Conservatives expect Barack Obama re-election in US

Sep 17, 2012 Full story: The Guardian 909

Downing Street officials are preparing for what they expect will be victory for Barack Obama in the US presidential election in November and defeat for Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger, who is a natural Tory ally.

Full Story

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#945 Oct 2, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<
"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."
A slip of the tongue four years ago is your best shot?

You are well-know for your slipping tongue, Stickylips.

Here's what draft dodger Romney said during this campaign:

"Join me in welcoming the next president of the United States, Paul Ryan," a beaming Romney told an energized crowd in Norfolk, Virginia...

Well... maybe the next Republican president... 2020... maybe...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#946 Oct 2, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
"Join me in welcoming the next president of the United States, Paul Ryan," a beaming Romney told an energized crowd in Norfolk, Virginia...
And that got played and people laughed and then...

That was the END OF IT.

Romney didn't go on FoxNews crying about the "Gotcha media". He didn't whine about how unfair it was that he screwed up and people saw it.

Palin is a child

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#947 Oct 2, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
A slip of the tongue four years ago is your best shot?
You are well-know for your slipping tongue, Stickylips.
Here's what draft dodger Romney said during this campaign:
"Join me in welcoming the next president of the United States, Paul Ryan," a beaming Romney told an energized crowd in Norfolk, Virginia...
Well... maybe the next Republican president... 2020... maybe...
Yup. Saw it live!

Obama's got one of those too:

"Let me introduce to you the next President -- the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden." - Barack Obama --slipping up while introducing Joe Biden at their first joint campaign rally, Springfield, Illinois, Aug. 23, 2008

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#948 Oct 2, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the difference. Seriously, try to pay attention.
People make mistakes. Bush did it a lot. Bush Sr. did it too. Obama has done it. Romney has done it. It happens.
So, when Bush did his whole: "We have a saying in Texas, fool me once shame on me, fool me twice... ain't gonna get fooled again" people poked fun.
And how did Bush respond? Do you remember?
HE DIDN'T! He F'd up. People made a joke. End of story.
How does Palin respond? She WHINES and cries and tells everyone that the media is being mean to her, and that she's being treated differently than everyone else.
Bullsh1t. She's being treated EXACTLY the same as Bush or Obama or Clinton or Romeny, they just don't bitch about it.
THAT'S the difference.
Obama doesn't go crying about the Right Wing Media Elites when he slips up and says 57 instead of 47.
Bush Sr didn't go crying when the Simpsons made fun of "Nuculer" instead of "Nuclear".
Palin balls her f'ing eyes out EVERY SINGLE TIME she gets called out on a mistake.
No. Actually, the difference is: You are now blatantly lying.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#949 Oct 2, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's do it.
Stock market - Up under Obama down under Bush
Job totals - Up under Obama, down under Bush
Number of wars Bush got us into: 2
Number of wars Obama got us into: 0
Number of wars Bush got us out of: 0
Number of Wars Obama got us out of: 1
Number of times Osama Bin Laden was killed under Bush: 0
Number of times OBL was killed under Obama: 1
Number of times New Orleans was destroyed under Obama: 0
And I suppose if the nation believed your drivel, the majority wouldn't rate Obama aa bad as, or worse, than George W. Bush:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149666/Majority-Se...

Fact is, I'd have preferred another four years of Dubya, than have the four years we've been subjected to under the current failed President.

I'm voting Romney.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#950 Oct 2, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Actually, the difference is: You are now blatantly lying.
About what? That Obama had a slip of the tongue? You HONESTLY believe that Obama thinks there are 57 states?

Or am I lying that Palin has been complaining about the "gotcha media" a phrase she coined?

Or that Bush DIDN'T complain about the coverage of his gaff when he said the "Won't fool me a second time" thing?

Be specific and cite sources.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#951 Oct 2, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
And I suppose if the nation believed your drivel, the majority wouldn't rate Obama aa bad as, or worse, than George W. Bush:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149666/Majority-Se...
Fact is, I'd have preferred another four years of Dubya, than have the four years we've been subjected to under the current failed President.
I'm voting Romney.
The last four years have been spent digging us out of the hole Bush put us in.

Have you ever smashed a car into a tree?
Have you ever had to fix that car?

