President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[conversationpc]

How does it feel to have nominated a John Kerry and lost the election by running on negatives with absolutely no substance or positives to point to.

LOL! I'm not saying Romney ran a completely positive campaign but any negativity coming from his campaign was far and away well below anything the Obama campaign put out.

[conversationpc]

But, you're wrong about why Republicans will lose in 1016. They REFUSE to address the problems within their own party. Until they do that, they will be a minority party. In fact, the longer they wait, the more of a minority they will be.

Minority? Only in the Senate by a few seats and the White House. Other than that, they hold a substantial majority in governorships around the country as well as a substantial majority of state legislatures.

[StevePerryHair]

But, you're wrong about why Republicans will lose in 1016. They REFUSE to address the problems within their own party. Until they do that, they will be a minority party. In fact, the longer they wait, the more of a minority they will be.

Minority? Only in the Senate by a few seats and the White House. Other than that, they hold a substantial majority in governorships around the country as well as a substantial majority of state legislatures.

True, we have a republican governor. But he may be the worst governor we've had in the years I've lived in FL. Business man turned politician. And it shows. I hope the dems in our state can get a good candidate so there will not have to be another 4 years of him. My husband is a total, votes down party lines, republican, and even he couldn't bring himself to vote for the guy. He left that part of the ballot blank, rather than vote Dem. Just because a state has a republican leader, does not mean the people are happy.

[Monker]

No, you didn't. You only included health insurance and kept the income at $500.

You did not include vacation time.
You did not include paid holidays.
You did not include sick time.
You did not include ANY benefits a company provides beyond the paycheck...the "complete" benefits package.

All you said was the worker can take his gross salary and by his own health insurance as a contractor. Well, any contractor who was offered that deal would walk and go somewhere else where the pay is "fair", as Slu says.

The bottom line is that 'contracting out' is not a simple way around it...that contractor has to pay for his own insurance and because of that, his rate goes up. So, if Obamacare causes cost of insurance to go up, then contracting rates will go up. If Obamacare causes insurance rates to go down, then rates will most likely stay the same and the contractor will get a bit more money in the bank....well, maybe not...but it wouldn't surprise me.

I believe I did include "cost of benefit" in my original post. You guys are much smarter than I though. The "Point" was that people are going to look for ways around this Obamacare, and contracting out is a very good way to do so if a company can. Of course a McD's can't possibly get away with that but others could easily. Hell, my Dad did this exact thing with a local bread company 18 years ago when he sold the routes and trucks to the drivers and then sold them the bread. I'm not talking about your corner bakery either, this was a multi-state entity and still is. It WAS also union. Anyways, Hostess closed up shop today with union problems and my Dads old company is still serving Big Mac Buns to Mc'Ds, Wendys and BK and schools throughout Ohio, Ky and Indiana.

So now we have companies like Kroger, Red Lobster (Darden) and Papa Johns possibly going to 28 hour work weeks as their way around Obamacare. Others are going to fire people to get under 50 employees, or take them off of company benefits and pay the IRS fine of $2000 which is cheaper than paying the benefits. Voting for Big Government will come with consequences from Big Business which will trickle down to little people.

[Monker]

How does it feel to have nominated a John Kerry and lost the election by running on negatives with absolutely no substance or positives to point to.

LOL! I'm not saying Romney ran a completely positive campaign but any negativity coming from his campaign was far and away well below anything the Obama campaign put out.

depen

Whatever...not my point. The point is Romney was not a good enough candidate to run on any positives. He flipped on so many issues, sometimes multiple times, that he stands for NOTHING. That leaves the opening for Obama to talk about decisions like killing bin Laden saying a President makes decisive decisions and sticks by them, even if the majority doesn't agree. Romney moves and shifts his policies and rhetoric depending on what is popular and can get him the votes. That is why he was a conservative during the primaries and liberal during the last month of the campaign. So, since Romney does not have any belief that is so strong he can't change and fundamentally stands by, he ran as "I'm not Obama"....just the same as Kerry ran as "I'm not W."

[Monker]

But, you're wrong about why Republicans will lose in 1016. They REFUSE to address the problems within their own party. Until they do that, they will be a minority party. In fact, the longer they wait, the more of a minority they will be.

Minority? Only in the Senate by a few seats and the White House. Other than that, they hold a substantial majority in governorships around the country as well as a substantial majority of state legislatures.

Minority in the fact that Republicans can not win the Presidency.

Congress is not a national election.

As I've said, it's the same situation Democrats were in back in the 70's and 80's...you can win congressional election, but not the Presidency,.

[Memorex]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/bono-praises-incredible-george-w-bush-and-entrepreneurial-capitalism-video/

[conversationpc]

But, you're wrong about why Republicans will lose in 1016. They REFUSE to address the problems within their own party. Until they do that, they will be a minority party. In fact, the longer they wait, the more of a minority they will be.

Minority? Only in the Senate by a few seats and the White House. Other than that, they hold a substantial majority in governorships around the country as well as a substantial majority of state legislatures.

Minority in the fact that Republicans can not win the Presidency.

Congress is not a national election.

As I've said, it's the same situation Democrats were in back in the 70's and 80's...you can win congressional election, but not the Presidency,.

There's no "you". I haven't been nor wanted to be a registered Republican in nearly 15 years. The term minority really doesn't apply here if all you're referring to is the Presidential election. There's only usually two real candidates running for that office and I'd hardly say they can't win the Presidency when it's only been two elections. Let me know when the Dems win four or more in a row.

[slucero]

My point is there are jobs out there. But people are too lazy.
I see " help wanted " signs and ads all over the place.
We had an ad for two weeks to hire a sales guy , making between 35000-50000 a year.
We thought we would have at least 20-30 people applying , but no , only 3 people applied and around 10 people just came in to show that they've been looking for a job so they could get their unemployment or welfare check.
This is the mindset of a lot of people these days. Specially now , when you see people complaining on FB about " freeloaders" ,yet they seem to forget that they are one of them !

Yeah, and to get their attention you cut them off. These people will not get a job as long as we give them money.

Here's a new secnario for B, Gin, Slu and Company.

