# Still voting for Obama?



## jasonbrinn (Oct 31, 2012)

Please consider these truths:


----------



## Master Dan (Oct 31, 2012)

jasonbrinn said:


> Please consider these truths:


 This fails to point out that the policies of 2005-2008 caused the deficits of 2009-2012 also if not for acitions of Obama we would have had a depression with people on the streets with out shelter or food. Neither a Republican nor a Democrat could have solved the policies of the previous 12 years in a short period why else could the RNC not come up with a better team than McCain and Palin? why for the first time in any recent history did Bush and Cheney hide out and were not invited to play in any Reindeer Games?


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2012)

Hmmmm...obama was in the senate voting for the policies that caused the deficits of 2009-2012, and that his community organizing activities also helped create the crisis in the mortgage industry.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 31, 2012)

Also, part of that deficit you are seeing wastwo wars and the Medicare drug plan being put on the books.Previously they weren't included inthe budget, even though we were paying for them.

For anyone really interested in honest education about the defecit and borrowing should view the following video;
http://www.upworthy.com/a-6-minute-...better-than-the-presidential-candi?g=2&c=ufb1


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2012)

already voted for Obama, by mail.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

in every way conceivable, Obama and Biden while not perfect, are far far far far far more capable than Romney and Ryan.


----------



## Instructor (Oct 31, 2012)

In every way conceivable?  Really...that's rich.  Obama has supplanted Carter...that takes real talent.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 31, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> For anyone really interested in honest education about the defecit and borrowing should view the following video;
> http://www.upworthy.com/a-6-minute-...better-than-the-presidential-candi?g=2&c=ufb1




That was a pretty good shot at demystifying and de-politicising the economic issue of national debt :thumbsup:


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 31, 2012)

[yt]mEVqeaFHsHE[/yt]

I like this chaps way of getting the core ideas across without having to resort to equations


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2012)

Instructor said:


> In every way conceivable? Really...that's rich. Obama has supplanted Carter...that takes real talent.



ayup.  every. way. conceivable.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 31, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> already voted for Obama, by mail.
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
> 
> in every way conceivable, Obama and Biden while not perfect, are far far far far far more capable than Romney and Ryan.


Ditto... er... I mean same here. LOL


----------



## Steve (Oct 31, 2012)

I voted for Obama, although I won't go so far as to say better "in every way conceivable."  For me, it boiled down to this: Romney has demonstrated to me very, very clearly that he has no strength of convictions.  He will say whatever he needs to say to win.  I don't believe that it's about the issues for him.  It's about winning the election however he can, and that to me means that while President, he will be a sock puppet to a much more radical group of zealots in Congress.  

That's it.  Obama says things I don't like.  He does things I don't like.  I hate the way he and his administration handled Libya, the health care reform and many, many other things.  But Romney is a mouthpiece.  He is a puppet... a leaf on the wind, blowing quite literally wherever he thinks his bread is buttered that day.


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2012)

Yeah, and obama, whose stand on gay marriage was the same as Mitt Romney's...then supporting gay marriage just before the election... was a real act of courage on his part...


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 31, 2012)

Do you REALLY want to start comparing changes in positions from the canidates?  Here's one I saw today.  When running for the nomination, Mr Romney said he would get rid of FEMA, sending it down to the state level and privatizing it if possible.  Now today he says if president he would of course keep FEMA funded.

A conservative, a moderate, and a progressive walk into a bar.  The bartender asks, "What can I do for you Mr Romney."


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2012)

Well he did close down Gitmo, you know, that horrible place innocent sheep herders were being sent to by bad old Bush...but he didn't.

He repealed the patriot act, that bad thing Bush set up to spy on Americans...but he didn't.

He said you could keep your doctor, and your medical plan if you liked them...until he passed obamacare and you can't...

He said raising taxes during a recession would be dumb...until after he is re-elected when he will raise taxes during a recession...

He could no more abandon racist Pastor jermiah wright than he could a member of his own family...until he did to get elected...

It was the video...6 times from his own mouth to the entire world at the United Nations...until it wasn't...

And on and on...


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 31, 2012)

As a martial artist you should know not to attack from a position of weakness, unless you have absolutely no choice.  Is this what you are doing now, attacks of last resort?  Yep, Obama has not done some of the things he said he would.  He's even changed his mind on issues such as gay mariage.  Do you really want to compare that to all the position changes that Mitt Romney has performed?  Look, I get it.  You hate Obama.  We've all known that for a long time now. Comparing his change of heart on something like gay marriage to all the flip flopping Mr romney has done...well it reeks of desperation and bad arguement.