Which takes longer?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#953 Oct 3, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The last four years have been spent digging us out of the hole Bush put us in.
Have you ever smashed a car into a tree?
Have you ever had to fix that car?
Which takes longer?
Wrong again, Nuggin.

It's become increasingly clear that Bush didn't "put us in" any hole at all. The economic crisis of 2008 has it's roots in the Carter Administration's "Community Reinvestment Act" way back from 1977. Clinton proposed, and got, a massive expansion of that program. Government forced banks to loan money to people who didn't deserve them, and 2008 was the result.

Indeed, when Bush and the Republicans were in charge through the 2000's, all was well and we had massive economic expansion.

Democrats took over congress in 2008, gridlock began, and we got the recession.

The "Blame Bush" card expired a couple years ago.

The last four years has been spent with this administration utilizing fear and blame in order to advance their big government socialist agenda.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Obama promised a lot, he begged for the job of President, the people gave him the job, and he's delivered very little, if anything, on his promises.

A massive stimulus that didn't work, and ObamaCare that over 60% of the U.S. doesn't want.

That's Obama's legacy of failure. Now it's time to move on.

We need a President who understands, and believes in, the private sector, where ALL capital is created.

Between Obama and Romney, Romney is clearly the better choice.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#954 Oct 3, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
About what? That Obama had a slip of the tongue? You HONESTLY believe that Obama thinks there are 57 states?
Or am I lying that Palin has been complaining about the "gotcha media" a phrase she coined?
Or that Bush DIDN'T complain about the coverage of his gaff when he said the "Won't fool me a second time" thing?
Be specific and cite sources.
You need to make up your mind.

In one post, you say "I don't chase down links."

Now you want links.

How about you quit being a hypocrite? You slam Sarah Palin for verbal gaffes, and defend Obama when he makes them.

So you are either a racist, and blindly support Obama because he's black. Or you are a sexist, and hate Palin because she's a woman.

Or, you simply forgive Obama because you agree with his ideology, while you denigrate Palin because you don't agree with her ideology.

Which is it?

Come on man, knowing how many states there are is "third-grade" stuff.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#955 Oct 3, 2012
realist wrote:
<quoted text>Mykro, only a liberal loon whose elevator doesn't move past the first floor would comment that "dimishing returns" would say that is a negative toward technology advancements. "Diminishing" means that they are not happening at the pace that they once did. You've got to do better than that.... come on, stretch your limited intellect to the fullest.
Only a hypocritical frightwing nutjob would try to cover his dumb ass by claiming a technological advancement to the computer age caused 'diminishing returns". Productivity across the board increased with the advent of the computer. You're a hypocritical Luddite.

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#957 Oct 3, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Keyes' position on social issues makes him unelectable. He's FAR right of even the right most GOP candidates.
Cain isn't serious enough to bother learning the base level of things he would need to know to be president. He's a man who thought it would be fun, not someone who actually understands what it takes to lead.
Meanwhile, the racism I'm talking about is specifically the Bush campaigns calls to SC voters telling them that McCain had an illegitimate black child.
Why make that call? What's the purpose of it?
So you are my chauffeur? You picked up my cleaning? Thanks!

Apparently I am paying you too much if you have time to whine on Topix.

Keyes is RIGHT ON with his assessment of what it will take to get America back on track, the first item of which is rightly labeling Obama a socialist and getting him out of office.

Cain lacks what? He has VAST business and real world experience and drive, but, like most of Obama's opponents, was taken out by a sex scandal that went, um, no where. Where are the reports on that?

But, please, share with us what Obama came to the table with that caused you to vote for him?

His experience?

His "leadership"?(which is SO evident over the last 4 years).

Racism? Like Sen. Obama in 2007 suggesting Katrina response was due to racism?

Or are you so Pavlovian that you can only twitch and drool when you try to reach back to Bush?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#958 Oct 3, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
And that got played and people laughed and then...
That was the END OF IT.
And yet right wingers continue to post something said out of context Obama said in 2008.

Though it is obvious to EVERYONE exactly what was actually said.

I would be more concerned about what people actually say and actually mean- such as draft dodger Romney saying he didn't care about 47 percent of Americans.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#959 Oct 3, 2012
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
Keyes is RIGHT ON with his assessment of what it will take to get America back on track,
Funny how Keyes didn't even make it in the top ten of the MINORITY party.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#960 Oct 3, 2012
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
Racism? Like Sen. Obama in 2007 suggesting Katrina response was due to racism?
Didn't.

