Is Obama a one term prez ?

135

Comments

  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    edited March 2011
    Kraven wrote:
    cajunkiwi wrote:

    The names being bandied about make the party look like a circus sideshow. If they want to seriously challenge Obama they'll have to do it with somebody not named Palin/Bachmann etc.

    It would be interesting to see their response to Romney though - after inventing controversy with the whole "Obama isn't a Christian" rubbish, how will their base deal with someone who actually IS a non-Christian?

    Uh last time I checked Romney is a Mormon, which is definitely a form of Christianity.

    Though there are many differences:
    http://www.irr.org/mit/is-mormonism-christian.html

    And if we have seen anything in the modern era, we have seen that even the most minute differences can lead to all out war between different fairy tales, uh, I mean religions.
    Post edited by whygohome on
  • cajunkiwicajunkiwi Posts: 984
    Kraven wrote:
    cajunkiwi wrote:

    The names being bandied about make the party look like a circus sideshow. If they want to seriously challenge Obama they'll have to do it with somebody not named Palin/Bachmann etc.

    It would be interesting to see their response to Romney though - after inventing controversy with the whole "Obama isn't a Christian" rubbish, how will their base deal with someone who actually IS a non-Christian?

    Uh last time I checked Romney is a Mormon, which is definitely a form of Christianity.

    You're right - totally poorly worded on my part. I was referring to the more "mainstream" movements like Methodism, etc, and bungled it (I'm not religious myself so I don't know the correct name for the different branches/variations).

    So I'll rephrase the question... will the same people who complained about Obama being the president because they thought he was a Muslim support a Mormon candidate?
    And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
  • FlaggFlagg Posts: 5,856
    cajunkiwi wrote:
    Kraven wrote:
    cajunkiwi wrote:

    The names being bandied about make the party look like a circus sideshow. If they want to seriously challenge Obama they'll have to do it with somebody not named Palin/Bachmann etc.

    It would be interesting to see their response to Romney though - after inventing controversy with the whole "Obama isn't a Christian" rubbish, how will their base deal with someone who actually IS a non-Christian?

    Uh last time I checked Romney is a Mormon, which is definitely a form of Christianity.

    You're right - totally poorly worded on my part. I was referring to the more "mainstream" movements like Methodism, etc, and bungled it (I'm not religious myself so I don't know the correct name for the different branches/variations).

    So I'll rephrase the question... will the same people who complained about Obama being the president because they thought he was a Muslim support a Mormon candidate?

    The term you are looking for is "denomination" I think.

    I was raised in a Southern Baptist environment. I am not one now. From personal experience Southern Baptists and most other evangelical Christian denominations do not consider Mormonism to be a form of Christianity at all, but rather, a cult.
    DAL-7/5/98,10/17/00,6/9/03,11/15/13
    BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
    MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
    PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
    CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
    HTFD-6/27/08
    ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
    KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
    Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
    PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
    OKC-11/16/13
    SEA-12/6/13
    TUL-10/8/14
  • Kraven wrote:
    cajunkiwi wrote:

    The names being bandied about make the party look like a circus sideshow. If they want to seriously challenge Obama they'll have to do it with somebody not named Palin/Bachmann etc.

    It would be interesting to see their response to Romney though - after inventing controversy with the whole "Obama isn't a Christian" rubbish, how will their base deal with someone who actually IS a non-Christian?

    Uh last time I checked Romney is a Mormon, which is definitely a form of Christianity.