1099


Secnario: You own a car lot and need 7 sales people. They work for you, sell cars all week and you give them a paycheck minus the tax with held and health cost, and they earn 500 a week and get a check for $333. Part of the health cost and half of the FICA are paid by the employer wich is an additional cost beyond the $500 of earnings. With Obamacare on the near horizon you have no choice in the matter now how to administer your health plans, and if you don't offer the plans you get taxed anyway because you have employees.

Sloution: Tomorrow Behsahd goes to work and the dealer says B, you are fired as an employee, but if you'd like you can come and sell my cars and I will pay you the $500 in full, you will be an independant car salesman, pay your own taxes and healthcare out of that $500 and you'll be your own boss. You'll get a 1099 at the end of the year.

I can see quite a few employers using this method to get out of owing anything on Obamacare taxes. Fuck, the fry cook at McD's can be an independent fry cook and McD's just gives him the whole check and McD's don't owe jack shit for healthcare or half FICA.

Brilliant!

Never happen...

I used to work at a Fortune 500 that had lots of contractors.. I managed the contracts with outsourcing companies that provided us contractors, so I got to know the IRS law on it pretty well..

the IRS was prosecuting companies that were 1099ing positions that the IRS deemed should be full time... back in 2002.

Now that the government is hurting for cash. much more than in 2002, they're even more militant about it.. because its way easier to make the companies capture the taxes for you than rely on individuals who get 1099's to pay it.

I think you are right. The IRS is going to get even aggressive investigating companies that heavily use contractors and make sure the lines of who is a W 2 employee and who is a 1099er . I have big clients who have been extremely careful about not falling afoul of these regulations. If they get it wrong the penalties are pretty stiff.
And there are so many regulations - for instance you cannot provide your contractors with certain tools, facilities, or dictating working hours or they are not conractors. The fry guys at McD's would have to have contracts based on how many fries they deliver instead of what hours they worked, and they would have to have their own fry machines, etc etc.

Not to mention that contractors get paid more to make up for the fact that they do not get ANY benefits...including basics like vacation, holiday, and sick pay..in addition to health insurance That $500 gross suddenly becomes $700 - 800 gross because of it. Well, unless the contractor is an idiot and takes less then what he's really worth.

Actually that's also not true..

My experience has been that the consultant/contractor price (either through fixed fee or hourly basis) especially when the consultant/contractor is obtained through personnel services has not only been "fair" it has been padded.. but even with that margin increase for the supplier, the benefit of contracting to a personnel service is that skillets can be categorized (programmer, network admin, financial analyst, etc.) and the price points can be fixed (on a project or hourly basis), and it is usually fair to both parties.

Being able to expense the cost of consulting/contracting is the main driver.


Independent contractors have to price themselves competitively... and most learn quickly what is fair.... or they simply get no business.

Then you don't know the market as well as you think you do. I can tell you that what I got paid at an hourly rate is $13,000/yr more then for the same type of position I work now full time. And, frankly, that doesn't even include what the consulting company I was contracting through gets paid. And, if I were completely independent, I would be able to take an even higher rate.

You are looking at it from the client perspective, not the contractor perspective. Contractors absolutely get paid more to make up for the lack of benefit. Only an idiot of a contractor would take a salary equal to a full time employee...that would make absolutely no sense at all. In fact, the one time that was offered to me, I felt insulted and didn't take the job.

I know the market better than you can read a fucking post.... put on your glasses and try again. (see the highlighted portion above). I never said contractors/consultants made the same... I said it was negotiated to be fairly priced. My point was that the benefit in expensing the cost of consulting/contractors far outweighed the additional cost.

I owned a consulting company that grossed a million plus a year Monker, and I was also contractor/consultant, and a business owner who also HIRED contractors and consultants for my own business.

If you got $13,000/yr more, hey good for you. My own experience at contracting myself out was at twice my employed rate, which amounted to $80,000/yr. more than for the same employee position.. I know I'd have felt like an idiot to have taken less than I was worth.

You replied to my post where I said that contractors get paid more to make up for benefits with "Actually, that's also not true" Read your own fucking post, and those that you are replying to before going off on them.

"Fairly priced" = inclusive of the cost of benefits.... everyone knows there is was/is implied benefit cost premium built into the contractor/consultant pricing... it's common knowledge. It's why we used our own benefit costs as a baseline to assess a "fair" price with contractor/consultants.

It's also why never I said contractors/consultants made the same...


If that confused you. I apologize.

Obviously, not everybody knows the above because FactFinder did not include that in his $500 example...which is the entire point of what I was saying.

Do you even read the posts you are replying to?

The "confusing" part is not the above. The confusing part is you saying I am "wrong" in a point that you agree with.

I re-read it, my bad.. apologies.

[Monker]

No, you didn't. You only included health insurance and kept the income at $500.

You did not include vacation time.
You did not include paid holidays.
You did not include sick time.
You did not include ANY benefits a company provides beyond the paycheck...the "complete" benefits package.

All you said was the worker can take his gross salary and by his own health insurance as a contractor. Well, any contractor who was offered that deal would walk and go somewhere else where the pay is "fair", as Slu says.

The bottom line is that 'contracting out' is not a simple way around it...that contractor has to pay for his own insurance and because of that, his rate goes up. So, if Obamacare causes cost of insurance to go up, then contracting rates will go up. If Obamacare causes insurance rates to go down, then rates will most likely stay the same and the contractor will get a bit more money in the bank....well, maybe not...but it wouldn't surprise me.

I believe I did include "cost of benefit" in my original post. You guys are much smarter than I though. The "Point" was that people are going to look for ways around this Obamacare, and contracting out is a very good way to do so if a company can. Of course a McD's can't possibly get away with that but others could easily. Hell, my Dad did this exact thing with a local bread company 18 years ago when he sold the routes and trucks to the drivers and then sold them the bread. I'm not talking about your corner bakery either, this was a multi-state entity and still is. It WAS also union. Anyways, Hostess closed up shop today with union problems and my Dads old company is still serving Big Mac Buns to Mc'Ds, Wendys and BK and schools throughout Ohio, Ky and Indiana.

