Mitt, Newt ,Santorum

[Tagger]

The best the GOP has to offer ,,, against this .. Do any of these guys stand a chance .
The Road We've Traveled - YouTube

[scottw]

probably not...we should just skip the election(I think we've been here before) and donate all of the money we would have spent to pay down the debt, or feed some unemployed or needy Americans, or help fund the start up of a solar panel company, or send the Obama's on another vacation....

[Tagger]

[spence]

Some spin and a bit drippy...but also a lot of truth.

People may say Obama hasn't been the best, but considering the state of things when he took office, as a leader he's kept the ship upright and moving forward.

That will mean a lot to voters this fall.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;927583]People may say Obama hasn't been the best, but considering the state of things when he took office, as a leader he's kept the ship upright and moving forward.


"The official title: “The Road We’ve Traveled.” Three Years of Glory.

It’s all here. Protracted high unemployment, a catastrophic health-care boondoggle, aimlessness in Afghanistan, Iran nearing nuclear breakout capacity, soaring gas prices, and of course historic deficits on top of a looming entitlements-driven fiscal meltdown."

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Some spin and a bit drippy...but also a lot of truth.

People may say Obama hasn't been the best, but considering the state of things when he took office, as a leader he's kept the ship upright and moving forward.

That will mean a lot to voters this fall.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OMG Spence!!! Upright? Forward into what?? Are you really happy with the America your children are going to inherit?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

OMG Spence!!! Upright? Forward into what?? Are you really happy with the America your children are going to inherit?

you just gave me an idea...the Repubs should counter with a musical 17 minute production featuring Sting singing..."I Hope The Progressives Love Their Children Too".....that would be fantastic

All throughout America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to contrived crises
In the rhetorical speeches of leftist policies
Mr. Obama said we will fundamentally change you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Progressives love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Marx and Engle's little ploy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Progressives love their children too

There is ample historical precedent
To contradict the words of the President
There's nothing to gain in promoting class war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Obama says we will provide for you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Porgressives love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is if the Progressives love their children too

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

OMG Spence!!! Upright? Forward into what?? Are you really happy with the America your children are going to inherit?

If his term were to end today Obama would leave a country better off than when he took office. Ultimately that's what a chief executive is responsible for.

The country my kids will inherit isn't a product of Obama alone, and even with our serious issues isn't all that bad.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If his term were to end today Obama would leave a country better off than when he took office. Ultimately that's what a chief executive is responsible for.

The country my kids will inherit isn't a product of Obama alone, and even with our serious issues isn't all that bad.

-spence

yeah, sell that to what is consistently the more than 60% majority of "experts(Americans)" who think the country is headed in the wrong direction.... and the nearly 70% who said they were either the same or worse off than they were BOE.

you are WAYYY out of touch it appears..

but hey...let's have Tom Hanks narrate a commercial and he can tell everyone that their lives are much, much better, thanks to Obama

[striperman36]

[QUOTE=scottw;927592]

Originally Posted by spence

People may say Obama hasn't been the best, but considering the state of things when he took office, as a leader he's kept the ship upright and moving forward.


"The official title: “The Road We’ve Traveled.” Three Years of Glory.

It’s all here. Protracted high unemployment, a catastrophic health-care boondoggle, aimlessness in Afghanistan, Iran nearing nuclear breakout capacity, soaring gas prices, and of course historic deficits on top of a looming entitlements-driven fiscal meltdown."

Like any current GOP candidate would make any of that any better

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If his term were to end today Obama would leave a country better off than when he took office. Ultimately that's what a chief executive is responsible for.

The country my kids will inherit isn't a product of Obama alone, and even with our serious issues isn't all that bad.

-spence

"Better" is one of those subjective words that often, as is the case here, can describe parts of a whole, but rarely the entire. In the worst scenarios you can usually find something that is better than before, especially when "better" is a point of view and one that is invested in finding that "better" for political points. You, apparently, have found the "country" to be better off, in some way, than before. Without specifics, I can't fathom what that means. Has there even been a noticeable general "improvement" of the "country?" I don't notice it. Perhaps that's because I have a different point of view. Being a relativist, you would understand that.

Oh . . . so the so-called "financial crisis" was averted, according to "experts." Well, we don't really know that, do we? We don't know that, as others contend, we might be better off at this point if some biggies had been allowed to fail and creative destruction was allowed to evolve better ones. Unemployent is higher, gas prices are higher, food prices are higher, insurance is more expensive, the cost of medicine and health care has not been lowered, the cost of government and the cost of education has risen, the recovery that always follows recessions is anemic, and government is more intrusive and at a more accelerating pace, and the national debt has ballooned at a record rate. For starters. And you're parting thought "that even with our serious issues isn't all that bad" can be applied to just about any Presidential term.

But that is all just perspective, "context," as you like to say. There is no arguing opinion. What I find revealing is your comment that ultimately the chief executive is responsible for leaving the country better off than when he took office. Really? The POTUS has the responsibilty of making the "country better?" That is precisely the difference in mindset between constitutionalists and progressives. Progressives insist that it is government administration that improves our lot. Constititionalists believe that We the People are responsible for, and are guaranteed the freedom, to improve our lot.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Better" is one of those subjective words that often, as is the case here, can describe parts of a whole, but rarely the entire. In the worst scenarios you can usually find something that is better than before, especially when "better" is a point of view and one that is invested in finding that "better" for political points. You, apparently, have found the "country" to be better off, in some way, than before. Without specifics, I can't fathom what that means. Has there even been a noticeable general "improvement" of the "country?" I don't notice it. Perhaps that's because I have a different point of view. Being a relativist, you would understand that.

