BTW I got a nice letter from Richard Burrs' office about the "off shore" voting software provider.
The hill has prepared for this, pay close attention to the results as they come in. I hope against all hope that R/R have a 30 pt landslide - and a clear electoral majority
Sorry to butt-in, seeing as how I'm not a regular on this thread, but am I the only one who is absolutely certain that this election will be stolen by BHO if not won outright (which it won't be)? OUR votes are going to be tallied by a Spanish company with ties to George Soros and we have a media who will happily look the other way. A landslide might be hard to skew so thats all I can hang my hopes on.
^ even so, is it not troubling regardless if Soros is involved or not? I just think there is a reason BO looked so nonchalant last debate. We'll see what transpires tonight.
Ok. That Settles it! If the Globe says so, it must be false. Barry's not gay. ( If the Enquirer reports on politician's affairs, it tends to be true... the Globe? The Globe had Bush and Rice having an affair. She's way too smart for that. Also Clinton and Aliens... )
Hoping no one remembers in a few hours that I've picked on our possibly first Gay President...
Obama's comment to Medvedev is really disturbing. Why has no one asked him about this? I bet anyone here a beer that the question doesn't get asked at the debate tonite.
I became a US citizen a few months before I graduated from high school and enlisted in the USAF in 1983. Prior to that, I was busy learning on what is America and the Carter years served as my education about US presidential politics.
Throughout the Reagan, B41, Clinton, and B43 years, never mind the partisan political contests, which I believes to be a sign of a healthy democracy, I had faith in the American people precisely because of their willingness to examine a candidate through a political partisan prism, even if that examination sometimes tread into the distasteful.
In any corporation, the CEO can be hired from the outside, of which his accomplishments are wide open for scrutiny before he is interviewed for the job. He can also be promoted from within, of which his accomplishments are also wide open for scrutiny before he is interviewed for the job.
No options for the Presidency other than to promote from within.
So between McCain and Obama, how did the latter bypassed that moral burden of the American electorate in having a close scrutiny of a candidate's work record prior to promoting him? The 2008 election was my disappointment in the American electorate.
Now, after watching two debates between two candidates vying for the same position, I wonder if my fellow Americans remember their moral burden and if they do, I wonder if they realize the quandary they put themselves and their country into: They have a candidate with a work record of failures, deceit, and radicalism but through their emotional investments made them resistant to the more qualified candidate.
Now, after watching two debates between two candidates vying for the same position, I wonder if my fellow Americans remember their moral burden and if they do, I wonder if they realize the quandary they put themselves and their country into: They have a candidate with a work record of failures, deceit, and radicalism but through their emotional investments made them resistant to the more qualified candidate.
The polls suggest that Americans DO see what has happened and will correct our course on election day. One of the enemies we're presently fighting is a corrupt media - it makes it awful hard to see the truth when most of the people tasked with discovering the truth are sleeping with the enemy.
That said, look at the poll numbers. Specifically, look at the numbers and trends to date in TOTAL, and notice the direction and velocity of each party's candidate.
If we have a fair election and tally of votes it'll be R&R in a landslide, for all the obvious reasons, with patriotism being at the top of the list.
But IF they win it won't be the end of the war, of course, just a very important victory in the never-ending battle of eternal vigilance that is - and always will be - necessary to preserve and protect our great Republic against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
In any corporation, the CEO can be hired from the outside, of which his accomplishments are wide open for scrutiny before he is interviewed for the job.
Of the two men in the debate last night, the history of one of them is shrouded in mystery, much of it sealed off from public view, with many legitimate questions and concerns STILL being raised by scholars to this day as to who, and what, this man really is.
The history (and accomplishments) of the other man is an open book, easily researched and easily verifiable.
One of the men in the debate last night seems to have a lot to hide, and has done much to insure that his past remains a closely-guarded secret.
The other man has repeatedly stood tall, looked America right in the eye, and said, "This is who I am, this is where I'm from, this is what I've accomplished personally and professionally, here are my values and beliefs, and this is what I can - and will - do to as President help insure YOUR individual success and freedom."