    Mormonism isn't generally accepted as Christianity. It "adds" to the Bible, plus it holds a set of beliefs which is in contrast to many traditional Christian beliefs.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    cajunkiwi wrote:
    So I'll rephrase the question... will the same people who complained about Obama being the president because they thought he was a Muslim support a Mormon candidate?
    i'll take a stab at this, and i would say that they would take a mormon over obama because the mormon was actually born here...

    actually, i think most of those who were opposed to obama were opposed because his middle name was hussein, and they equated that with "he must be a muslim". and they were angry about his past association with Rev. Wright, who is a christian by the way. a good number of those on the right are "values voters" and if a candidate does not share their values, especially with regard to religion, most likely you do not vote for that person.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • MG79478MG79478 Posts: 1,674
    "The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."
    bytterman wrote:
    Sorry all kidding aside there doesn't seem to be an electable Republican. Doesn't everyone of the likely suspects divide the GOP in some way? Obviously some are more polarizing than others (particularly Palin?) but it seems that every one of them has a history or platform aspect that pisses off lots of people.

    Maybe the GOP can find an inexperienced junior senator with a questionable background and friends, and a radical voting record, to start campaigning for president as soon as he takes office in the senate?
    Yeah. Obama wasn't able to get the swing voters to vote for him before, was he?

    Or the "Obama Republicans," either.

    IT was just those libbie socialists who voted for him.

    Um... wait, what?

    Don't forget dead people, they always vote for Democrats. They have since the 60s!
    I guess he's too young to understand that this problem wasn't caused by the president... it was caused by 30 years of Republican trickle-down bullshit and corporations going unregulated for almost as long.
    That's it! It wasn't the last 80 years of growing Democrat entitlement programs. You know the programs that remove all incentive to work hard, and bleed dry those that still do?
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Godfather. wrote:
    I would laugh my azz of if huckabee ran and got elected... this place would be a burning hot bed of dem's and raspy remarks. :lol:

    Godfather.


    http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/08/b ... ml?hpt=C1#


    I don't think the opposition will really matter. So here's my answer...

    Yes, Obama will unquestionably be a one term President, unless he finds a way to get unemployment below 8% by the election. I will further that, he probably won't win unless he finds a way to get unemployment close to 7%. This election will boil down to the economy and nothing more. And the statistic people will look at is the unemployment rate.

    The problem I see with Obama first few years is all the average voter wanted was a return to a level of normalcy within the economy. Within the first few months of his office, the economy worsened further and he was left with the worst economy since the Great Depression. His focus was immediately on health care?? Say what you will about the merits of health care, but the average U.S. citizen does not link the economy to health care. Therefore, a large amount of people were left scratching their heads. The typical voter doesn't over-think things.

    I think one reason Obama was so well received was his foreign policy stance was a refreshing change from the Bush administration. But now with Libya, I think once again the "average" voter is going to not connect the dots on why Libya's different. They most likely will wonder why a President that said he would not get us involved in another military conflict in the middle east is getting us involved in a new military affair in the middle east. Say what you will about the merits of the Libya military affair, but the typical voter will not over-think it. They will scratch their heads.

    Finally, I think the credit crisis has changed peoples opinions on budgets. I certainly would agree with anyone who says the Tea Party takes it too far in blaming one side. The truth is a lot of the problem stemmed from Republican Administrations. But, once again, the average voter doesn't over think things or really even blame anyone, they just vote. I believe the average voter believes they have tightened their belts, so should the government. That means if there are layoffs in the private sector, layoffs should probably occur in government sector if they are needed. It basically means that cutting back is something the average voter most likely wants because they are doing it. Obama has not really had a good record "thus far" of cutting back on spending. So, if he claims to have cut back during his run for a second term, an average voter may scratch their heads.

    All that said, it will come down to the economy and I think the one indicator to highlight is the unemployment rate. If it drops below 8%, he has a shot. If not, you could run any Republican against him and they will win.

    This is not rocket science and, if you're honest, you'll admit he is going to have a tough time against anyone unless the economy improves. If it worsens, he is almost certainly out.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • cajunkiwi wrote:
    So I'll rephrase the question... will the same people who complained about Obama being the president because they thought he was a Muslim support a Mormon candidate?
    i'll take a stab at this, and i would say that they would take a mormon over obama because the mormon was actually born here...

    actually, i think most of those who were opposed to obama were opposed because his middle name was hussein, and they equated that with "he must be a muslim". and they were angry about his past association with Rev. Wright, who is a christian by the way. a good number of those on the right are "values voters" and if a candidate does not share their values, especially with regard to religion, most likely you do not vote for that person.