So now we have companies like Kroger, Red Lobster (Darden) and Papa Johns possibly going to 28 hour work weeks as their way around Obamacare. Others are going to fire people to get under 50 employees, or take them off of company benefits and pay the IRS fine of $2000 which is cheaper than paying the benefits. Voting for Big Government will come with consequences from Big Business which will trickle down to little people.

No Company owes you paid vacation time.
No Company owes you paid sick days.
No Company owes you paid Holidays.
No Company owes you any benefit unless and until said Company decides to offer it to you as an incentive to work for them. They do so to keep good employees and now more than ever you better earn it.

And, I do not owe any company the benefit of myself as an employee if they do not offer those benefits...or compensate me more to make up for them.

That is how the market works...and not your weird reality. Only an idiot would accept the contract as you presented it...obviously, you are such an idiot.

[Monker]

But, you're wrong about why Republicans will lose in 1016. They REFUSE to address the problems within their own party. Until they do that, they will be a minority party. In fact, the longer they wait, the more of a minority they will be.

Minority? Only in the Senate by a few seats and the White House. Other than that, they hold a substantial majority in governorships around the country as well as a substantial majority of state legislatures.

Minority in the fact that Republicans can not win the Presidency.

Congress is not a national election.

As I've said, it's the same situation Democrats were in back in the 70's and 80's...you can win congressional election, but not the Presidency,.

There's no "you". I haven't been nor wanted to be a registered Republican in nearly 15 years. The term minority really doesn't apply here if all you're referring to is the Presidential election. There's only usually two real candidates running for that office and I'd hardly say they can't win the Presidency when it's only been two elections. Let me know when the Dems win four or more in a row.

Even Newt Gingrich recognizes Republicans need examine themselves and make changes. If that doesn't happen, "they" will continue losing.

[steveo777]

But, you're wrong about why Republicans will lose in 1016. They REFUSE to address the problems within their own party. Until they do that, they will be a minority party. In fact, the longer they wait, the more of a minority they will be.

Minority? Only in the Senate by a few seats and the White House. Other than that, they hold a substantial majority in governorships around the country as well as a substantial majority of state legislatures.

Minority in the fact that Republicans can not win the Presidency.

Congress is not a national election.

As I've said, it's the same situation Democrats were in back in the 70's and 80's...you can win congressional election, but not the Presidency,.

There's no "you". I haven't been nor wanted to be a registered Republican in nearly 15 years. The term minority really doesn't apply here if all you're referring to is the Presidential election. There's only usually two real candidates running for that office and I'd hardly say they can't win the Presidency when it's only been two elections. Let me know when the Dems win four or more in a row.

Even Newt Gingrich recognizes Republicans need examine themselves and make changes. If that doesn't happen, "they" will continue losing.

Could be, but the extreme liberal left needs to be put in check too. This is a run away train and some of yous just want to let it continue to run, caring not that there is a wreck at the other end. Why is there so much denial of the obvious?

[Boomchild]

This was a racially motivated election, before no other. It's taken a few days for me to fully digest how he got reelected. I had to search my own soul, the news, internet....then dig a bit deeper. About 90% of blacks voted for Obama......and about 70% of Hispanics. That is a huge voting base to choose from. I have figured out why they voted for him. There is no doubt that he got the black vote because he was black, that simple. The Hispanic vote is a bit more complicated. Hispanics typically stereo type blacks, as much as anyone. Why would they vote for him? Entitlements! He has been the most lax president on immigration enforcement, as well as the loosest when it comes to Welfare, Food Stamps, Medical care and other government issued perks. Ad to that, you have a minority running the highest office in the country. Glad it's only four more years. We won't be fooled again!

I don't think race was the motivator for this election. It was the people who feel government can solve the jobless problem and that taxing the rich more will make the deficit go away. That and people who have a job but were concerned that they could be losing it in the near future and would need the programs that Obama supports to fall back on. Now I am also sure that some may have voted for him because of his stance on immigration. But, the focus on that subject during the election campaign was short. The people who are looking for entitlements come from all racial backgrounds.

You're wrong. Romney sucks when it comes to Hispanic issues. Self deportation? Give me a break...that's a winning policy? Then there is simple common sense that cutting taxes by %20 is NOT going to balance the budget. Top it off with the fact that the country IS better off then it was four years ago....and Obama is the favorite to win. Romney stayed in the game because of the first debate. If Obama had showed up for that debate, it would have been a landslide.

The bottom line is I see Romney fans and Republicans trying to blame the "%47" instead of taking their party and philosophy by the horns and tuning the message. Good luck with insulting the majority of voters and then trying to win a national election...just won't work.

Their has not been one winning policy put forward by either party when comes to the illegal immigration problem. All of these politicians look to these people as future voters. Simple common sense will also tell you that you cannot "tax the rich" your way out of the problem. Analysts that have looked at Obama's plan when it comes to this have found that this will only add SIX WEEKS to the government's operating income. Not only that but companies are already reducing their work force to compensate for the effects of Obama Care. The philosophy that government creates jobs is not a winning plan either because it doesn't. If you turn this country into a financial redistribution society as Obama has and is doing people will no longer feel the need to strive to create because the motivation is lost in a redistribution world. If you read Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" you can get a sense how his father and other people Obama was surrounded with have a anti-colonialist and socialist mind set. Shades of this thinking has rubbed off onto Obama. The unemployment numbers the fed puts out are a joke as far as accuracy. Just take the example that once a person's standard unemployment compensation runs out they are no longer considered unemployed even though they DON"t HAVE A JOB. The sad fact is that neither party has produced a someone that is able to fix these problems.

[Boomchild]

This was a racially motivated election, before no other. It's taken a few days for me to fully digest how he got reelected. I had to search my own soul, the news, internet....then dig a bit deeper. About 90% of blacks voted for Obama......and about 70% of Hispanics. That is a huge voting base to choose from. I have figured out why they voted for him. There is no doubt that he got the black vote because he was black, that simple. The Hispanic vote is a bit more complicated. Hispanics typically stereo type blacks, as much as anyone. Why would they vote for him? Entitlements! He has been the most lax president on immigration enforcement, as well as the loosest when it comes to Welfare, Food Stamps, Medical care and other government issued perks. Ad to that, you have a minority running the highest office in the country. Glad it's only four more years. We won't be fooled again!

