***The Official Philadelphia Phillies 2012 Thread***

The Juggler

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

well, if the phils cant win...at least the GOP did well tonight

'change'...

:thumbup:

How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?

Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.

I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.

this is america, cliffy. nobody cares about actual specifics.

i dislike both of these guys. but romney is perceived to be the winner on wednesday and so he was. but who cares? all incumbents do poorly during the first debate because they haven't been challenged face to face by anyone for 4 years...and in this case, the challenger has been running for president for the better part of a decade so he is naturally going to be more prepared. clinton is the only incumbent who fared well in the initial debate and that is because he was up against a corpse. obama will do much better in a couple weeks. i think ryan will mop the floor with biden though.


i think the whole tax break thing is sort of semantics. just depends on how you look at it. he's technically just going to extend the current bush tax cuts. so if you're a repub, that's essentially keeping things as-is. if you are a dem, it's a tax cut (since they were going to expire).

also, your point about the center is funny because romney was way more to the center before he made "running for president" his full time job so many years ago.

for the record though, i think both guys are turds for the most part.

go orioles.

Cliffy6745

The Juggler wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

well, if the phils cant win...at least the GOP did well tonight

'change'...

:thumbup:

How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?

Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.

I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.

this is america, cliffy. nobody cares about actual specifics.

i dislike both of these guys. but romney is perceived to be the winner on wednesday and so he was. but who cares? all incumbents do poorly during the first debate because they haven't been challenged face to face by anyone for 4 years...and in this case, the challenger has been running for president for the better part of a decade so he is naturally going to be more prepared. clinton is the only incumbent who fared well in the initial debate and that is because he was up against a corpse. obama will do much better in a couple weeks. i think ryan will mop the floor with biden though.


i think the whole tax break thing is sort of semantics. just depends on how you look at it. he's technically just going to extend the current bush tax cuts. so if you're a repub, that's essentially keeping things as-is. if you are a dem, it's a tax cut (since they were going to expire).

also, your point about the center is funny because romney was way more to the center before he made "running for president" his full time job so many years ago.

for the record though, i think both guys are turds for the most part.

go orioles.

While I am certain I like Obama more than most, I am way too drunk to respond to this intelligently, so I'll just say that I agree with 99% of everything in here. And I will agree, Romney has been center and back, center and back. This seems a lot more like a career move to me than him actually wanting to be president.

The Fixer

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

well, if the phils cant win...at least the GOP did well tonight

'change'...

:thumbup:

a mitt romney fan, huh?

incumbents are usually bad during the first debate...

more of an anti-democrat fan than anything else. I actually wish that this Tea Party thing would gain traction.

The Fixer

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

well, if the phils cant win...at least the GOP did well tonight

'change'...

:thumbup:

How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?

Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.

I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.

the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).

Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.

Wobbie

"all things philly", huh? here ya go:

http://gma.yahoo.com/1-man-dead-heart-a ... ories.html

The Fixer

imalive wrote:

"all things philly", huh? here ya go:

http://gma.yahoo.com/1-man-dead-heart-a ... ories.html

bunch of animals. weddings are usually a happy environment.

The Fixer

caution: make sure you have something to throw up in before reading this post



State of the Phillies: First base
options This week, the Daily News and High Cheese will be taking an in-depth look at the Phillies roster moving forward, breaking down the state of each position as it relates to the future and the present. In Tuesday's newspaper, Ryan Lawrence will look at the infield. Today, we'll start things off with a look at first base.

The success of a lineup is dictated by the economics of salary and personnel distribution, and the Phillies' production at first base in 2012 was a prime example. The market of talent in baseball features a strong supply of players who can both hit for power and reach base at rates above the league average. Of the $178 million that a team can spend before it exceeds the luxury tax threshold, the Phillies allocated 14.05 percent to their starter at first base. Really, the number is slightly higher than that when you factor in the $10 million that each team is required to pay for player benefits, which counts against the threshold (in other words, teams can spend about $168 million on player salaries before going over the threshold). In 2012, the Phillies flunked those economics, as their production at third base was well below league average in most major offensive categories.