Wide open for scrutiny.
Of the two candidates debating last night, which man succeeds in this regard?
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush Mark Knoller / CBS News/ March 19, 2012
(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
...The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
...Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.
The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.
In all fairness, the rising slope of debt isn't all the picture - it should be indexed against the real value of currency based against the market ratio of gold.... So not only are you SPENDING MORE in pure numerical stacks of bills - but EACH is WORTH significantly LESS.
Remember the stories of that candy bar for a nickel that was told from the WWII generation ?.... Last check it hovered around over a buck at Wally world unless you had a coupon....
They are on the march to defund that currency- whether it makes any difference on who is in the office when it happens; remains to be seen.
In all fairness, the rising slope of debt isn't all the picture...
Concur, for the reasons you stated, and many more. However, the visual representation above of our staggering national debt, which has increased by over 60% on 0bama's watch, contrasted with the equally grim numbers presented in the "0bama Economy Isn't Working" graphic above, tell the tale of his failed presidency far better than you or I could ever hope to do with words alone.
They are on the march to defund that currency- whether it makes any difference on who is in the office when it happens; remains to be seen.
I worry about this, regardless of who is elected.
But, we KNOW what we're gonna get with four (or more?) years of 0bama.
Romney? He says he's the real deal, and I think he's telling the truth.
If he's not? Well, can he be WORSE than 0bama?
Speaking of, I'd like to present the two graphics above personally to 0bama and ask him if he truly thinks he's earned another term. By his own admission, he has NOT:
quote:
FLASHBACK: Obama: My Presidency Will Be 'A One-Term Proposition' If Economy Doesn't Turn In 3 Years
Uploaded by CNSNews on Aug 5, 2011
President Barack Obama said in February 2009 that his presidency would be "one-term proposition" if the economy did not recover in three years, giving him less than six months from today.
Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009 Uploaded by johnjms2 on Feb 15, 2011
Obama talks about how he will cut the deficit in half during his first term - and why it's so important. Really? The 2008 budget deficit was 458 billion. Obama's proposed new budget for this year has a deficit of 1.1 TRILLION. For God's sake - WTF???
I think you are right, and that Ohio will have a big conservative turn out this year. There were a lot of conservatives just tired and who weren't thrilled about McCain.
I casually knew a number of people around me (Warren and Butler county) that voted for Obama who I thought "what are you *thinking*?" when I heard it. Now many of them seem to be saying "what was I thinking?".
No idea if it will be enough to overturn the urban areas though...
Yeah, it's Breitbart again. They're prolly making all this stuff up, dirty right-wing bastards that they are, but just in case there's a grain of truth somewhere in all of this:
Would be terrorist, but was "never a threat to the public". This scenario has played out way too many times in the past few years. Dupe some fool into thinking that you are going to help him blow so shit up and give him a phony bomb. Then you can arrest him and pat yourself on the back for keeping the public safe. The timing on this one is perfect too, just before BO's must win debate on foreign policy.
Candy Crowley Plays Biggest Loser with Obama Selwyn Duke, Oct 17, 2012
You might think that with all the recent focus on media bias in debate moderation, Candy Crowley would have minded her p's and q's in last night's presidential debate. But clearly, she doesn't even know the ABC's of her job.
Her most obvious transgression was chiming in and contradicting Mitt Romney's assertion that Barack Obama did not label the Benghazi attack an act of terror when he spoke in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. Crowley's unwarranted meddling was significant. The apparent lies surrounding the Libya tragedy are a huge scandal for Obama, and, with the mainstream media's failure to aggressively cover the story, the debate was a golden opportunity to get the truth out.
Enter Crowley's Passion. She snuck into the ring, without Obama even tagging her, and hit Romney from behind with a chair while the ref, Crowley's Brain, was looking the other way. And, as was established later, she was wrong. It was, as Thomas Sowell wrote recently, a display of what Obama himself is guilty of: confident ignorance.