The entire voting process is highly subjective. People don't establish rigid benchmarks then evaluate performance in relation to them. They vote on emotion.

Oh . . . so the so-called "financial crisis" was averted, according to "experts." Well, we don't really know that, do we? We don't know that, as others contend, we might be better off at this point if some biggies had been allowed to fail and creative destruction was allowed to evolve better ones.

A similar mindset gave Bush credit in 2004 for no domestic terror attacks. Perhaps they just didn't try very hard? We'll never know.

Although in the same context, we've lost more Americans fighting terrorism than have been killed from terrorism. It's very subjective.

Unemployent is higher, gas prices are higher, food prices are higher, insurance is more expensive, the cost of medicine and health care has not been lowered, the cost of government and the cost of education has risen, the recovery that always follows recessions is anemic, and government is more intrusive and at a more accelerating pace, and the national debt has ballooned at a record rate. For starters. And you're parting thought "that even with our serious issues isn't all that bad" can be applied to just about any Presidential term.

I believe gas prices hit a higher spike under Bush just before the crash. Many price increases are also a function of inflation or directly related to increasing energy costs. The trajectory of health care was so steep nothing would slow it significantly in just a few years.

I think the average person understands this.

What I find revealing is your comment that ultimately the chief executive is responsible for leaving the country better off than when he took office. Really? The POTUS has the responsibilty of making the "country better?" That is precisely the difference in mindset between constitutionalists and progressives. Progressives insist that it is government administration that improves our lot. Constititionalists believe that We the People are responsible for, and are guaranteed the freedom, to improve our lot.

Now you're reaching. CEO's who weather storms are usually given some leeway in how they are judged. The idea it to keep the ship upright even if the passengers are being thrown about. You may arrive at port with a few bruises, but you're alive.

Remember in 2008 many thought the world was about to end.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If his term were to end today Obama would leave a country better off than when he took office. Ultimately that's what a chief executive is responsible for.

The country my kids will inherit isn't a product of Obama alone, and even with our serious issues isn't all that bad.

-spence

Funny, even Obama doesn't give himself as much credit as you. A couple of months ago, he explicitly said to ABC that the country is not better off than it was when he took office.

Obama: Americans are ?not better off? today than they were four years ago | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Spence, unemployment is lower, if you buy the way it's measured (most don't). And the stock market has rebounded. Those are good things. They need ro be (1) compared to how much money Obama has borrowed to accomplish this, and (2) we need to decide if Obama influenced these things, or if it's cyclical, and (3) what's the impact of the debt he's accumulating, how much of your kids' future money will be owed to the Chinese for decisions you kids' had no say whatsoever in.. Liberals don't discuss that, ever. Never, ever, ever. That conversation will rear its ugly head when the checks start bouncing.

Obama: Americans are ?not better off? today than they were four years ago | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The entire voting process is highly subjective. People don't establish rigid benchmarks then evaluate performance in relation to them. They vote on emotion.

Not sure how this is a response to what I said. In any case, it doesn't sound like disagreement.

A similar mindset gave Bush credit in 2004 for no domestic terror attacks. Perhaps they just didn't try very hard? We'll never know.

I'm not sure how this relates to the country being "better," or what Bush has to do with it, nor does it sound like disagreement with what I said. So far, you agree with me that "better" is subjective.

Although in the same context, we've lost more Americans fighting terrorism than have been killed from terrorism. It's very subjective.

Ditto.

I believe gas prices hit a higher spike under Bush just before the crash. Many price increases are also a function of inflation or directly related to increasing energy costs. The trajectory of health care was so steep nothing would slow it significantly in just a few years.

I think the average person understands this.

I could agree with what you say here, but how does that demonstrate, from your subjective view, that the country is better than when Obama took office?

Now you're reaching. CEO's who weather storms are usually given some leeway in how they are judged. The idea it to keep the ship upright even if the passengers are being thrown about. You may arrive at port with a few bruises, but you're alive.

CEO's, ship captains, and POTUS's operate under different rules. CEO'S are not chief executives of republics such as our's where their power is limited by the voting consent of everyone in their corporation, and We the People are more sovereign with more constitutionally vested rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES than the President. CEO's can often act as dictators or oligarchs. The health of the corporation is much more related to their decisions than is the health of our nation is related to a President--as what you've said above, to a small degree, demonstrates. And ship captains have a supreme power which our POTUS is not supposed to have. But, again, you're exhibiting that adaministrative government mindset, not a constitutionalist one. So seeing the President as being responsible for the condition of the nation, rather than We the People, is understandable.

Remember in 2008 many thought the world was about to end.

-spence

And I'M the one who is reaching? Nobody thought the world was about to end. Most of us believed it would continue, with a bump in the road, and that the big, bad corporate types who were blamed deserved to go under instead of being bailed out.