I. 2012 production, Phillies first basemen (NL rank out of 16 teams in parentheses)

AVG: .234 (13)

OBP: .308 (13)

SLG: .415 (11)

OPS: .723 (13)

HR: 27 (4)

RBI: 102 (3)

RS: 75 (10)

BREAKDOWN: Ryan Howard struggled after he returned from the disabled list in early July, hitting .219/.295/.423 with 99 strikeouts in 260 at-bats in 71 games. Howard maintained his knack for hitting with runners on base (his 56 RBI in 71 games would equate to 127 RBI in 162 games) and for hitting home runs (14 HR in 71 games equates to 31 HR in 162 games). But a .219 batting average and .295 on base percentage of significant detriments: if you value RBI, you must value runs scored, and a hitter must reach base in order to score runs. Howard recorded career-worst marks in walk rate, strikeout rate and at-bats-per-home-run. The first three months of the season featured Ty Wigginton (62 games, .757 OPS) and John Mayberry Jr. (24 games, .625 OPS) getting the bulk of the action at first base. Combined, the result was production that was well below what the majority of other National League teams received from first base.

II. Future Salary Commitments

2012: Ryan Howard, 33 years old, $20.0 million (14.05 percent of luxury tax threshold)

2013: Ryan Howard, 34 years old, $20.0 million (14.05 percent of luxury tax threshold)

2014: Ryan Howard, 35 years old, $25.0 million (14.05 percent of luxury tax threshold)

2015: Ryan Howard, 36 years old, $25.0 million (14.05 percent of luxury tax threshold)

2016: Ryan Howard, 37 years old, $25.0 million (14.05 percent of luxury tax threshold

2017: Ryan Howard, 38 years old, $23.0 million or $10 million buyout (14.05 percent or 0.00 percent of luxury tax threshold)

Flexibility: None. Howard is still owed $95 million in annual salary over the next four seasons, plus a $10 million buyout in 2017. His luxury tax cost is $25 million a season over the next four years, and he will be 33 years old during the 2013 season.

III. 2013 Organizational Depth Chart

1.Ryan Howard, 33, $25 million average annual value (AAV) signed through 2016
2.John Mayberry Jr., 29, pre-Arb (2.095 service time), club control through at least 2016
3.Laynce Nix, 32, $1.25 million AAV signed thru 2013.
4.Darin Ruf, 26, pre-Arb (< 1.000 ST), club control through at least 2018
5.Erik Kratz, 33, pre-Arb (<1.000 ST), club control through at least 2018
BREAKDOWN: First base will not be a priority for the Phillies for the foreseeable future. Manuel said late in the season that he thought Kratz could handle spot duty at first base, although there is no indication that will play a major role in 2013. Ruf, like any player with one month of big league experience, is an unknown, although he is the best chance for the Phillies to have some young depth at the position over the life of Howard's contract.

IV. Potential for personnel upgrades

TRADE POTENTIAL: None. Even during Howard's healthy 2011 season, his .253/.346/.488 batting line and 33 home runs were nearly identical to Adam LaRoche's .271/.343/.510 and 33 home runs for the Nationals this year. LaRoche, of course, was making $8 million in AAV compared with $25 million for Howard. Just to give Howard away to another team, the Phillies would likely have to eat at least half of the money remaining on his contract.

Disagree? Prior to 2011, Paul Konerko signed a three-year, $37.5 million deal that covered his 35, 36 and 37 years old seasons. Howard is due to earn $75 million for his 35-to-37-year-old seasons, plus a $10 million buyout for his 38-year-old season. If Konerko's contract is what the free market would bear for those years of power production at first base, there is little reason to expect that a team would assume more than that amount in acquiring Howard. Factor in the fact that Konerko's number have been better than Howard's over the past few seasons, and that Konerko is not one year removed from a ruptured Achilles, and it is pretty safe to say that the market would view Howard as, at best, a $12.5 million-per-season player over the remaining four years of his contract.

The time for maneuvering at first base was the last few seasons, when Howard, Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols and Adrian Gonzalez all signed new deals. The Phillies made their choice, and now it is on Howard to prove them right or wrong.