It's a wonder why your spooged-coated tongue doesn't jump out of your lying mouth.

But then if my draft dodging hero was spiraling the drain, all I guess it would be the only thing I had left.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#961 Oct 3, 2012
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
Cain lacks what??
Morals.

But then: Cain lost ten months ago, long past time for you to STFU.

I understand: the best thing you can say about Romney is... he isn't Cain.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#963 Oct 3, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, Nuggin.
It's become increasingly clear that Bush didn't "put us in" any hole at all. The economic crisis of 2008 has it's roots in the Carter Administration's "Community Reinvestment Act" way back from 1977. Clinton proposed, and got, a massive expansion of that program. Government forced banks to loan money to people who didn't deserve them, and 2008 was the result.
Sorry, but this is just wrong.

You can blame Clinton for part of this, but not the part you are thinking. You can blame him for the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

I'm going to try and treat you like an adult capable of independent thought here, please try and act like one.

No law or policy passed by the Government can force institutions into the massively over leveraged positions they were in. There is only one thing that can do that: greed.

During the first W recession, Greenspan cut interest rates to an all time low. This made investments in things like bonds unappealing. Those money funds which normally play it safe with bonds needed to find someplace else to invest their capital.

Mortgage backed securities were the next best thing. They weren't risky at all at the start of the issue. So, those got bought up, and with the higher demand came higher prices for them.

Suddenly, the banks who packed mortgage backed securities were low on supply (they had just sold them all off very quickly). The way they increase supply is by offering loans at low rates. So, they did.

This started a flood in the market of home loans and equity loans. That increased the number of buyers in the housing market which in turn increased the prices of houses.

As house prices went up, the mortgaged back securities became "safer" because the value of the house far outweighed the value of the mortgage on the house. So, more demand for those, more money for banks for selling them, more need for supply.

Banks started skipping corners. They had already gotten all the "good" loan customers. So, you started seeing no money down loans and declared income loans.

From the banks perspective it didn't matter at all. They were bundling the loans and selling them off so fast there was no risk for them.

For the buyers of securities, so long as loans were getting made the prices of houses were going up, therefore the mortgages were secure.

Then the bubble started to really grow. People started "flipping house". You had people with multiple mortgages, owning multiple properties which they were refurbishing to resell at a higher value. Buy a house for $150k, borrow money against it, sink $50k of upgrades into it. Sell it for $400k six months later, pocket the $200k.

Flipping was so popular there were MULTIPLE reality shows about it on the air at the height of the bubble.

The problem is, a home owner who lives in their house has some incentive to pay their mortgage even if they are upside-down on the mortgage. Someone who bought three houses as investments has no incentive to pay an upside-down mortgage at all.

By this point, banks were scraping the bottom of the barrel to give out loans. They were giving ridiculous loans to people who absolutely did not deserve them.

This was NOT because of a government policy forcing them to do so.

This was because they had buyers for the mortgage backed securities who were shoving money in their faces.

Banks KNEW that these loans were bad investments, but thought they weren't taking a risk.

However, as this bad loans weren't getting paid, the MBSs stopped paying to investors.

Investors stopped buying. Banks got stuck with the last round of bad ones. Banks stopped loans. Houses stopped selling. Prices plummet.

CRASH.

Glass-Steagall would have prevented the crash from affecting savings banks. It put a wall between savings and inventment banks. No wall, bigger crash.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#964 Oct 3, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
Indeed, when Bush and the Republicans were in charge through the 2000's, all was well and we had massive economic expansion.
Democrats took over congress in 2008, gridlock began, and we got the recession.
The "Blame Bush" card expired a couple years ago.
The last four years has been spent with this administration utilizing fear and blame in order to advance their big government socialist agenda.
Seriously, listen to what you are saying.

#1) "Gridlock began" with the democrats? Bush pushed through dozens of unpopular policies with the Dems in control of Congress because the dems were willing to cooperate.

The GOP's position with Obama is so obstructionist that, during the Tax Ceiling crisis when Obama caved and gave the GOP _everything_ it asked for they STILL said no.

#2) The card expired? In the very post I'm replying to you blame BOTH Carter and Clinton for the crash during Bush's second term.