Hmm, then explain the Puerto Ricans I know who voted for him? Educated American Puerto Ricans?

And the half Cuban friend I have who voted Romney because she is so dead set against a lean towards socialism, because it reminds her of the communist country most of her family suffers in.

What about all the South American Hispanics that were angry with Obama over Chavez and that whole situation.

What about my son's Honduran girlfriends family, with the "Romney" sign in their front yard?

You have an issue with Mexicans. That's quite clear. They are only a portion of the Hispanic vote. Stop trying to make it about race. I know plenty of financially comfortable, educated, intelligent CAUCASIAN people who voted Obama. This is not a black/Hispanic thing. Quit trying to blame the Mexicans. The answer lies in Romney. For many he couldn't sell himself to the people sitting in the middle.

You are absolutely right. Romney got 2.5 million votes less than John McCain. that means this talk about demographics doesnt really wash. Romney got a lower percentage of hispanic votes than Obama, that is true, but that was not the real cause. If you look at Romney's numbers - he won independents by 5 % , got establishment republicans to turn out, got "neo-cons" to turn out and even got evangelical Christians/social cons to turn out. Who didnt turn out were the economic conservatives and libertarian conservatives and the original tea party people (thats small "t" tea party activist not the official Tea Party groups which are nothing more than GOP hack orgs now.), Ron Paul primary voters (250,000 of them stayed home) , supporters of traditional republican realist/non interventionist foreign policy. That number equates to a TOTAL 3 - 3.5 million supporters. They show up, Romney wins a squeaker in the popular vote and wins Ohio, Va, Fla, and Colo.

Yes demographics is kicking in and will make it tough for the GOP in the future , but that was never going to be the case until 2016 or 2020.

Not to mention the voters that sat out the election and didn't vote for Romney because he didn't have a tough enough (for them) stance on abortion. As if the is the most pressing matter right now.

[Boomchild]

My point is there are jobs out there. But people are too lazy.
I see " help wanted " signs and ads all over the place.
We had an ad for two weeks to hire a sales guy , making between 35000-50000 a year.
We thought we would have at least 20-30 people applying , but no , only 3 people applied and around 10 people just came in to show that they've been looking for a job so they could get their unemployment or welfare check.
This is the mindset of a lot of people these days. Specially now , when you see people complaining on FB about " freeloaders" ,yet they seem to forget that they are one of them !

Why are you all of a sudden taking on the opinion of a Republican? This is exactly what Republicans have been saying all along.

The reason the Dems hands out so much government assistance money to these career welfare groups is because the Dems all know from past experience that if they don't give them money, they will just go out and do crimes like robbery, vandalizm, rape, murder, selling drugs, etc. The way the Dems problem solve is to throw money at the hood to try and curb this type of behavior. They get more money and programs but continue to want more and more.

Once the hands are in the goverment cookie jar the bar has been set and it's difficult to change it, as it has become the new norm. I'd like to say that too many people won't get it til it's too late, but I think it's already too late. The people you are referencing had no other choice but to vote for Obama or they would have risked their financial security.

It's over, the Dem mentality is at epic proportion in this country. You'll see loser life like Hillary Clinton winning in 2016.

That's if we have elections that really mean anything after Obama is done.

[steveo777]

My point is there are jobs out there. But people are too lazy.
I see " help wanted " signs and ads all over the place.
We had an ad for two weeks to hire a sales guy , making between 35000-50000 a year.
We thought we would have at least 20-30 people applying , but no , only 3 people applied and around 10 people just came in to show that they've been looking for a job so they could get their unemployment or welfare check.
This is the mindset of a lot of people these days. Specially now , when you see people complaining on FB about " freeloaders" ,yet they seem to forget that they are one of them !

Why are you all of a sudden taking on the opinion of a Republican? This is exactly what Republicans have been saying all along.

The reason the Dems hands out so much government assistance money to these career welfare groups is because the Dems all know from past experience that if they don't give them money, they will just go out and do crimes like robbery, vandalizm, rape, murder, selling drugs, etc. The way the Dems problem solve is to throw money at the hood to try and curb this type of behavior. They get more money and programs but continue to want more and more.

Once the hands are in the goverment cookie jar the bar has been set and it's difficult to change it, as it has become the new norm. I'd like to say that too many people won't get it til it's too late, but I think it's already too late. The people you are referencing had no other choice but to vote for Obama or they would have risked their financial security.

It's over, the Dem mentality is at epic proportion in this country. You'll see loser life like Hillary Clinton winning in 2016.

That's if we have elections that really mean anything after Obama is done.

What do you have when everyone says that's it, I've had enough? Look at the rise in gun sales since the election. The partisan shit needs to stop and people need to seriously look at what is going on......with a more conservative view. The moral fibre in this country is in a decline, as has been faith. We can't discipline our kids, lest we be labled abusers. We can't say the pledge of allegiance in our class rooms. We have to walk on egg shells, lest we offend someone. { The PC movement has made it impossible for people to say what needs being said, or worse a suppression akin to communism.} <- That last part was what a friend of mine said to me......and he is an immigrant from Austria!

[Jana]

How does it feel to have nominated a John Kerry and lost the election by running on negatives with absolutely no substance or positives to point to.

LOL! I'm not saying Romney ran a completely positive campaign but any negativity coming from his campaign was far and away well below anything the Obama campaign put out.

depen

Whatever...not my point. The point is Romney was not a good enough candidate to run on any positives. He flipped on so many issues, sometimes multiple times, that he stands for NOTHING. That leaves the opening for Obama to talk about decisions like killing bin Laden saying a President makes decisive decisions and sticks by them, even if the majority doesn't agree. Romney moves and shifts his policies and rhOetoric depending on what is popular and can get him the votes. That is why he was a conservative during the primaries and liberal during the last month of the campaign. So, since Romney does not have any belief that is so strong he can't change and fundamentally stands by, he ran as "I'm not Obama"....just the same as Kerry ran as "I'm not W."