FREE AGENT MARKET: With a slew of elite first baseman having signed contract extensions over the previous few seasons, the 2013 market is not a strong one. Assuming the Nationals exercise LaRoche's $10 million option, the only potential everyday players available are Mike Napoli, Carlos Pena and James Loney. The rest: Jason Giambi, Eric Hinske, Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee, Casey Kotchman, Ty Wigginton, Lyle Overbay, Xavier Nady.

V. First base: In conclusion

The Phillies have no choice but to believe that Howard will get back to the production level he offered when they signed him to a five-year, $125 million contract extension during the 2010 season, when he still had two years left on his existing deal. The first baseman was not in the same physical condition that he was before his surgery, which the Phillies hope will be rectified by an offseason of his usual training regimen. General manager Ruben Amaro Jr. has acknowledged that the Phillies' future will be dictated largely by the performance of the players who are earning significant dollars, and Howard is the most crucial member of that club.

---

Ledbetterman10

Fixer, WE KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're like a sado masochistic when it comes to Howard. You like torturing yourself with these kind of posts.

Here, enjoy: http://youtu.be/eBDShNUIYkg?t=1m36s

The Fixer

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Fixer, WE KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're like a sado masochistic when it comes to Howard. You like torturing yourself with these kind of posts.

Here, enjoy: http://youtu.be/eBDShNUIYkg?t=1m36s

I can't get over it. Wont be able to until his contract expires. I have issues coming to grips with such a ridiculously dumb move by my favorite team. Fact of the matter is that Howard's contract relative to his performance is going to prevent them from competing for a title

I will do my best to focus on ripping something else going forward. like amaro's inevitable terrible offseason moves

pjhawks

The Fixer wrote:

I can't get over it. Wont be able to until his contract expires. I have issues coming to grips with such a ridiculously dumb move by my favorite team. Fact of the matter is that Howard's contract relative to his performance is going to prevent them from competing for a title

I will do my best to focus on ripping something else going forward. like amaro's inevitable terrible offseason moves

just a complete utterly false premise. Even subtracting $25 million for the Ryan's contract the Phils openeing day payroll was still 32 MILLION HIGHER than any other National League team. so this non-payroll flexibility because of ryan howard's contract is just not based on facts :nono:

2012 Team Payrolls
No. Team Payroll Average
1 New York Yankees $197,962,289 $6,186,321
2 Philadelphia Phillies $174,538,938 $5,817,964
3 Boston Red Sox $173,186,617 $5,093,724
4 Los Angeles Angels $154,485,166 $5,327,074
5 Detroit Tigers $132,300,000 $4,562,068
6 Texas Rangers $120,510,974 $4,635,037
7 Miami Marlins $118,078,000 $4,373,259
8 San Francisco Giants $117,620,683 $3,920,689
9 St. Louis Cardinals $110,300,862 $3,939,316
10 Milwaukee Brewers $97,653,944 $3,755,920
11 Chicago White Sox $96,919,500 $3,876,780
12 Los Angeles Dodgers $95,143,575 $3,171,452
13 Minnesota Twins $94,085,000 $3,484,629
14 New York Mets $93,353,983 $3,457,554
15 Chicago Cubs $88,197,033 $3,392,193
16 Atlanta Braves $83,309,942 $2,776,998
17 Cincinnati Reds $83,309,942 $2,776,998
18 Seattle Mariners $81,978,100 $2,927,789
19 Baltimore Orioles $81,428,999 $2,807,896
20 Washington Nationals $81,336,143 $2,623,746
21 Cleveland Indians $78,430,300 $2,704,493
22 Colorado Rockies $78,069,571 $2,692,054
23 Toronto Blue Jays $75,489,200 $2,696,042
24 Arizona Diamondbacks $74,284,833 $2,653,029
25 Tampa Bay Rays $64,173,500 $2,291,910
26 Pittsburgh Pirates $63,431,999 $2,187,310
27 Kansas City Royals $60,916,225 $2,030,540
28 Houston Astros $60,651,000 $2,332,730
29 Oakland Athletics $55,372,500 $1,845,750
30 San Diego Padres $55,244,700 $1,973,025

Wobbie

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Here, enjoy: http://youtu.be/eBDShNUIYkg?t=1m36s

in the background...."he struck him out!"

thanks.