    Jeremiah Wright is about as Christian as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

    These men do not preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    Flagg wrote:
    Very very difficult to unseat an incumbent president.

    I just don't see anyone one the Republican side that can do it. There is no face to the Republican party. No one figure they can all get behind like Bush or Reagan.

    Palin is too polarizing.
    Gingrich doesn't have the numbers.
    Romney may be the best bet, but I don't see that happening. Is Mitt Romney going to fire up the Republican base and win over the independent vote?
    Huckabee is a very conservative evangelical Christian who isn't going to win too much support beyond his base. He basically disappeared in the 2008 race for the nomination after winning Iowa.

    I am not educated in this, just making guesses, but I don't see a clear front runner here.

    Gingrich would be a good option, I think. But, like you say.... :D
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    cajunkiwi wrote:
    So I'll rephrase the question... will the same people who complained about Obama being the president because they thought he was a Muslim support a Mormon candidate?
    i'll take a stab at this, and i would say that they would take a mormon over obama because the mormon was actually born here...

    actually, i think most of those who were opposed to obama were opposed because his middle name was hussein, and they equated that with "he must be a muslim". and they were angry about his past association with Rev. Wright, who is a christian by the way. a good number of those on the right are "values voters" and if a candidate does not share their values, especially with regard to religion, most likely you do not vote for that person.

    Jeremiah Wright is about as Christian as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

    These men do not preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    what gospel do they preach then???
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • EmBleveEmBleve Posts: 3,019
    inlet13 wrote:


    I don't think the opposition will really matter. So here's my answer...

    Yes, Obama will unquestionably be a one term President, unless he finds a way to get unemployment below 8% by the election. I will further that, he probably won't win unless he finds a way to get unemployment close to 7%. This election will boil down to the economy and nothing more. And the statistic people will look at is the unemployment rate.

    The problem I see with Obama first few years is all the average voter wanted was a return to a level of normalcy within the economy. Within the first few months of his office, the economy worsened further and he was left with the worst economy since the Great Depression. His focus was immediately on health care?? Say what you will about the merits of health care, but the average U.S. citizen does not link the economy to health care. Therefore, a large amount of people were left scratching their heads. The typical voter doesn't over-think things.

    I think one reason Obama was so well received was his foreign policy stance was a refreshing change from the Bush administration. But now with Libya, I think once again the "average" voter is going to not connect the dots on why Libya's different. They most likely will wonder why a President that said he would not get us involved in another military conflict in the middle east is getting us involved in a new military affair in the middle east. Say what you will about the merits of the Libya military affair, but the typical voter will not over-think it. They will scratch their heads.

    Finally, I think the credit crisis has changed peoples opinions on budgets. I certainly would agree with anyone who says the Tea Party takes it too far in blaming one side. The truth is a lot of the problem stemmed from Republican Administrations. But, once again, the average voter doesn't over think things or really even blame anyone, they just vote. I believe the average voter believes they have tightened their belts, so should the government. That means if there are layoffs in the private sector, layoffs should probably occur in government sector if they are needed. It basically means that cutting back is something the average voter most likely wants because they are doing it. Obama has not really had a good record "thus far" of cutting back on spending. So, if he claims to have cut back during his run for a second term, an average voter may scratch their heads.

    All that said, it will come down to the economy and I think the one indicator to highlight is the unemployment rate. If it drops below 8%, he has a shot. If not, you could run any Republican against him and they will win.

    This is not rocket science and, if you're honest, you'll admit he is going to have a tough time against anyone unless the economy improves. If it worsens, he is almost certainly out.