Bingo. We have a winner.

The once great Republican Party is destroying itself. I call it the dumbing down of the party. The candidates jump over hoops trying to appease a certain part of the base in the primary debates by going as far right as possible, and thus the nominee will never win the election. You had a piss-poor group to chose from. The debates were laughable, dropping like flies, with Romney receiving the nomination by default. So then he switches in the presidential debates with Obama and tries to come off as a moderate. Then he loses and his own party turns on him right after going through a grueling race.
The Republican Party is eating it's own. There are people like Joe Scarborough and other Republicans he brings and a lot of honest criticism was talked about. But as he say, when a base of our group is listening to talk radio (rush) and certain cable shows (on FoxNews) that they are not really getting the full news. It's skewed and doesn't represent the real world.

[steveo777]

How does it feel to have nominated a John Kerry and lost the election by running on negatives with absolutely no substance or positives to point to.

LOL! I'm not saying Romney ran a completely positive campaign but any negativity coming from his campaign was far and away well below anything the Obama campaign put out.

depen

Whatever...not my point. The point is Romney was not a good enough candidate to run on any positives. He flipped on so many issues, sometimes multiple times, that he stands for NOTHING. That leaves the opening for Obama to talk about decisions like killing bin Laden saying a President makes decisive decisions and sticks by them, even if the majority doesn't agree. Romney moves and shifts his policies and rhOetoric depending on what is popular and can get him the votes. That is why he was a conservative during the primaries and liberal during the last month of the campaign. So, since Romney does not have any belief that is so strong he can't change and fundamentally stands by, he ran as "I'm not Obama"....just the same as Kerry ran as "I'm not W."

Bingo. We have a winner.

The once great Republican Party is destroying itself. I call it the dumbing down of the party. The candidates jump over hoops trying to appease a certain part of the base in the primary debates by going as far right as possible, and thus the nominee will never win the election. You had a piss-poor group to chose from. The debates were laughable, dropping like flies, with Romney receiving the nomination by default. So then he switches in the presidential debates with Obama and tries to come off as a moderate. Then he loses and his own party turns on him right after going through a grueling race.
The Republican Party is eating it's own. There are people like Joe Scarborough and other Republicans he brings and a lot of honest criticism was talked about. But as he say, when a base of our group is listening to talk radio (rush) and certain cable shows (on FoxNews) that they are not really getting the full news. It's skewed and doesn't represent the real world.

Nice to see you Jana! It's been a long time since you've graced the forums. Good to read your bytes.

[slucero]

This pretty much sums up the Republican Party today:

The Republican Party made a conscious decision to move to the left to gain acceptance and retain what ever is left of their remaining power. Their co-opting of the tea party, and treatment of the Libertarian and independent factions of the party at the RNC was proof of this. Romney was the result. Now that they've lost, they're blaming the very same people they threw them under the bus at the RNC.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

This pretty much sums up the Republican Party today:

The Republican Party made a conscious decision to move to the left to gain acceptance and retain what ever is left of their remaining power. Their co-opting of the tea party, and treatment of the Libertarian and independent factions of the party at the RNC was proof of this. Romney was the result. Now that they've lost, they're blaming the very same people they threw them under the bus at the RNC.

True though I think that it is not quite a question of right and left in the traditional sense. Right and left are really broken. If "conservatives" would understand that proponents of limited government are suspicious of anything the state does - that means it shouldn't be trusted with its unlimited defense spending. When the government spends more on housing, you get less housing. When the govt spends more on defense you get less defense. Nor should people who believe in small govt trust the authorities to tinker with the 4h amendment - suspending habeas corpus , NDAA and the patriot act are not conservative things.

I think the GOP is not inconsistent in keeping its position on abortion as you can make a libertarian case for the pro life position (life and rights begin in the womb and you can't deprive a person of their rights for the benefit of another persons rights) . However on other social issues they have no consistency. They shouldnt be opposing about gay marriage- the limited govt position is that the state shouldnt be involved in marriage at all. People are free to associate anyway they want to.

if they did those things they would have a consistent messages Statism vs Individual Liberty. You see some big realignment of voters. Unfortunately there seems to be only one or two senators 8-10 congressman and a single governor on the GOP side who is pushing for this consistency

Of course I agree with your other point - that the establishment folks in the GOP were intent on keeping their power come hell or high water whatever the consequence.

[StevePerryHair]

My point is there are jobs out there. But people are too lazy.
I see " help wanted " signs and ads all over the place.
We had an ad for two weeks to hire a sales guy , making between 35000-50000 a year.
We thought we would have at least 20-30 people applying , but no , only 3 people applied and around 10 people just came in to show that they've been looking for a job so they could get their unemployment or welfare check.
This is the mindset of a lot of people these days. Specially now , when you see people complaining on FB about " freeloaders" ,yet they seem to forget that they are one of them !

Why are you all of a sudden taking on the opinion of a Republican? This is exactly what Republicans have been saying all along.

The reason the Dems hands out so much government assistance money to these career welfare groups is because the Dems all know from past experience that if they don't give them money, they will just go out and do crimes like robbery, vandalizm, rape, murder, selling drugs, etc. The way the Dems problem solve is to throw money at the hood to try and curb this type of behavior. They get more money and programs but continue to want more and more.

Once the hands are in the goverment cookie jar the bar has been set and it's difficult to change it, as it has become the new norm. I'd like to say that too many people won't get it til it's too late, but I think it's already too late. The people you are referencing had no other choice but to vote for Obama or they would have risked their financial security.

It's over, the Dem mentality is at epic proportion in this country. You'll see loser life like Hillary Clinton winning in 2016.

That's if we have elections that really mean anything after Obama is done.

What do you have when everyone says that's it, I've had enough? Look at the rise in gun sales since the election. The partisan shit needs to stop and people need to seriously look at what is going on......with a more conservative view. The moral fibre in this country is in a decline, as has been faith. We can't discipline our kids, lest we be labled abusers. We can't say the pledge of allegiance in our class rooms. We have to walk on egg shells, lest we offend someone. { The PC movement has made it impossible for people to say what needs being said, or worse a suppression akin to communism.} <- That last part was what a friend of mine said to me......and he is an immigrant from Austria!