The Fixer

pjhawks wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

I can't get over it. Wont be able to until his contract expires. I have issues coming to grips with such a ridiculously dumb move by my favorite team. Fact of the matter is that Howard's contract relative to his performance is going to prevent them from competing for a title

I will do my best to focus on ripping something else going forward. like amaro's inevitable terrible offseason moves

just a complete utterly false premise. Even subtracting $25 million for the Ryan's contract the Phils openeing day payroll was still 32 MILLION HIGHER than any other National League team. so this non-payroll flexibility because of ryan howard's contract is just not based on facts :nono:

2012 Team Payrolls
No. Team Payroll Average
1 New York Yankees $197,962,289 $6,186,321
2 Philadelphia Phillies $174,538,938 $5,817,964
3 Boston Red Sox $173,186,617 $5,093,724
4 Los Angeles Angels $154,485,166 $5,327,074
5 Detroit Tigers $132,300,000 $4,562,068
6 Texas Rangers $120,510,974 $4,635,037
7 Miami Marlins $118,078,000 $4,373,259
8 San Francisco Giants $117,620,683 $3,920,689
9 St. Louis Cardinals $110,300,862 $3,939,316
10 Milwaukee Brewers $97,653,944 $3,755,920
11 Chicago White Sox $96,919,500 $3,876,780
12 Los Angeles Dodgers $95,143,575 $3,171,452
13 Minnesota Twins $94,085,000 $3,484,629
14 New York Mets $93,353,983 $3,457,554
15 Chicago Cubs $88,197,033 $3,392,193
16 Atlanta Braves $83,309,942 $2,776,998
17 Cincinnati Reds $83,309,942 $2,776,998
18 Seattle Mariners $81,978,100 $2,927,789
19 Baltimore Orioles $81,428,999 $2,807,896
20 Washington Nationals $81,336,143 $2,623,746
21 Cleveland Indians $78,430,300 $2,704,493
22 Colorado Rockies $78,069,571 $2,692,054
23 Toronto Blue Jays $75,489,200 $2,696,042
24 Arizona Diamondbacks $74,284,833 $2,653,029
25 Tampa Bay Rays $64,173,500 $2,291,910
26 Pittsburgh Pirates $63,431,999 $2,187,310
27 Kansas City Royals $60,916,225 $2,030,540
28 Houston Astros $60,651,000 $2,332,730
29 Oakland Athletics $55,372,500 $1,845,750
30 San Diego Padres $55,244,700 $1,973,025

he's not the only reason they will have trouble competing (papelbon contract is also ridiculously dumb), but he is the main reason. you have to look further than just his annual salary. it's the ROI you get on that money. like the article said, if you put him on the open market today, he would be lucky to get half of what his annual salary is. so amaro is most likely paying him more than double what he's worth annually. this is of course compounded by the length of the albatross of a deal.

I don't know how you fail to see this. just look at their flexibility during this year's trade deadline. howards' contract absolutley prohibited them from acquiring help. like the guy or not, he is a detriment to future success because he is an average player who's paid like a superstar

The Fixer

On another note, I'm casting my vote for October as best month of the year.

-Best sports month of the year (NHL, MLB, NCAA FB all in season)
-Best weather of the year
-No holidays (means no forced family get-togethers or getting dragged to dumb parties I don't want to attend)
-Best time of year for seasonal beers
-Pumpkin pie and apple cider, which are both awesome

Love it. I wish this month was 90 days long

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

well, if the phils cant win...at least the GOP did well tonight

'change'...

:thumbup:

How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?

Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.

I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.

the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).

Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.

are you clint eastwood? :?

i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?

The Fixer

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?

Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.

I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.

the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).

Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.

are you clint eastwood? :?

i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?