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2012)

I don't hate obama.  I think he is a bad person, and definitely not a "nice," guy.   You are known by the company you keep, and he has kept company with  terrorists and racists of the worst sort, but I think that is mainly because he was raised by anti-American communist types from the time he was a little boy.  It wasn't his fault really, but that doesn't change the fact that he needs to be voted out of office before what he has set in motion is set in cement.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 31, 2012)

LOL So now you are resorting to comedy?  Nice try at changing the subject of flip flopping though.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I don't hate obama. I think he is a bad person, and definitely not a "nice," guy. You are known by the company you keep, and he has kept company with terrorists and racists of the worst sort, but I think that is mainly because he was raised by anti-American communist types from the time he was a little boy. It wasn't his fault really, but that doesn't change the fact that he needs to be voted out of office before what he has set in motion is set in cement.



yawn.  oh yeah.  bill's at it again.  hahahaha.


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2012)

And obama made things worse than Gitmo...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/29/obamas-detention-policies-are-worse-than-guantanamo/



> During the 2008 campaign, President Obama promised he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year of his inauguration. Four years later, Guantanamo remains open and will remain open for the foreseeable future.





> What he doesn&#8217;t mention is that many terrorist detainees would be better off if Obama had stuck to Bush&#8217;s detention policies. That&#8217;s because, in an effort to avoid sending detainees to Guantanamo, Obama has kept them in overseas military prisons, where they have no access to U.S. courts and languish in worse conditions than the detainees held at Guantanamo.
> One of President Obama&#8217;s first actions after taking office was to sign an executive order to close the Guantanamo facility. But Obama soon found that doing so was impossible: foreign countries were not willing to take prisoners cleared for release; the American people didn&#8217;t want hardened terrorists sent to American shores and tried in civilian courts; and some prisoners couldn&#8217;t be tried and were too dangerous to be released, which meant they had to be detained indefinitely.



And the money quote...



> But detainees&#8217; conditions haven&#8217;t improved because, rather than sending them to Guantanamo Bay, President Obama has kept some of them in places such as Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. Detainees in these locations face worse living conditions than those in Guantanamo. More importantly, they don&#8217;t have access to U.S. courts, which they would if they were at Guantanamo (the Supreme Court&#8217;s 2008 ruling in _Boumediene v. Bush_ suggests that detainees held at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their detention in federal court but detainees held outside of Guantanamo do not &#8212; an interpretation that has since been confirmed by lower courts). This leaves detainees with no way to challenge their detention outside of the military legal system.
> It is, however, a good arrangement for President Obama: This way, he can both keep his promise to reduce the Guantanamo population and prevent detainees from accessing U.S. courts.
> One detainee, Faid al-Maqaleh, has been held at Bagram since 2003. His case is particularly intriguing since a military review board has cleared him for release three times.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2012)

Obama changed his position on same-sex marriage months ago.  Romney changes his position on issues hourly.  Regardless, neither are qualified to be President, for all the reasons listed above.  That's why Romney never had my vote, and Obama didn't either.  
Gary Johnson, for Liberty.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 1, 2012)

I will vote for Mr. Obama - of what is available, I believe that he is best for the nation. 

There are may things about his first term that have disappointed me. Amoung them are Gitmo, drone assassinations of Americans. I am not yet sure if I should be unhappy with the administration's response to any intelligence that indicated Benghazi, because I do not really have a clear idea of what they knew, when, and what responses were available to State, given the the $500 million dollar security budget cut the House GOP imposed on that Department; the budget that pays for security teams, building embassies, etc. I also do not know if I believe that Medicare for All is a much superior solution to nationalized Romneycare, but recognize that his general method of consensus building meant that to get a large thing done, he would have to start with a Republican idea and modify it to be useful. I wish we were entirely withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq. 

However, I approve of his (Keynesian) responses to the economic disaster that he inherited. Without it, the company I work for would be a corpse. I approve of his general foreign policy. I approve, and strongly, of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I approve, and strongly, of the choice to abandon the defense of DOMA. I approve of the subsidization of smart, green energy initiatives, even knowing that the grand majority of them will fail. There is absolutely no single larger issue in the next century than weaning our world from fossil fuels; this addresses our food, our water, our health, our security, our lifestyle. I approve of his support of reproductive freedom and choice. I approve of his support of the LGBT community; even if some of it was later in coming, and hope that it is real. I approve of raising certain taxes; though I believe that they can be better targeted. Our nation's government is in a serious income slump, rather than an expenditure spike; and the general shrinkage of the government in the form of police, firemen, teachers, over the last four years is harming our nation in general and my family in specific. 