    I think you make excellent points. :thumbup:
  • cajunkiwicajunkiwi Posts: 984
    MG79478 wrote:
    "

    Maybe the GOP can find an inexperienced junior senator with a questionable background and friends, and a radical voting record, to start campaigning for president as soon as he takes office in the senate?

    They don't need one, they already have someone who slammed Obama for being a "celebrity," only to then turn around and quit her job as governor to go on a book tour and appear as a contributor on Fox and on a reality TV show. Granted she has no "radical voting record" - because she doesn't have a voting record to speak of - but she does have ties to a secessionist group, which means her commitment to America is clearly questionable.
    And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    cajunkiwi wrote:
    So I'll rephrase the question... will the same people who complained about Obama being the president because they thought he was a Muslim support a Mormon candidate?
    i'll take a stab at this, and i would say that they would take a mormon over obama because the mormon was actually born here...

    actually, i think most of those who were opposed to obama were opposed because his middle name was hussein, and they equated that with "he must be a muslim". and they were angry about his past association with Rev. Wright, who is a christian by the way. a good number of those on the right are "values voters" and if a candidate does not share their values, especially with regard to religion, most likely you do not vote for that person.

    Jeremiah Wright is about as Christian as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

    These men do not preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Good. I've had enough of the preaching of fairy tales. Maybe I will start preaching the gospel of Bilbo Baggins.
    I still feel that Obama is as secular a President as we have had since WWII. And, let's not kid ourselves, the founding fathers were quite secular. I would like him more if he were an agnostic.
  • Nothingman54Nothingman54 Posts: 2,251
    I think Obama is gone after this.

    TRUMP 2012!!!!
    I'll be back
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,190
    I guess he's too young to understand that this problem wasn't caused by the president... it was caused by 30 years of Republican trickle-down bullshit and corporations going unregulated for almost as long.
    That's it! It wasn't the last 80 years of growing Democrat entitlement programs. You know the programs that remove all incentive to work hard, and bleed dry those that still do?[/quote]

    Care to back up your theory about entitlement programs removing incentives to work with any facts? It's like 1990 again, where the welfare mom and Murphy Brown were the cause of all the problems in the U.S. No wonder Gingrich is surfacing again, he's not about to miss an opportunity to ride the hate wagon.

    As a side thought to all the whiners complaining about a 'generation of entitled people', the ones I see who are thoroughly feeling entitled are the "taxed enough already" crowd. The basic definition of entitled is expecting something with little to no work or sacrifice. What do the tea people want? They want to bitch and moan about their high taxes, all the while not expecting any cuts in services. They want their medicare untouched, the best schools, smooth roads, protected borders, social security checks, a strong military where we can bomb/invade at will, the police/fire/ambulance to arrive in minutes, clean water...etc etc.. Those are the people who are entitled.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Go Beavers wrote:
    I guess he's too young to understand that this problem wasn't caused by the president... it was caused by 30 years of Republican trickle-down bullshit and corporations going unregulated for almost as long.
    That's it! It wasn't the last 80 years of growing Democrat entitlement programs. You know the programs that remove all incentive to work hard, and bleed dry those that still do?

    Care to back up your theory about entitlement programs removing incentives to work with any facts? It's like 1990 again, where the welfare mom and Murphy Brown were the cause of all the problems in the U.S. No wonder Gingrich is surfacing again, he's not about to miss an opportunity to ride the hate wagon.

    As a side thought to all the whiners complaining about a 'generation of entitled people', the ones I see who are thoroughly feeling entitled are the "taxed enough already" crowd. The basic definition of entitled is expecting something with little to no work or sacrifice. What do the tea people want? They want to bitch and moan about their high taxes, all the while not expecting any cuts in services. They want their medicare untouched, the best schools, smooth roads, protected borders, social security checks, a strong military where we can bomb/invade at will, the police/fire/ambulance to arrive in minutes, clean water...etc etc.. Those are the people who are entitled.
    [/quote]

    ***********************************************************************************************************************************


