Why I won't be voting for Obama
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
I really don't feel the need to defend any of the numbers AK put up. I doubt I could have time to provide evidence that would be adequate for you. Anyone can put up false numbers, and anyone can say they are false, even if they are not.
Some of real reasons I am voting for Obama is the fact that he ended the War in Iraq. Do you, or do you not support that decision?
Also, it is fact that he was the one who made the decision to kill Bin Laden. Again, I would be interested to hear whether or not you support that decision.
Can you also give me a good reason why Bush couldn't get it done, or shouldn't have killed him?
I made a point earlier that The Bush admins put out a dinky little 25 million dollar bounty on his head, and when that didn't work, they decided it would be best to spend trillions to go fight in Iraq. Do those numbers make good sense to you?
I'm also voting for Obama because he stood by American workers and backed the auto industry, when Mitt took a political stance to let it fail. He took that stance because a better bottom line seems to mean more to him than people and families.
I'm voting for Obama because he understands that giving some credit to American companies can actually turn out to be a good thing, which it has.
You're giving me numbers on the price of beef, gas and coffee going up and down. I really can't argue those numbers, but they are much less significant, at least to me, than the number of lives and dollars that have been wasted in the wars that Mitt supported.
I really can't help but feel that you and some of your buddies on here are going to argue what you know is right, just because you could never admit being wrong about supporting "shut it down, and skip town" Mitt Romney.
If Mitt takes office, the price of gas will likely continue to rise, as long as we depend on it, as well as beef if we suffer another of the worst droughts in decades.
Yes I agree that QE may be a mistake, and will likely add to inflation, but history hasn't proven that it is a mistake yet, so I'm willing to be patient, so long as I can still provide for my loved ones.
And you can't prove that Mitt will be the magic fix that you think we all need either.
I say, stay the course. What say you?
Lot's of flipping going on. Obama supporters bailing in droves.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-romney-ahead-election-day/?intcmp=trending
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-romney-ahead-election-day/?intcmp=trending
The difference is, I can support my "assertions" that the data he put up is bullshit. And I can do it with the official government stats.
I do. I also support Ron Paul's belief on the military, which puts me at odds with Romney's military desires. But the economy overwhelms my importance of military spending.
Of course I support that he killed Bin Laden. But insinuating that this was Presidential is a bit out there in my opinion. Any President would have agreed to that (except Clinton, who let him go when he had him). As to what amount would have worked, this is all speculation. Neither you nor I can say what would have and would not have worked. But if you phrase your statistics like you did on the millions vs. trillions, of course it looks bad. That's precisely how statistical arguments are generated. Taking what facts you feel like and discarding others.
No, what Romney wanted is for the bankrupt companies to go through organized bankruptcy, allowing them to void union contracts and become more competitive through restructuring. That is the way businesses are SUPPOSED to work when they are unprofitable. By assuring they get bailed out, no efficiencies were created, and a non-elected, appointed Car Czar took the place of what the free market should have done. Stupidity.
You mean like the $90 billion given to green energy companies that have either struggled, gone bankrupt or taken the money as favors for fund raising? Or was it the bailout of the banks (a continuation of Bush policy) that you refer to, allowing Zombie Banks to continue becoming even Too Bigger To Fail(er)?
Those numbers were in response to Ricter's comment on the ISM nonmfg report, nothing more. He did not quote all the numbers. I made sure all were included. that's all.
When all you do is regurgitate main stream media talking points that are easily refutable, then you become a ripe target for attacks from conservatives that have done their homework. Don't blame that on me.
Prices will do what the Fed makes them do. The Federal Reserve. The Presidency has little to do with it. Obama would keep Bernanke printing as he's been doing all along. Mitt has said he would prefer a more conservative monetary policy. If he is telling the truth, prices will moderate. If he continues, or if Obama gets re-elected, look for more devaluation of the currency through printing, and more holding down rates of savers, punishing the elderly. For all the yapping you guys on the left do for the little guy, you show surprisingly little knowledge on what is keeping the poor actually poor.
So let's wait until we're in the abyss to try to fix the situation? Please!
No, I can't prove Mitt would be better. But I know for absolute certainty that another 4 years of the same stuff is a disaster. So why would I continue to want that? Mitt isn't even someone I'm fond of, but Obama is so clearly out of his league that I won't even consider him. If you have seen previous posts of mine (and you probably have under a different moniker) you'd know I was a social liberal. I'm for gay marriage. I'm pro choice. I'm actually for Universal Healthcare (though not the way Obama did it).
But I am a fiscal conservative who has just becomes so God damned familiar with the math, that I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama again. That's right, I voted for him last time.
Stopped reading here. Uh, no he didn't end the war in Iraq, it was Bush's timetable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
In fact, Obama campaigned on ending it within 16 months of his presidency, which he failed to do.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Kpw1KmXdCk8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I read you entire reply, and I couldn't find any real support to any of your assertions, but I'll continue.
I do. I also support Ron Paul's belief on the military, which puts me at odds with Romney's military desires. But the economy overwhelms my importance of military spending.[/QUOTE]
So +1 for Obama, I would have to assume?
Of course I support that he killed Bin Laden. But insinuating that this was Presidential is a bit out there in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
It was absolutely, without a doubt, the President's call to make, and a damn good one, at that.