I cannot approve of Mr. Johnson's economic policies. In this day and hour, they would be suicide for the nation. They betray a deep misunderstanding of the engine of the capitalist cycle, and are akin to transplanting a heart backwards; the veins of the body cannot bear to become the supply vessels, and the arteries cannot support the return of blood; in the same manner, a recession of demand cannot be met by adding capital, but must be met by adding demand. His foreign policy is also dangerously short sighted, and does not do a good job of looking out for our interests as a part of a greater community. 

Dr. Stein carries many good things too far, until they become bad things. For example, It is right to expect that those who profit in greater proportion from the nation, it's peoples, and its resources should return that investment in greater proportion; it is not right to impose an income cap. If the election cycle was looser, and voter intimidation was not so high in my home state, I might consider voting for her as a leftist protest vote, but that would have little effect on the actions of Mr. Obama. 

Wee Willy Romney, meanwhile, compounds Mr. Johnson's economic issues by being awful on social issues, awful on foreign policy and personally greedy to boot. He has stocked his personal treasury by destroying the jobs and eliminating the pensions of tens of thousands of Americans, by taking out massive loans and twisting corporate law to stick others with the bill. He has personally and directly increased the total private and public debt held in America by outsourcing production to Asia. He has already proven himself incapable of handling our allies, let alone our enemies, via his foreign tour, and has gathered about himself neoconservative advisors; even if there are other advisors, that he would even consider such disastrous policies again disqualifies him as presidential. His misgovernnance of Massachusettes proves that he is not capable of working with the Democratic party, nor capable of recognizing the return on infrastructure. He appears to see our societal safety nets and educational systems as opportunities for personal and corporate profit, rather than programs made with the intent of easing suffering, providing opportunity and fulfilling the social contract. He is dead wrong in terms of both freedom and humanity when it comes to LGBT issues, reproductive freedom, immigration, and equality of employment. He is awful for our nation, and Paul Ryan is worse.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 1, 2012)

Cdunn, maybe this will ease your feelings on green energy a little bit.  Of the green companies recieving government money to assist with research, only 8% have failed (no, not the %50 cited in a debate by a fact free Romney).  I am positive there will be further failures, as that is the nature of capitalism and new technology, but fortunately I do not think it will be a majority in the near future.  So hopefully, those companies will help with the economy and finding solutions to our dependance upon fossil fuels.

It looks like you have put a lot of thought into where your vote will go.  I wish more people would do the same, no matter where that vote finally settled.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 1, 2012)

cdunn said:


> I will vote for Mr. Obama - of what is available, I believe that he is best for the nation.
> 
> There are may things about his first term that have disappointed me. Amoung them are Gitmo, drone assassinations of Americans. I am not yet sure if I should be unhappy with the administration's response to any intelligence that indicated Benghazi, because I do not really have a clear idea of what they knew, when, and what responses were available to State, given the the $500 million dollar security budget cut the House GOP imposed on that Department; the budget that pays for security teams, building embassies, etc. I also do not know if I believe that Medicare for All is a much superior solution to nationalized Romneycare, but recognize that his general method of consensus building meant that to get a large thing done, he would have to start with a Republican idea and modify it to be useful. I wish we were entirely withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> ...


*
*
Your statement in red carries very good common sense in the realization of wasting your vote. Why so many people are choosing to not vote or waste a vote on a person that will change nothing when so much is at stake or at risk is totally beyond me?

Your second statement in Blue is spot on in describing Romney and could not say it better with using much ###### what escapes me is beyond all this he is a serial liar who will say anything to anyone or group if he thinks it will gain him a vote he will not even admit to lying when it is put in print or video to his face if all else fails just don't answer or change the subject. Take away all the differences between Republican and Democrat and just go down to basics telling the truth and being trustworthy how can any rational person choose to vote for him? they are not rational they are voting for other reason's hate race greed nothing positive I can think of and many against thier own self best intererst? Romney cannot be trusted to do anything but hand over what is left of our government to the corporations and special interest.


----------



## billc (Nov 1, 2012)

An editorial on why obama needs to go...

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html



> *EDITORIAL*
> 
> *Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief*





> This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.
> Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.
> These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.
> Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.
> Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.



As to saving pensions...not if you had one through Delphi...