Where are these schools who can't say the pledge of allegiance? I'm curious because I know of not one school or government forum in Florida who is keeping people from saying it. Yet I hear this all the time.

My kids are in public school in Orange County. I don't call us the true south, because so many in our county are from somewhere else. Yet in our schools even the use of God in other contexts isn't forbidden. For instance the band/choral concerts include a gospel choir. Their songs do not include just God, but Jesus too.

We had a principal who left messages via phone to the whole school every week or so, who said "God Bless" at the end of every message. And through the years other mentions of God this way, or even a blessing at a meal function. An invocation before a ceremony. Public school.

Our city officials have had prayer in their meetings. Besides the pledge, which they open every commission meeting with.

I guess it's just not my experience that God is being locked out of public places. And we've had democrat, and republican leaders. I know there have been a few atheists fighting it, in some places around the country, but that's not the same as schools all over the US, forbidden to say it. Is there some list of these masses of schools and kids that are not "allowed" to say the pledge? Or is this some tactic used by conservatives to scare people? I want to know.

[conversationpc]

Even Newt Gingrich recognizes Republicans need examine themselves and make changes. If that doesn't happen, "they" will continue losing.

Newt Gingrich is good at two things...

1 - Feeling like he is more intelligent than anyone else in any given room he happens to be in.

2 - Saying whatever he thinks it takes to gain attention/power for himself.

[SF-Dano]

My kids are in public school in Orange County. I don't call us the true south, because so many in our county are from somewhere else. Yet in our schools even the use of God in other contexts isn't forbidden. For instance the band/choral concerts include a gospel choir. Their songs do not include just God, but Jesus too.

We had a principal who left messages via phone to the whole school every week or so, who said "God Bless" at the end of every message. And through the years other mentions of God this way, or even a blessing at a meal function. An invocation before a ceremony. Public school.

Our city officials have had prayer in their meetings. Besides the pledge, which they open every commission meeting with.

I guess it's just not my experience that God is being locked out of public places. And we've had democrat, and republican leaders. I know there have been a few atheists fighting it, in some places around the country, but that's not the same as schools all over the US, forbidden to say it. Is there some list of these masses of schools and kids that are not "allowed" to say the pledge? Or is this some tactic used by conservatives to scare people? I want to know.

FL tends more conservative still (though it maybe starting to change also). In California ,and the pacific coast states in general, all these things are constantly under fire. There are people on the hunt for any form of religious expression used in "state" situations. Someone is suing over the "under god" or the pledge in general being said in schools constantly. "My child is made to feel unconfortable when the pledge is said with the word God in it since it goes against our belief system" is one arguement. It is not enough that the child can be excused from having to say it or be excused the whole time it is being recited because then the child is unconfortable because they feel seperated from or odd among their classmates. And it is most often times not the child (who actually feels this way), but the parents using the child as a tool to empart their own beliefs. We have had suits to remove religious symbols from the landscape that have been here since the time of the earliest spanish missionaries. Shrines, Crosses, Statues of religious figures, etc. Some have won and these items moved or just simply removed.

Californians passed a ban on gay marriage proposal in 2008 which was overturned by the courts. I can tell you that now 4yrs later there is no way a proposal like that would pass here. There are major retail and grocery stores where you go to check out here and you are not asked "hello, how are you?" but " Hola, como estas?" And I am not just talking about in small ethnic centers of cities or towns. I am talking about main street in the city and suburbia.

Traditional values and culture are very much on their last legs out here. Whether that is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, goes hand in hand with not only ones political idealogy, but their personal belief system as well. We all choose where we stand on these issues.

Sorry for the long rant. Just wanted to state that some of the types of things Steveo said are happening truely are. Maybe not much in your part of the country, but for sure in mine.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Obama gearing up for the 1.6 Trillion in tax hikes. To those who voted for him, it's time for you to start getting really happy. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.

Got to love how Obama's still blaming Bush in justifying the next tax hikes.

[Monker]

This pretty much sums up the Republican Party today:

The Republican Party made a conscious decision to move to the left to gain acceptance and retain what ever is left of their remaining power. Their co-opting of the tea party, and treatment of the Libertarian and independent factions of the party at the RNC was proof of this. Romney was the result. Now that they've lost, they're blaming the very same people they threw them under the bus at the RNC.

True though I think that it is not quite a question of right and left in the traditional sense. Right and left are really broken. If "conservatives" would understand that proponents of limited government are suspicious of anything the state does - that means it shouldn't be trusted with its unlimited defense spending. When the government spends more on housing, you get less housing. When the govt spends more on defense you get less defense. Nor should people who believe in small govt trust the authorities to tinker with the 4h amendment - suspending habeas corpus , NDAA and the patriot act are not conservative things.

I think the GOP is not inconsistent in keeping its position on abortion as you can make a libertarian case for the pro life position (life and rights begin in the womb and you can't deprive a person of their rights for the benefit of another persons rights) . However on other social issues they have no consistency. They shouldnt be opposing about gay marriage- the limited govt position is that the state shouldnt be involved in marriage at all. People are free to associate anyway they want to.

if they did those things they would have a consistent messages Statism vs Individual Liberty. You see some big realignment of voters. Unfortunately there seems to be only one or two senators 8-10 congressman and a single governor on the GOP side who is pushing for this consistency

Of course I agree with your other point - that the establishment folks in the GOP were intent on keeping their power come hell or high water whatever the consequence.

I agree with most of this...

But, they also need to start addressing the issues of minorities, rather then ignoring them. And, they need to change their rhetoric from insulting people for being on government programs to empathizing with them and communicating their own solutions. As time goes on, this is going to become a bigger and bigger problem for Republicans - they can't just ignore it and hope to win the Presidency.

Also, you can make that argument about abortion...but in a broader point, the government has no business dictating between a patient and her doctor. If you take the position that the fetus is a person, there are actually three people involved. Should separating conjoined twins be illegal because one of them has a good chance of dying? It s no different then gay marriage, IMO, government has no business getting involved.