    I could be wrong here but all those things we want, Medicare untouched, the best schools, smooth roads, protected borders, social security checks, a strong military where we can bomb/invade at will, the police/fire/ambulance to arrive in minutes, clean water...etc etc.. with the amount of tax's we pay we should be able to have all these things..even the strong military so we can bomb or invade at will...
    but it seems with all the bullshit our government spends money on or skim or what ever they do with the money...we the tax payer seem to get screwed and a good example of that is our schools, maybe you like giving in excess to the government (then getting lied to) but I'm freakin tired of high tax's and high gas prices...I can't afford to pay for the bullshit our money is spent on.

    Godfather.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,190
    "I could be wrong here but all those things we want, Medicare untouched, the best schools, smooth roads, protected borders, social security checks, a strong military where we can bomb/invade at will, the police/fire/ambulance to arrive in minutes, clean water...etc etc.. with the amount of tax's we pay we should be able to have all these things..even the strong military so we can bomb or invade at will...
    but it seems with all the bullshit our government spends money on or skim or what ever they do with the money...we the tax payer seem to get screwed and a good example of that is our schools, maybe you like giving in excess to the government (then getting lied to) but I'm freakin tired of high tax's and high gas prices...I can't afford to pay for the bullshit our money is spent on.

    Godfather.[/quote]"

    We "should be able to pay for all these things"? I'm sure you've heard of the deficit. No, we can't have these things with amount of taxes we're paying. Unless you think the entire deficit is a result of government waste exclusively. I hope you don't think that.

    I'm trying to get at what you think the "bullshit" is that our gov. spends money on. What would you cut and how much would it save? How are schools screwing taxpayers? Please explain. You pay high taxes compared to what? U.S. citizens pay on the low end when compared to other modernized countries. Is government fixing gas prices? Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are pretty close to what they were in 1981. I see driving as a choice and I'm not going to complain about choices I make.

    I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.
  • KravenKraven Posts: 829
    Go Beavers wrote:
    I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.

    This might be the most rational thing ever said on these forums.

    OT: Where is that picture of Jeremy Piven from?
    32 shows and counting...
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Go Beavers wrote:
    "I could be wrong here but all those things we want, Medicare untouched, the best schools, smooth roads, protected borders, social security checks, a strong military where we can bomb/invade at will, the police/fire/ambulance to arrive in minutes, clean water...etc etc.. with the amount of tax's we pay we should be able to have all these things..even the strong military so we can bomb or invade at will...
    but it seems with all the bullshit our government spends money on or skim or what ever they do with the money...we the tax payer seem to get screwed and a good example of that is our schools, maybe you like giving in excess to the government (then getting lied to) but I'm freakin tired of high tax's and high gas prices...I can't afford to pay for the bullshit our money is spent on.

    Godfather.
    "

    We "should be able to pay for all these things"? I'm sure you've heard of the deficit. No, we can't have these things with amount of taxes we're paying. Unless you think the entire deficit is a result of government waste exclusively. I hope you don't think that.

    I'm trying to get at what you think the "bullshit" is that our gov. spends money on. What would you cut and how much would it save? How are schools screwing taxpayers? Please explain. You pay high taxes compared to what? U.S. citizens pay on the low end when compared to other modernized countries. Is government fixing gas prices? Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are pretty close to what they were in 1981. I see driving as a choice and I'm not going to complain about choices I make.

    I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.[/quote]

    sorry about the school bullshit comment, what I meant is that our schools are getting screwed and so are our kids because of it, the lottery issue and the government raping the funding for the schools that is fed by the lottery is a bunch of crap also.

    Godfather.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,190
    Kraven wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.

    This might be the most rational thing ever said on these forums.

    OT: Where is that picture of Jeremy Piven from?

    Thanks! And that's Jeremy Piven as Doug Hughley from the movie Singles.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,190
    Godfather.[/quote]"

    We "should be able to pay for all these things"? I'm sure you've heard of the deficit. No, we can't have these things with amount of taxes we're paying. Unless you think the entire deficit is a result of government waste exclusively. I hope you don't think that.