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/23/business/la-fi-gm-bailout-review-20110623



> _*The administration gave union employees of auto parts supplier Delphi Corp. preferential treatment over nonunion, salaried employees when the U.S. took over Delphi's pension plan, GOP representatives say.*
> 
> _
> *June 23, 2011*|By Andrew Seidman, Los Angeles Times





> The government took over Delphi's pension plan during the company's reorganization in Bankruptcy Court. Roughly 21,000 salaried employees lost up to 70% of their pensions, as well as life and health insurance.





> Even union representatives have sided with the nonunion employees. Ron Gettelfinger, former president of UAW, has said that the government's actions constituted a "grave injustice."



And yes, obama targeted the Delphi employee pensions...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/p...ng-non-union-worker-pensions-post-gm-bailout/



> New emails obtained by The Daily Caller contradict claims by the Obama administration that the Treasury Department​
> 
> ​ would avoid &#8220;intervening in the day-to-day management&#8221; of General Motors post-auto bailout.
> These messages reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions​
> ...





> The key point of the Wednesday hearing was to show that the Obama administration advised GM on how to eliminate the Delphi workers&#8217; pensions. The evidence suggests Geithner&#8217;s team played a significant role in that process, despite claims to the contrary.



Obama is not a "nice," guy...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Them-To-The-Wolves-In-Stunning-Abuse-Of-Power




> As the pensions of Delphi retirees were being slashed, the Obama administration was topping off the pensions of union workers with taxpayer-funded bailout funds.





> &#8220;When the president talks about protecting the middle class, protecting health care and protecting pensions, he not only let you down, he showed what he really means,&#8221; Turner said. &#8220;You had just as much rights as everyone else. Your pensions were protected by contracts, by assets and by the laws of this country. The fact that your pensions were taken in a back-door deal in the White House is absolutely wrong.
> &#8220;The fact that Tim Geithner was on every side of this deal, that conflicts of interest were raging and the fact that you were put on the table and someone made a deal with your pensions is wrong and we&#8217;re going to get those pensions back.&#8221;
> The Obama administration&#8217;s treatment of Delphi&#8217;s retirees represents another instance of crony capitalism and &#8220;Chicago-style&#8221; politics that puts unions and other administration allies above all else. It also undermines the administration&#8217;s claims that it is on the side of the middle class and the GM bailout was a roaring success.


----------



## billc (Nov 1, 2012)

As to economics and obama...and the keynesian delusion...

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/10/03/trickle_down_and_tax_cuts



> Dr. Thomas Sowell's "'Trickle Down Theory' and 'Tax Cuts for the Rich'" has just been published by the Hoover Institution. Having read this short paper, the conclusion you must reach is that the term "trickle down theory" is simply a tool of charlatans and political hustlers.





> President Barack Obama recently criticized Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for trying to sell a tax plan, which he called "trickledown snake oil." Criticizing tax cuts as trickle down is a way not to confront the argument; however, there's empirical evidence about the effects of tax cuts. Sowell shows that during the Warren Harding administration, in 1921, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon advocated tax rate cuts, which were enacted into law by Congress. Afterward, there was rising output; unemployment plummeted; and the resulting higher income produced greater federal tax revenues, even though the tax rate had been lowered. There were somewhat similar results in later years after high tax rates were cut during the John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.The facts about the 1920s tax rate cuts are unmistakably clear for those who bother to check the facts. In 1921, when the tax rate on people earning more than $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government collected a little more than $700 million in income taxes, of which 30 percent was paid by those earning more than $100,000. By 1929, after the tax rate had been cut to 24 percent on incomes higher than $100,000, the federal government collected more than $1 billion in income taxes, of which 65 percent was collected from those with incomes higher than $100,000.





> In 1962, Democratic President John F. Kennedy pointed out that "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." Both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush made similar arguments, and the tax rate cuts had the effect of stimulating economic growth while increasing federal tax revenue and shifting a greater percentage of the tax burden on to wealthier individuals.One very insightful part of Sowell's paper is the discussion about what Mellon called the "gesture of taxing the rich" -- namely, tax-exempt securities that he tried unsuccessfully to put an end to. Tax-exempt securities and other tax breaks are valuable tools in the politics of class warfare and envy. Politicians have it both ways. They get votes by raising taxes on the wealthy -- or threatening to do so -- and at the same time provide the wealthy with a way out of high taxes through tax-exempt securities. This explains how President Obama can raise tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Hollywood millionaires and Wall Street's rich and powerful. "Tax cuts for the rich" demagoguery is simply the height of deceit perpetrated on the gullible people and useful idiots.You can bet that the White House has people reading every bit of the news, including this column and Dr. Sowell's article.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 1, 2012)

Still voting for Obama?