#3) Fear? Seriously? Do you have any idea how many times the Bush admin changed the "National Threat Level" during the run up to his re-election? Every time there was a gaff or a dip in the polls, suddenly we were at "Orange" with no explanation as to why.

What "fear" is Obama using? The fact that healthcare costs are the biggest problem facing both businesses and citizens? The fact that more Americans go bankrupt from spiraling health care costs than do from bad investments or even losing a job?
Obama promised a lot, he begged for the job of President, the people gave him the job, and he's delivered very little, if anything, on his promises.
A massive stimulus that didn't work, and ObamaCare that over 60% of the U.S. doesn't want.
Actually, the stimulus did work. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office. We were headed into a Great Depression.

We are at net job gain.

What did you think was gonna happen? Half the worlds wealth vanished overnight and you think a President can come in and wave a wand and make it all better in 10 days?

As for this alleged "60% of the US" that doesn't want healthcare, you're gonna have to show your numbers and they shouldn't be from FoxNews.

40% of the country is either under the age of 18 or over the age of 65.

And I'm not even considering the soldiers and their families. What is that another 2% of the population?

So, basically, you think that the remaining people, the people who actually need healthcare and have to pay for it, those people UNIVERSALLY reject the idea of Universal Healthcare.

Uh huh.
Between Obama and Romney, Romney is clearly the better choice.
Romney just came out for removing the mortgage interest tax deduction.

That change in the tax code alone would ABSOLUTELY DESTROY the Middle Class.

Home ownership right now is a shaky proposition, there are still MILLIONS of Americans who are slightly upside-down or barely above water with their mortgages.

If you suddenly remove the deduction that makes staying in those houses possible, there's NO REASON to stay in the houses.

Housing is just starting to recover. That ONE change (really just about the only thing Romney has told us about) would plunge us back into recession.

No wonder he's not giving specifics.
Razors Edge

Oak Lawn, IL

#965 Oct 3, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but this is just wrong.
You can blame Clinton for part of this, but not the part you are thinking. You can blame him for the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
I'm going to try and treat you like an adult capable of independent thought here, please try and act like one.
No law or policy passed by the Government can force institutions into the massively over leveraged positions they were in. There is only one thing that can do that: greed.
During the first W recession, Greenspan cut interest rates to an all time low. This made investments in things like bonds unappealing. Those money funds which normally play it safe with bonds needed to find someplace else to invest their capital.
Mortgage backed securities were the next best thing. They weren't risky at all at the start of the issue. So, those got bought up, and with the higher demand came higher prices for them.
Suddenly, the banks who packed mortgage backed securities were low on supply (they had just sold them all off very quickly). The way they increase supply is by offering loans at low rates. So, they did.
This started a flood in the market of home loans and equity loans. That increased the number of buyers in the housing market which in turn increased the prices of houses.
As house prices went up, the mortgaged back securities became "safer" because the value of the house far outweighed the value of the mortgage on the house. So, more demand for those, more money for banks for selling them, more need for supply.
Banks started skipping corners. They had already gotten all the "good" loan customers. So, you started seeing no money down loans and declared income loans.
From the banks perspective it didn't matter at all. They were bundling the loans and selling them off so fast there was no risk for them.
For the buyers of securities, so long as loans were getting made the prices of houses were going up, therefore the mortgages were secure.
Then the bubble started to really grow. People started "flipping house". You had people with multiple mortgages, owning multiple properties which they were refurbishing to resell at a higher value. Buy a house for $150k, borrow money against it, sink $50k of upgrades into it. Sell it for $400k six months later, pocket the $200k.
Flipping was so popular there were MULTIPLE reality shows about it on the air at the height of the bubble.
The problem is, a home owner who lives in their house has some incentive to pay their mortgage even if they are upside-down on the mortgage. Someone who bought three houses as investments has no incentive to pay an upside-down mortgage at all.
By this point, banks were scraping the bottom of the barrel to give out loans. They were giving ridiculous loans to people who absolutely did not deserve them.
This was NOT because of a government policy forcing them to do so.
This was because they had buyers for the mortgage backed securities who were shoving money in their faces.
Banks KNEW that these loans were bad investments, but thought they weren't taking a risk.
However, as this bad loans weren't getting paid, the MBSs stopped paying to investors.
Investors stopped buying. Banks got stuck with the last round of bad ones. Banks stopped loans. Houses stopped selling. Prices plummet.
CRASH.
Glass-Steagall would have prevented the crash from affecting savings banks. It put a wall between savings and inventment banks. No wall, bigger crash.
Wrong Dufus,The GWB<regime attempted numerous times to repeal the Clinton
CRA act that was doomed to fail before it began? democrats blocked every
attempt by GWB to do so!! get your facts straight before your spewing of
Commie Bull Sh*t!!

