly, on the subject of the falsely accused subsidies to green energy etc, and picking losers blah blah blah. Of the 36 companies under the genre of "green energy" that received any tax payer funding, 3, count them 3, went backrupt. No one wants to talk about the companies that have now caught up in many ways with products overseas and now are beyond parody because of reduced freight cost and the fact that manufacturing continues to make a comeback in this country under current policy.

The attack on ambassador stevens. Well I actually know very well the mechanics of what is really at work. You should learn something on the subject before mouthing off tin-foil bullshit http://www.americanambassadors.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Publications.article&articleid=195

The problem has been the sudden drop off in funding towards hardening of our missions overseas (thank you GOP for funnelling funding out of State for the past 10 years starting with GW). Again you are an ignorant moron who wants to cite bullshit from Rush instead of actually learning about the subjects you are "knowledgeable about".

As far as the economy, say what you will but jobs gained are jobs gained. On the question of is the economy better off from the end of Bush to now the answer is clear whether you want to believe so or not. The problem is you dont understand that Many MANY people in this country see it that way, its just you through your charcoal filter that can't comprehend it. Spending has slowed to its lowest growth rate since Bill Clinton, the GDP will recover, revenue will go up and our deficit will go down on the track we are on.

People like Obama more than because he's personable. MANY people like him because his policies reflect the platform of half the people in this country.

Deal with it

Feel free to go elsewhere. Oh right you think the rest of the world is either socialist or ruled by muslims. Well I guess you can just go ahead and die instead. No one will miss you, we'll ironically turn you into dog food cause thats about the worth of your life.

Soylent Pup, made from 100% asshole.

This country is on the right track for the first time in a long time, but the GOP just haaaaaaaates it doesnt it. Just drives them crazy that there are a lot of good things happening after the debacle that was bush. What was his approval rate when he left again? 15%. Well atleast its better than congresses current approval rate. Brinksmanship evidently not that popular, nor is faulty foreign policy and bad domestic policy.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval

50% like obamas first 4 years (not the person). Yes the GOP has come back to normal levels, doesnt replace the fact that 50% still approve of his job history.

On the subject of the person far more than just 50% like him as a person especially when compared to Romney
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_obama_romney_likeability.jpg

and as always

Manufacturing growth is returning for the first time since Clinton when you were an little insolent sheltered child instead of an ignorant ass adult

http://www.rippdemup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/manufacturing-jobs-faster-growth-under-obama-than-bush.jpg

Charts to back it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama
> -job-approval
>
> 50% like obamas first 4 years (not the person).
> Yes the GOP has come back to normal levels, doesnt
> replace the fact that 50% still approve of his job
> history.
>
> On the subject of the person far more than just
> 50% like him as a person especially when compared
> to Romney
> http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_obama
> _romney_likeability.jpg
>
> and as always
>
> Manufacturing growth is returning for the first
> time since Clinton when you were an little
> insolent sheltered child instead of an ignorant
> ass adult
>
> http://www.rippdemup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/0
> 9/manufacturing-jobs-faster-growth-under-obama-tha
> n-bush.jpg


Your own chart doesn't support your bullshit. As typical, the ONLY thing that may be higher is the *rate* at which manufacturing jobs have increased. However, as in the case of all of the similar BS economic comparisons, it is the rate only counted from the very bottom of the crash and ignores the total number. Of course you'll have a somewhat higher *rate* coming out of the depths of a crash.

The more significant point is the actual number. We still are some 3/4 of a million manufacturing jobs DOWN from the time Obama took office. And about 2 million off of the steady-state trend line from prior to the crash as shown below by your own chart.





The main reason for the decrease over the last 15 years or so had little to do with Bush or anything else we did, but rather reflects the rapid rise of China as the lower cost manufacturing center for the world.

Oh I didnt realize China perfected some magical new cost saving maneuver in Fall of 2008 that sent the values down to the current level. All that matters isnt the number, its the fucking trend you moron. Any economist or business person will tell you that.

The trend is up, as that chart shows.

You DO understand there is at least SOME inertia in economic affairs, right?

DIdnt realize Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh I didnt realize China perfected some magical
> new cost saving maneuver in Fall of 2008 that sent
> the values down to the current level. All that
> matters isnt the number, its the fucking trend you
> moron. Any economist or business person will tell
> you that.


The big downturn largely reflects the market crash and recession which followed as well as 9/11 and the second recession which followed it. At the same time, China trade was rapidly expanding.

Bullshit. The number doesn't matter only if you're a partisan idiot like you who's trying to use some meaningless increase in a rate independent of it. The "trend" doesn't mean squat when it will take until 2025 to get back to where we were. lol And even if you want to use the bs "trend," it's not looking so hot anyway. From the BLS release on 10/5:

"Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
activities (-3,000)."

If you continued that chart out from the first quarter, you'd see that the trend is flat to down.

Uh...what has ANY of that got to do with the current administration?