Yes!

I belong to the 47%. I can't vote for the one who doesn't care about my interest.


----------



## d1jinx (Nov 1, 2012)

No way in hell I am voting for Osama.

I would rather take my chances on someone else no matter who they were.

4 more years of Osama and we will be completely socialist country. we will have the government telling us what we can eat and how to live. not to mention 75% of people depending on the government for everything while the remaining 25% try to support thier worthless A$$es.

you want to see an Osama America after 4 more years? take a good look at what he did to chicago.... nice job O.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 1, 2012)

d1jinx said:


> No way in hell I am voting for Osama.
> 
> I would rather take my chances on someone else no matter who they were.
> 
> ...


There is no Osama on the Ballot; so, no worries.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 1, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> There is no Osama on the Ballot; so, no worries.



aye, Osama is dead, so there really is nothing to worrry about.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 1, 2012)

d1jinx said:


> No way in hell I am voting for Osama.
> 
> I would rather take my chances on someone else no matter who they were.
> 
> ...



so given your little "Obama/Osama" issue, are you one of those people who think Obama is a secret Muslim, and not an American Citizen?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 1, 2012)

d1jinx said:


> I would rather take my chances on someone else no matter who they were.



To take my chance that Romney may turn Medicare into a voucher program, No thanks! I don't take chance like that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-romney-wants-turn-medicare-voucher-prog/


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't hate Romny.  I don't think he is a bad person, and definitely not a "nice" guy.   You are known by the company you keep, and he has kept company with the top 1% rich guys of the worst sort, but I think that is mainly because he was raised by anti-liberal types from the time he was a little boy.  It wasn't his fault really, but that doesn't change the fact that he needs to be kept out of the whitehouse with all cost.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> in every way conceivable, Obama and Biden while not perfect, are far far far far far more capable than Romney and Ryan.



Yup. The problems here are partially Bush's doing and partially a global problem no one country could've stopped from happening.


----------



## James Kovacich (Nov 1, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Yup. The problems here are partially Bush's doing and partially a global problem no one country could've stopped from happening.



People don't seem to understand. Bush didn't just kill our economy. He "set the ball in motion" for the whole world. No republican could of pulled us out of this mess.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 3, 2012)

cdunn said:


> There are may things about his first term that have disappointed me. Amoung them ... drone assassinations of Americans.



And yet somehow that's not bad enough to cost him our votes.

I want you on the Jury for my Murder Trial.   Seriously.  People SCREAMED for Zimmerman's head, but wanna give Obama a Job.

What the heck is wrong with you people?  That could be your wife, kid, brother, father, getting assassinated.  After all, we do now, thanks to this man, live in a "combat zone"  any one of us could be labeled an "Enemy Combatant" and killed or imprisoned indefinitely.   Oh no of course not, "It could never happen to me.  I'm a good law abiding citizen."


----------



## billc (Nov 3, 2012)

Actually, Carter and Clinton set that ball in motion, and Barney frank and chris dodd protected that ball and kept people, like Bush, from stopping it.

http://cnsnews.com/node/43799



> Why didn&#8217;t the Bush administration sound the alarm on the unstable housing market that began to unravel on his watch?
> 
> Fox News&#8217;s Bill O&#8217;Reilly asked former White House adviser Karl Rove that question on Wednesday&#8217;s &#8220;O&#8217;Reilly Factor.&#8221;
> 
> ...



Yes, once again, look close enough and you will see democrat fingerprints on another major problem...which they then blame on republicans...


----------



## billc (Nov 3, 2012)

An interesting insight from an article posted elsewhere...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Fundraiser-City-Hall-and-ABC-News-in-Chicago



> Paul McKinley, another activist from the black community, points to all of these issues as reasons why the unemployment rate continues to increase in the black community. While Friday&#8217;s jobs report indicates the black unemployment rate has risen to 14 percent, McKinley flat-out rejects that claim and points to a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukeestudy that shows the black unemployment in 2010 for black males between 16-64 was 54.1 percent&#8212;a figure McKinley believes is only worse now.
> McKinley said, &#8220;the media won&#8217;t cover our issues&#8221; and that they are allowing the city to continue the destruction of their community through gentrification. This, he belives, is part of the liberal agenda and is by design. Other activists at the protest chastised ABC 7 News as a &#8220;racist-liberal&#8221; news outlet that is just a &#8220;mouthpiece for Rahm Emanuel.&#8221;
> Despite a significant news event occurring on their very doorstep, ABC 7&#8217;s Brock and Krashesky fled the newsroom and ignored the activity from the peaceful grassroots protesters outside. ABC 7 failed to send even one cameraman or reporter to investigate the protest and see what was going on.