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#966 Oct 3, 2012
Cary L Nickel wrote:
How about you quit being a hypocrite? You slam Sarah Palin for verbal gaffes, and defend Obama when he makes them.
So you are either a racist, and blindly support Obama because he's black. Or you are a sexist, and hate Palin because she's a woman.
Are you not paying attention?

Let me restate this again clearly for you.

If Palin made a gaff and then DIDN'T GO AND WHINE ABOUT IT, there wouldn't be a problem.

Obama, Bush 1, Bush 2, Romney, Kerry, Clinton, etc etc etc They all made gaffs. Lots of them. Some more than others. NONE of those people went on FoxNews to complain about the "gotcha media" being mean to them.

THAT is the issue. Not that she makes gaffs, but that she whines about it and tries to blame the press for her mistakes.
Or, you simply forgive Obama because you agree with his ideology, while you denigrate Palin because you don't agree with her ideology.
Which is it?
Palin doesn't have an ideology.
Come on man, knowing how many states there are is "third-grade" stuff.
You've NEVER in your entire life misspoken?

Common phrases like "50 states" or "Boston Red Sox" are repeated so often we almost can't help by say them.

If I opened a trading company called "Boston Red Stocks", people would say it wrong HALF the time.

Obama had a slip of the tongue and said 57 instead of 47. Big deal.

If you HONESTLY think he doesn't know how many states there are, that's more of an indicator of YOUR lack of intelligence.

Meanwhile, when we're talking about Palin, we're talking about questions like "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" Her answer wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was evident she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

Now, that would be forgivable if she was a guest on Jay Leno plugging a movie. But she wasn't. She was running for Vice President behind a man who was the oldest candidate for office AND who had previously had all three kinds of skin cancer among other health issues.

Now, McCain is still alive today, which is great. However, it would not unreasonable to guess that he might not have made it four years given his previous health problems.

There was a VERY real chance that Palin would have taken the office, it would be nice if she actually knew the name of the military/political doctrine under which the government had been operating for nearly a decade.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#967 Oct 3, 2012
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
Cain lacks what? He has VAST business and real world experience and drive
He doesn't have even a passing grasp on foreign policy which, more than anything, is what the President deals with the most on a day to day basis.

Further, his 9-9-9 plan may be appealing to the intellectually lazy because it's easy to remember, but the plan would literally destroy the economy.
, but, like most of Obama's opponents, was taken out by a sex scandal that went, um, no where. Where are the reports on that?
Cain dropped out of the race. Reporters aren't in the business of tracking down stories about people who AREN'T running for president.

And Cain was NEVER an Obama opponent. He was never even close to being Obama's opponent. He was Romney's opponent. If you want to know who took Cain down, look around the GOP.
But, please, share with us what Obama came to the table with that caused you to vote for him?
His experience?
His "leadership"?(which is SO evident over the last 4 years).
How has he not shown leadership? Are we better off on the world stage than we were 4 years ago? Absolutely. Unquestionably.
Racism? Like Sen. Obama in 2007 suggesting Katrina response was due to racism?
How is it racist to point out that Bush's lack of response to Katrina was largely due to what people lived there. Had Katrine hit Boston, the response would have been categorically different.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tea Party Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obamatrade will destroy American Sovereignty Feb 22 Frank Gulipi 1
NY Democrats Vow To Destroy Illegal Immigrant I... Feb 19 ronnie 4
Florida Tea Party Still Fighting Obamacare (Dec '12) Feb 12 The Tea Master 4
Samuel L. Jackson echoes Morgan Freeman, says T... (Oct '11) Feb 5 swedenforever 35
Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Endorses Stoning Gays (Jun '14) Feb 4 swedenforever 73
Tea Party people less popular than many other h... (Aug '11) Feb 4 swedenforever 2
Climate change scientists predicted monster sto... Jan 31 Earthling-1 23
More from around the web