[slucero]

This pretty much sums up the Republican Party today:

The Republican Party made a conscious decision to move to the left to gain acceptance and retain what ever is left of their remaining power. Their co-opting of the tea party, and treatment of the Libertarian and independent factions of the party at the RNC was proof of this. Romney was the result. Now that they've lost, they're blaming the very same people they threw them under the bus at the RNC.

True though I think that it is not quite a question of right and left in the traditional sense. Right and left are really broken. If "conservatives" would understand that proponents of limited government are suspicious of anything the state does - that means it shouldn't be trusted with its unlimited defense spending. When the government spends more on housing, you get less housing. When the govt spends more on defense you get less defense. Nor should people who believe in small govt trust the authorities to tinker with the 4h amendment - suspending habeas corpus , NDAA and the patriot act are not conservative things.

I think the GOP is not inconsistent in keeping its position on abortion as you can make a libertarian case for the pro life position (life and rights begin in the womb and you can't deprive a person of their rights for the benefit of another persons rights) . However on other social issues they have no consistency. They shouldnt be opposing about gay marriage- the limited govt position is that the state shouldnt be involved in marriage at all. People are free to associate anyway they want to.

if they did those things they would have a consistent messages Statism vs Individual Liberty. You see some big realignment of voters. Unfortunately there seems to be only one or two senators 8-10 congressman and a single governor on the GOP side who is pushing for this consistency

Of course I agree with your other point - that the establishment folks in the GOP were intent on keeping their power come hell or high water whatever the consequence.

I agree with most of this...

But, they also need to start addressing the issues of minorities, rather then ignoring them. And, they need to change their rhetoric from insulting people for being on government programs to empathizing with them and communicating their own solutions. As time goes on, this is going to become a bigger and bigger problem for Republicans - they can't just ignore it and hope to win the Presidency.

Also, you can make that argument about abortion...but in a broader point, the government has no business dictating between a patient and her doctor. If you take the position that the fetus is a person, there are actually three people involved. Should separating conjoined twins be illegal because one of them has a good chance of dying? It s no different then gay marriage, IMO, government has no business getting involved.

IMHO a major change occurred when the Presidential Debates came under the management of the the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which is essentially a Rep/Dem created and controlled entity.

This change allowed the Rep/Dem monopoly to effectively nullify any 3rd party (which tends to appear to be less moderate) ideology, and gave the Dems an advantage in presenting a more populist platform, which by default appears more moderate. I guess a good analgy would be "moving the playing field to the left while the audience is watching the players, who still appear to the audience as adversaries. Eventually the audience winds up rooting for the "same" without realizing it"....

In effect it makes the Republicans appear more disingenuous than the Democrats...

We see this manifest in both parties when we finally see a what they actually do when they gain power... which is generally contrary to what they promise, yet it leads us in the same direction - regardless of party in power.


Moderation has always been the key to the success of the 2-party system... without the need for, and the benefit of, that moderation.. we enter dangerous territory.,

[Boomchild]

Even Newt Gingrich recognizes Republicans need examine themselves and make changes. If that doesn't happen, "they" will continue losing.

Newt Gingrich is good at two things...

1 - Feeling like he is more intelligent than anyone else in any given room he happens to be in.

2 - Saying whatever he thinks it takes to gain attention/power for himself.

Are you sure this is was Newt? I thought this was Joe Biden.

[steveo777]

Even Newt Gingrich recognizes Republicans need examine themselves and make changes. If that doesn't happen, "they" will continue losing.

Newt Gingrich is good at two things...

1 - Feeling like he is more intelligent than anyone else in any given room he happens to be in.

2 - Saying whatever he thinks it takes to gain attention/power for himself.

Are you sure this is was Newt? I thought this was Joe Biden.

Me too.

Since I haven't payed this much attention to an election since Bill Clinton ran, is it just me, or were 750,000 people petitioning to secede, as states, after most elections? Is this normal? It seems like there is a lot of unrest in our government and different investigations and hearings getting ready to happen. It seems like our government is not happy with the outcome of the election and there is just a lot of unrest out there in among the public as well. I think Obama has a very tough job ahead of him and not much focus toward solution of various issues, as there is just too much drama going on. People around me think this Benghazi debacle is more serious than Watergate. Some feel the President himself will be impeached in the end. Also, that the economy is going to tank again as bad, or worse than 2008. I honestly don't feel secure that we will be better off for having reelected Obama.

[Behshad]

Even Newt Gingrich recognizes Republicans need examine themselves and make changes. If that doesn't happen, "they" will continue losing.

Newt Gingrich is good at two things...

1 - Feeling like he is more intelligent than anyone else in any given room he happens to be in.

2 - Saying whatever he thinks it takes to gain attention/power for himself.

Are you sure this is was Newt? I thought this was Joe Biden.

Me too.

Since I haven't payed this much attention to an election since Bill Clinton ran, is it just me, or were 750,000 people petitioning to secede, as states, after most elections? Is this normal? It seems like there is a lot of unrest in our government and different investigations and hearings getting ready to happen. It seems like our government is not happy with the outcome of the election and there is just a lot of unrest out there in among the public as well. I think Obama has a very tough job ahead of him and not much focus toward solution of various issues, as there is just too much drama going on. People around me think this Benghazi debacle is more serious than Watergate. Some feel the President himself will be impeached in the end. Also, that the economy is going to tank again as bad, or worse than 2008. I honestly don't feel secure that we will be better off for having reelected Obama.

Thats cause people around you are just morons like you

Yes, 4 Americans were killed because of terroists attacking our embassy and while you and your buddies think the media is trying to cover up for what happened during Benghazi, I think they {the media} gave it more attention than any other embassy attacks since 1979, mainly because it happened right before election time.
Why do you think this is a bigger deal than watergate? What makes this so much worse thanall the attacks on our embassies during Bush's term ?

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune article:

Police cordoned off a large area around the U.S. Consulate late Friday and began combing through the carnage and debris for clues after a car explosion killed at least 10 people, injured 51 others and left Pakistan's largest city bleeding from yet another terrorist atrocity.