Four years of obama hasn't helped much, has it?


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 3, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Actually, Carter and Clinton set that ball in motion, and Barney frank and chris dodd protected that ball and kept people, like Bush, from stopping it.
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/node/43799
> 
> ...


 Bill didn't your friend Newt support FannyMae and also made about $500,000 in consulting fees as a historian in his words not paid lobbyist to the hill promoting FannyMae?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)

d1jinx said:


> No way in hell I am voting for Osama.
> 
> I would rather take my chances on someone else no matter who they were.
> 
> ...



Who you vote for is entirely up to you but I have to say that voting for Obama will not lead you to being a socialist country, Obama is not even a little bit socialist by any reckoning. You could end up with a totalitarian state or a dictatorship but you won't end up socialist by voting for any of your current candidates.


----------



## Carol (Nov 3, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Bill didn't your friend Newt support FannyMae and also made about $500,000 in consulting fees as a historian in his words not paid lobbyist to the hill promoting FannyMae?



No, $500,000 was what he dropped at Tiffany's on a shopping spree.  He earned $1,600,000 promoting Fannie Mae on the hill.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 3, 2012)

d1jinx said:


> No way in hell I am voting for Osama.



Ah, comparing him to a terrorist who killed thousands of Americans...now that's political discourse for you. Here, have a free coupon for a gratuitous Hitler reference.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 4, 2012)

Carol said:


> No, $500,000 was what he dropped at Tiffany's on a shopping spree.  He _*earned*_ $1,600,000 promoting Fannie Mae on the hill.


Fixed that for you...
Yup. That evil mean man EARNED money, what a bastard.Then, that old meany SPENT the money he EARNED, how evil can you get?
 Despite Obama's "Ban" of Lobbyists in his administration, he sure employs a lot of them, and has from day ONE...
Obama, in 4 years has outspent the irredeemably "evil" George W Bush on White House State Dinners, and Bush was in office for EIGHT years... 
To any reasonable person, frivolous spending of money you EARNED is less wrong than frivolous spending of TAXPAYER'S money.


----------



## billc (Nov 4, 2012)

Sure, you can dislike what Newt did...as a private citizen...but barney frank, chris dodd and meeks, protected fannie mae and freddie mac as public servants.  Let's look into their connections to these organizations since it was their job to supervise these guys and keep the meltdown from happening.  It is typical that these democrats get credit for getting people who couldn't afford their homes into the homes by pressuring banks, through the threat of lawsuits and interference with their business operations, and then when the people who couldn't afford their homes loose their homes...because they couldn't afford them...these same democrats get credit for condemning republicans for the problem the democrats created.  This is another magic trick the democrats keep doing.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 4, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Sure, you can dislike what Newt did...as a private citizen...but barney frank, chris dodd and meeks, protected fannie mae and freddie mac as public servants.  Let's look into their connections to these organizations since it was their job to supervise these guys and keep the meltdown from happening.  It is typical that these democrats get credit for getting people who couldn't afford their homes into the homes by pressuring banks, through the threat of lawsuits and interference with their business operations, and then when the people who couldn't afford their homes loose their homes...because they couldn't afford them...these same democrats get credit for condemning republicans for the problem the democrats created.  This is another magic trick the democrats keep doing.



Well it would seem there is at least some common groundfor discussion hear however did the banks, wall street and insurance companiesdo all this because they were intimidated by barney frank chris dodd and meeksor did were they motivated by greed from huge fees and betting against theactual investments basically playing both sides and grabbing all the realestate back posting new huge profits and paying millions in commissions onceagain to brokers from TARP money? The banks are still holding Trillions in cashthat could stimulate small business and jobs but refuse for many reasons. thetop 10 % in the last 4 years has had their overall wealth increase by 17% whilethe middle income population lost up to 70% of their total net worth in 2007/8.

Bill I would like to see you start a thread on True the Vote that has beenorganized as a volunteer voter observers of 1 million people? but in fact wantsto by challenges at polling places will interfere and clog up voting in anattempt to challenge the outcome of the race??


----------