    I'm trying to get at what you think the "bullshit" is that our gov. spends money on. What would you cut and how much would it save? How are schools screwing taxpayers? Please explain. You pay high taxes compared to what? U.S. citizens pay on the low end when compared to other modernized countries. Is government fixing gas prices? Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are pretty close to what they were in 1981. I see driving as a choice and I'm not going to complain about choices I make.

    I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.[/quote]

    sorry about the school bullshit comment, what I meant is that our schools are getting screwed and so are our kids because of it, the lottery issue and the government raping the funding for the schools that is fed by the lottery is a bunch of crap also.

    Godfather.[/quote]


    Come on, I asked you more than one question.

  • Jeremiah Wright is about as Christian as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

    These men do not preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    what gospel do they preach then???[/quote]

    One not biblically coherent with Christian principles. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Godfather.
    "

    We "should be able to pay for all these things"? I'm sure you've heard of the deficit. No, we can't have these things with amount of taxes we're paying. Unless you think the entire deficit is a result of government waste exclusively. I hope you don't think that.

    I'm trying to get at what you think the "bullshit" is that our gov. spends money on. What would you cut and how much would it save? How are schools screwing taxpayers? Please explain. You pay high taxes compared to what? U.S. citizens pay on the low end when compared to other modernized countries. Is government fixing gas prices? Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are pretty close to what they were in 1981. I see driving as a choice and I'm not going to complain about choices I make.

    I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.[/quote]

    sorry about the school bullshit comment, what I meant is that our schools are getting screwed and so are our kids because of it, the lottery issue and the government raping the funding for the schools that is fed by the lottery is a bunch of crap also.

    Godfather.[/quote]


    Come on, I asked you more than one question.[/quote]

    **********************************************************************************************************************************

    the average state and federal tax on a gallon of gas is 53 cents,some states pay as high as 80+ cents a gallon
    if driving is your choice or not the high tax is still bullshit, and as far as money spent on stupid shit..do your own home work because you probably don't want to hear my list of things we in America can do with out. ;)

    Godfather.
  • KravenKraven Posts: 829
    Go Beavers wrote:

    Thanks! And that's Jeremy Piven as Doug Hughley from the movie Singles.

    Still off topic, but I feel like an idiot for not knowing that. I've seen Singles countless times, but I guess thats before I knew who Jeremy Piven was. Started watching Entourage recently, and he does a mighty fine job on that. Now to go put Singles on.


    On topic: If Obama manages to get the left turned on him, you might see him one and done. This Libya stuff is not good for him, even if he says we will be out in a matter of days. I don't think there is anyone at the forefront of the Republican party who could beat him though. I think they will need an Obama like underdog to steal the nomination away from someone like Palin or Romney in order for them to even have a chance.
    32 shows and counting...
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,190
    I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.[/quote]

    sorry about the school bullshit comment, what I meant is that our schools are getting screwed and so are our kids because of it, the lottery issue and the government raping the funding for the schools that is fed by the lottery is a bunch of crap also.

    Godfather.[/quote]


    Come on, I asked you more than one question.[/quote]

    **********************************************************************************************************************************

    the average state and federal tax on a gallon of gas is 53 cents,some states pay as high as 80+ cents a gallon
    if driving is your choice or not the high tax is still bullshit, and as far as money spent on stupid shit..do your own home work because you probably don't want to hear my list of things we in America can do with out. ;)

    Godfather.[/quote]

    Again, gas tax isn't very high when compared to other countries. It should actually be higher in order to put the cost of maintenance on the user and not on those you use it very little.