Neither you nor I can say what would have and would not have worked. But if you phrase your statistics like you did on the millions vs. trillions, of course it looks bad. That's precisely how statistical arguments are generated. Taking what facts you feel like and discarding others.[/QUOTE]
Like I said earlier, I don't have time to provide you with any adequate numbers, as you would likely refute them.
I think you get my point that no real effort was made to get Bin Laden. There's probably one guy in here, who may even read this post, that can match that 25 million dollar bounty in his sleep.
You entirely avoided the question I asked you on whether or not spending kazillions on the war made any real sense to you, when we could have killed Bin Laden had he just had a bigger price tag on his head?
You will likely avoid the question again so you can put some kind of spin on the numbers being wrong.
No, what Romney wanted is for the bankrupt companies to go through organized bankruptcy, allowing them to void union contracts and become more competitive through restructuring. That is the way businesses are SUPPOSED to work when they are unprofitable. By assuring they get bailed out, no efficiencies were created, and a non-elected, appointed Car Czar took the place of what the free market should have done. Stupidity.[/QUOTE]
The point is the free market will let those business die, much like they will "green energy", but I'll address that after your next comment..
You mean like the $90 billion given to green energy companies that have either struggled, gone bankrupt or taken the money as favors for fund raising?[/QUOTE]
As I was saying, the free market doesn't support this type business.
One reason is the model is still young and hasn't had time to be properly molded.
Another reason is with the type of tight regulations needed to ensure the health of our planet, and to the workers, it's very difficult to generate the same kinds of profits we are seeing doing things in the older, more wasteful, less careful methods we are used to.
I know many will scream, that if we can make more money doing it "my way" or the "old way", then we should- but I couldn't disagree more. Our planet, or at least its people, will die if some tough legislation isn't passed soon.
I recycle as much as possible, but there are no laws that say I have to. As a result, I see television sets, batteries, copper wire, aluminum, hell you name it, get thrown in the dump every day. Wasted-
If law makers made simple legislation saying, get caught throwing your plastic water bottle away, then you get hit with a fine and/or imprisonment- i could guarantee you we would be much more "efficient" with our planets materials, and much better off in the long run.
Many will scream, "But we're already making billions digging new stuff out if the ground, and we'll have to spend millions restructuring our business, just to accommodate the hippies so they can save their planet".
The same kinds of issues arise with other "green energy" businesses, and with out legislation, I'm afraid we simply won't make the necessary changes in time to save ourselves.
Can you not at least agree that some of what I am saying makes sense?
Or was it the bailout of the banks (a continuation of Bush policy) that you refer to, allowing Zombie Banks to continue becoming even Too Bigger To Fail(er)?[/QUOTE]
As to date, and you are the fact checker, so check away, the TARP program has gotten back over 90% if the funds it used to keep American companies and jobs alive.
Just a short while back, Did you know that AIG was able to repay the fed back 100%, and the govt still has 15 billion in shares as an interest and profit.
President Bush and Obama, Bernanke, congress, can all be thanked.
Those numbers were in response to Ricter's comment on the ISM nonmfg report, nothing more. He did not quote all the numbers. I made sure all were included. that's all.[/QUOTE]
Ok, but you used them to debate me with, so i responded appropriately.
When all you do is regurgitate main stream media talking points that are easily refutable, then you become a ripe target for attacks from conservatives that have done their homework. Don't blame that on me.[/QUOTE]
I do much more than you described, and no one is blaming you, so stopping acting like a victim.
Prices will do what the Fed makes them do. The Federal Reserve. The Presidency has little to do with it. Obama would keep Bernanke printing as he's been doing all along. Mitt has said he would prefer a more conservative monetary policy. If he is telling the truth, prices will moderate. If he continues, or if Obama gets re-elected, look for more devaluation of the currency through printing, and more holding down rates of savers, punishing the elderly. For all the yapping you guys on the left do for the little guy, you show surprisingly little knowledge on what is keeping the poor actually poor.[/QUOTE]
Wrong! Prices do what price action makes them do. If one party is desperate to buy from another, the price goes up. If one party is desperate to sell to another, the price goes down.
This is economics 101, and you're obviously out of your league.
So let's wait until we're in the abyss to try to fix the situation? Please![/QUOTE]
We are not waiting to fix the problem. We are fixing it. It won't be easy or instantaneous, and we have to all shoulder some of the blame and responsibility.
No, I can't prove Mitt would be better. But I know for absolute certainty that another 4 years of the same stuff is a disaster.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not seeing any support for your "assertions" that convinces me to believe the things you "know" to be true.
It's just rhetoric, but that's what many of your buddies understand, so I guess it works for you.
If you have seen previous posts of mine (and you probably have under a different moniker) you'd know I was a social liberal. I'm for gay marriage. I'm pro choice. I'm actually for Universal Healthcare (though not the way Obama did it). [/QUOTE]
Which moniker were you using? Was it pspr, or Leap-up?
But I am a fiscal conservative who has just becomes so God damned familiar with the math[/QUOTE]
What math? Go ahead and shoot me some of the so-called real govt numbers you speak of, pertaining to some of the statements I've made above.
I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama again. That's right, I voted for him last time. [/QUOTE]
Good for you! and us!
I'll just give you the age old adage, when it comes to both having Mitt Romney elected president, as well as a debate with me-
Be careful what you wish for