There are three things which would significantly increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.:

1) Significantly higher fuel costs.
2) Significantly higher wages in China (and the rest of the world).
3) Significantly lower wages in the United States.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are three things which would significantly
> increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the
> U.S.:
>
> 1) Significantly higher fuel costs.
> 2) Significantly higher wages in China (and the
> rest of the world).
> 3) Significantly lower wages in the United States.


I thought the big plan was for everyone to go to college and get that sheep skin so they wouldn't have to work in a manufacturing job? Or plumbing or electrical or farming or basically anything that requires real work.

Has that changed? If not, why do we care about having crap built here at higher costs than China can turn out?

Significantly higher wages in China? - Never happen. The Chinese have the type of government Obama is striving for. Where you work and the government decides what you should be paid and how much you get to keep.

Ignorance at its best Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow seriously, everything you said has literally
> been disproven. Lets start with Fast and Furious
> which after proper audit (instead of over-reaction
> for political gain attempted in Congress) it was
> determined that the State of Arizona was the party
> at fault for allowing the plan to move forward, it
> was never sent through the proper channels by
> Arizona because of the fact that they believed the
> government at the federal level was not aggressive
> enough. So they went vigilante lead by GOP
> statehouse, to move forward and thats what
> happened. Moron


And everything you've posted here is complete bullshit. lol

Yeah, let's start with F&F which had NOTHING at all to do with the State of AZ. WTF are you even talking about?

Here, from the LA Times so you can't call the source biased:

"
By Richard A. Serrano
September 19, 2012, 12:28 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Fourteen federal law enforcement officials -- from field agents in Arizona to top managers in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Justice Department in Washington -- created a "significant danger to public safety" under Operation Fast and Furious, an investigative report found.

Those officials still employed were referred for possible job discipline for carrying out the gun-trafficking operation that saturated the Southwest border with more than 2,000 illegally purchased firearms.

Less than an hour after the findings were announced Wednesday by the Justice Department inspector general's office, two of the individuals -- Kenneth Melson, the former head of the ATF, and Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Jacob Weinstein -- announced they were stepping down."



>
> Secondly, on the subject of the falsely accused
> subsidies to green energy etc, and picking losers
> blah blah blah. Of the 36 companies under the
> genre of "green energy" that received any tax
> payer funding, 3, count them 3, went backrupt. No
> one wants to talk about the companies that have
> now caught up in many ways with products overseas
> and now are beyond parody because of reduced
> freight cost and the fact that manufacturing
> continues to make a comeback in this country under
> current policy.


More BS. Just off of the top of my head there's been:

Solyndra
Beacon Power
Evergreen
Abound
Northwest Geothermal
Ener1
SpectraWattes

And several others on the verge.

In addition, Fisker just had to get an extension of terms and go out to private capital markets for additional funding last month to help pay it and delayed and reduced production estimates by about 1/3.

Beyond "parody" huh? lmao



> The attack on ambassador stevens. Well I actually
> know very well the mechanics of what is really at
> work. You should learn something on the subject
> before mouthing off tin-foil bullshit
> http://www.americanambassadors.org/index.cfm?fusea
> ction=Publications.article&articleid=195
>
> The problem has been the sudden drop off in
> funding towards hardening of our missions overseas
> (thank you GOP for funnelling funding out of State
> for the past 10 years starting with GW). Again you
> are an ignorant moron who wants to cite bullshit
> from Rush instead of actually learning about the
> subjects you are "knowledgeable about".
>

Damn, more complete bullshit. Your link doesn't even related to the quetion. lol

If the consulate was secure, then he shouldn't have been there. Beyond that, the issue now is why the Obama administration tried to bullshit the public about what happened.


> As far as the economy, say what you will but jobs
> gained are jobs gained. On the question of is the
> economy better off from the end of Bush to now the
> answer is clear whether you want to believe so or
> not. The problem is you dont understand that Many
> MANY people in this country see it that way, its
> just you through your charcoal filter that can't
> comprehend it. Spending has slowed to its lowest
> growth rate since Bill Clinton, the GDP will
> recover, revenue will go up and our deficit will
> go down on the track we are on.

No, only the *rate* of spending *increase* only. The total is significantly higher. As is the "trend." lol





Deal with it. lol

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are three things which would significantly
> increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the
> U.S.:
>
> 1) Significantly higher fuel costs.
> 2) Significantly higher wages in China (and the
> rest of the world).
> 3) Significantly lower wages in the United States.


#4) trade war with China.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There are three things which would
> significantly
> > increase the number of manufacturing jobs in
> the
> > U.S.:
> >
> > 1) Significantly higher fuel costs.
> > 2) Significantly higher wages in China (and the
> > rest of the world).
> > 3) Significantly lower wages in the United
> States.
>
>
> #4) trade war with China.


#5) Devalue the USD and/or get the Chinese to let their currency float with the market so that the cost for Chinese production rises on a relative basis. Which already has happened to some degree (the flat area of the line is a period of artificial currency control against the USD by the Chinese).

Now Obama can use what Romney said in the debate for political ads. Extremely crafty play by the Obama campaign.