    I'd like to hear your top three things we can do without.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,156
    Obama's approval rating is down to an all-time low of 42%. The article also mentions that 50% of those polled don't believe Obama deserves a 2nd term.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/president-obamas-approval-rating-hits-a-new-low

    If the Republicans can find a candidate that appeals to the independent voters, it could spell big-time trouble for Obama.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Go Beavers wrote:
    I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.

    sorry about the school bullshit comment, what I meant is that our schools are getting screwed and so are our kids because of it, the lottery issue and the government raping the funding for the schools that is fed by the lottery is a bunch of crap also.

    Godfather.[/quote]


    Come on, I asked you more than one question.[/quote]

    **********************************************************************************************************************************

    the average state and federal tax on a gallon of gas is 53 cents,some states pay as high as 80+ cents a gallon
    if driving is your choice or not the high tax is still bullshit, and as far as money spent on stupid shit..do your own home work because you probably don't want to hear my list of things we in America can do with out. ;)

    Godfather.[/quote]

    Again, gas tax isn't very high when compared to other countries. It should actually be higher in order to put the cost of maintenance on the user and not on those you use it very little.

    I'd like to hear your top three things we can do without.[/quote]

    I don't live in another country I live in the USA and Higher ? well.. you will probably get your wish and gas will only be affordable to the upper middle class and up.

    Godfather.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,190
    Again, gas tax isn't very high when compared to other countries. It should actually be higher in order to put the cost of maintenance on the user and not on those you use it very little.

    I'd like to hear your top three things we can do without.[/quote]

    I don't live in another country I live in the USA and Higher ? well.. you will probably get your wish and gas will only be affordable to the upper middle class and up.

    Godfather.[/quote]

    Gas tax will only go up minimally in the future. The price is likely to go back down in a year or two. Don't the people who complain know that's is sold on the futures market that fills its pants when something happens in the Middle East? And then Exxon et. al take it to the bank. The people that get pinched on the price the most are the ones just getting by and have to drive to get to/do work. Most of the middle class could easily cut back their driving. The upside to this is that people drive less and families that don't really need 2 cars whiddle it down to one.
  • cajunkiwicajunkiwi Posts: 984
    Jason P wrote:
    Obama's approval rating is down to an all-time low of 42%. The article also mentions that 50% of those polled don't believe Obama deserves a 2nd term.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/president-obamas-approval-rating-hits-a-new-low

    If the Republicans can find a candidate that appeals to the independent voters, it could spell big-time trouble for Obama.

    I think your last sentence illustrates why Obama will likely win a second term. I don't think any of the names currently being bandied about by the Republicans have what it takes to unseat him. And as much as Unsung touts Paul, an Independent isn't going to come close to winning. I don't think Obama will win in a landslide by any stretch of the imagination, but I think he'll end up with the job for another four years.

    The Republicans may in fact have shot themselves in the foot with the way they've conducted themselves since Obama took office. It'll be hard for the independent voters who may end up deciding the election to put their support behind a party that accused the president of being a Muslim from Kenya, tried to get mosques shut down, and took away the rights of workers. The Republicans have spent a lot of time playing to the far-right since Obama's inauguration, and I think that will ultimately come back and bite them in the ass on election day.
    And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,156
    cajunkiwi wrote:
    I think your last sentence illustrates why Obama will likely win a second term. I don't think any of the names currently being bandied about by the Republicans have what it takes to unseat him. And as much as Unsung touts Paul, an Independent isn't going to come close to winning. I don't think Obama will win in a landslide by any stretch of the imagination, but I think he'll end up with the job for another four years.

    The Republicans may in fact have shot themselves in the foot with the way they've conducted themselves since Obama took office. It'll be hard for the independent voters who may end up deciding the election to put their support behind a party that accused the president of being a Muslim from Kenya, tried to get mosques shut down, and took away the rights of workers. The Republicans have spent a lot of time playing to the far-right since Obama's inauguration, and I think that will ultimately come back and bite them in the ass on election day.
    Do you think ol' Jeb is waiting in the bushes (rimshot) for the Republicans to realize they don't have a candidate?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
Sign In or Register to comment.