No Americans were among the dead, and only six of the injured were inside the consulate compound at the time of the blast Friday morning. One Pakistani police officer on guard outside the building was among the dead, but many of those killed were pedestrians or motorists in the area at the time of the explosion.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad reported that five Pakistani consular employees and a Marine guard were slightly wounded by flying debris.

Suspicion for the attack immediately fell on Islamic militants known to be active in Karachi. [Chicago Tribune, 6/15/02, via Nexis]

2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan. From a July 31, 2004, Los Angeles Times article:

Suicide bombers on Friday struck the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan, killing two local guards and injuring at least nine others in the second wave of attacks this year against a key U.S. ally during the war in Afghanistan.

The prosecutor general's office also was hit in the coordinated afternoon attacks in the capital city of Tashkent. It sustained more damage than either of the embassies, where guards prevented bombers from entering.

The attacks came as 15 Muslim militants linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist network went on trial in a series of bombings and other assaults in March that killed 47 people.

The explosions Friday caused relatively little physical damage but rattled a country in which the U.S. has maintained an air base crucial to the battle against Islamic militants in neighboring Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 7/31/04, via Nexis]

2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. From a December 6, 2004, New York Times article:

A group of attackers stormed the American Consulate in the Saudi Arabian city of Jidda today, using explosives at the gates to breach the outer wall and enter the compound, the Saudi Interior Ministry said in a statement. At least eight people were killed in the incident, in which guards and Saudi security forces confronted the group, according to the ministry and news agencies.

Three of the attackers were killed. Five non-American employees were killed, an American embassy spokesman, Carol Kalin, told Reuters. She declined to provide the nationality of those killed, but said they were members of the consulate staff.

Reuters reported that Saudi security officials said four of their men also died in the incident, which would bring the death toll to 12. [The New York Times, 12/6/04]

2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria. From a September 13, 2006, Washington Post article:

Four armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday, killing one Syrian security guard and wounding several people in what authorities said was an attempt by Islamic guerrillas to storm the diplomatic compound.

Just after 10 a.m., gunmen yelling " Allahu akbar " -- "God is great" -- opened fire on the Syrian security officers who guard the outside of the embassy in Damascus's Rawda district, witnesses said. The attackers threw grenades at the compound, according to witnesses, and shot at the guards with assault rifles during the 15- to 20-minute clash, which left three of the gunmen dead and the fourth reportedly wounded. [The Washington Post, 9/13/06]

2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times:

An antitank grenade was fired into the heavily fortified American Embassy here just before dawn today. The building was empty, but the attack underscored deep anti-American sentiment here and revived fears of a new round of homegrown terror.

Greek officials said they doubted the attack was the work of foreign or Islamic terrorists, but rather that of regrouped extreme leftists aiming at a specific, symbolic target: a huge American seal, of a double-headed eagle against a blue background, affixed to the front of the boxy, modern embassy near downtown. [The New York Times, 1/12/07]

2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia. From The New York Times:

Demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy here and set part of it ablaze Thursday as tens of thousands of angry Serbs took to the streets of Belgrade to protest Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Witnesses said that at least 300 rioters broke into the embassy and torched some of its rooms. One protester was able to rip the American flag from the facade of the building. An estimated 1,000 demonstrators cheered as the vandals, some wearing masks to conceal their faces, jumped onto the building's balcony waving a Serbian flag and chanting "Serbia, Serbia!" the witnesses said. A convoy of police officers firing tear gas was able to disperse the crowd. [The New York Times, 2/21/08]

2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen. From The New York Times:

Militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen, on Wednesday morning, killing 16 people, including 6 of the attackers, Yemeni officials said.

No American officials or embassy employees were killed or wounded, embassy officials said. Six of the dead were Yemeni guards at the compound entrance, and the other four killed were civilians waiting to be allowed in.

It was the deadliest and most ambitious attack in years in Yemen, a poor south Arabian country of 23 million people where militants aligned with Al Qaeda have carried out a number of recent bombings. [The New York Times, 9/17/08]

[Boomchild]

What makes this so much worse thanall the attacks on our embassies during Bush's term ?

It's a big deal because it appears that the Obama administration has not been straight forward with the public about it. They went on and on about how this was a spontaneous riot over an anti-islamic video posted on Youtube. Then when reports are released as to the intelligence communications during the event show nothing that points to this explanation. The embassy requested increased security prior to this event and were denied. The CIA location near the embassy requested to assist defending the embassy during the attacks and they were ordered to stand down. Requests were made to send in support from U.S. military installations in the region and that was denied. Explanations that one reason for the slow attention\response to the matter was due the huge influx of messages that come into the command centers and it takes quite a bit of time for the command center to sift through them and respond. Former military personnel familiar with the communication systems between the command centers and high level officials such as U.S. ambassadors have reported that they have a system similar to instant messaging for use when events that endanger the life of ambassadors. When this happens the messages is given right away to the commander of the center who assesses the situation and the relays it immediately to the President. We also learned that there were drones flying over the area and that the military and other government officials were watching the attack as it was unfolding. Not to mention that once Obama learns of the situation he goes off to Vegas for a campaign event instead of staying or heading to the White House to put the proper attention to the matter. Then you have Joe Biden stating (during the Vice Presidential Debate) that nether he nor Obama were informed or aware of the request for additional security for the embassy and the ambassador prior to the attack. I would think that this matter would be something the Commander in Chief would be aware of. Now you have the resignation of our CIA Director due to a personal scandal right before he is scheduled to appear to testify to an investigation committee. You have our Secretary of State distancing herself as much as she can from the situation and the investigation efforts. I heard a family member of one of the victims discussing their meeting with president and how Obama didn't look them in the eye and gave a hand shake that was like a wet noodle. Then Hillary Clinton who was also there telling one of the victim's family members "Were gonna get the guy that made that video". This is after she knew from reports that this was not the reason of the attack. I think it's safe to say that this incident deserves a huge amount of attention and past embassy attacks have no bearing on the matter. At least the families of the victims deserve to know exactly what happened from beginning to end. This situation stinks to high heaven and I am not hopeful that the whole truth behind it will be disclosed.