I don't get your first point.

marginal improvements to unemployment rate fail to tell the entire story. I don't think the guy in charge has done enough to warrant another term. Too many failed promises and irrational use of taxpayers money

I just wish the GOP came with a more legit candidate. Christie '16

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

well, if the phils cant win...at least the GOP did well tonight

'change'...

:thumbup:

How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?

Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.

I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.

the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).

Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.

I don't want to drag this on too much, I have a playoff game to watch soon but I think you missed my point. My point was that if this is just like a sport and the substance doesn't matter then sure, he won, but I can't really see how the GOP as a whole can look at it as a victory. Sure Mitt Romney won an argument, but the argument he was making was not the GOP platform and not the platform he has been talking about for 18 months. And especially so on the issues that seem important to you. So sure, it was a victory in one aspect of an election, but he argued a very centrist approach to government, which is not at all what he was nominated to do. An approach to government that I am not completely opposed to. There was very little talk of social issues, which I differ a lot more with him on, but from an overall standpoint, I would say that he was closer to democratic talking points than GOP, outside of healthcare. How can that be seen as a victory? Especially since this is how he is going to claim to govern

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

are you clint eastwood? :?

i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?

I don't get your first point.

marginal improvements to unemployment rate fail to tell the entire story. I don't think the guy in charge has done enough to warrant another term. Too many failed promises and irrational use of taxpayers money

I just wish the GOP came with a more legit candidate. Christie '16[/quote]

Considering the country was bleeding 800,000 jobs a month when he came into office and there is now a net gain in jobs, I would say that is not unsuccessful. Not fast enough, but not too bad. In what ways has he used taxpayer money that you don't agree with? This just seems like a massive talking point to me. I also find it pretty amusing that the democrats are seen as the welfare party when spending on "handout" programs over the last 20 something years has increased a lot more under GOP presidents than democrat presidents according to AEI.

I'd also love to hear how the tax cuts which Romney is now claiming he is not going to implement would be paid for? There is no answer to that question and since there is no answer to that question our deficit would clearly be a lot worse than it is now.

So many questions and no answers.

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).

Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.

are you clint eastwood? :?

i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?

I don't get your first point.

marginal improvements to unemployment rate fail to tell the entire story. I don't think the guy in charge has done enough to warrant another term. Too many failed promises and irrational use of taxpayers money

I just wish the GOP came with a more legit candidate. Christie '16

your reply to cliff's post didn't make much sense to me...clint eastwood's rnc speech didn't make sense to me either. never mind.

i am not an obama fan either. but there's nothing about romney that is appealing to me.


and chris christie? really? you don't think obama deserves another term, but you want chris christie in 4 years? are you aware of his record? unemployment over there is 9.8%...higher than when he took over. he's lost his luster man... :?

Cliffy6745

The Juggler wrote:

and chris christie? really? you don't think obama deserves another term, but you want chris christie in 4 years? are you aware of his record? unemployment over there is 9.8%...higher than when he took over. he's lost his luster man... :?

Chris Christie, to me, seems like one of those politicians that if you say something enough and as loud as you possibly can, then it must be true. The only thing I agree with him on is that the vast majority of the GOP's approach to Islam is based completely on bigotry.

Look no further than the failed tunnel project, which it only took him 6 months to agree to pay back the federal government for a project he received funding for that never happened. Small government, my ass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opini ... oject.html

The Fixer

Honestly, most of the 'substance' in these debates and the respective presidential candidates platforms don't matter to me. I will be voting for the guy who will put me and my family in the best monetarily position. Since obama considers my household income near 'rich or upper-class' (which is a friggin joke), I will not be voting for him. I don't believe in taxing people at a higher rate because they are successful.

Then on the periphery you have things I disagree with like obamacare (and almost all democratic monetary policy). The business cycle is generally self correcting...the less govt intervention the better.

I'm far from a political expert. I just don't like my tax dollars going to places I vehemently disagree with like welfare, extended unemployment benefits, bigger govt, unions, etc. I certainly don't agree with all GOP platforms, but I consider them to be the lesser of the two evils...especially after the last 4 years.

I know politics is a slippery slope. I was drunk when I posted about the debate. That's my bad. Everyone has a different motive for their vote. There's no right or wrong answer here.