Political & Elections

Yes.  Exactly, busdriver.  

Fiscal responsibility, my ass.  

Why is it every time I see Mitt and Ann on tv I think they are going to be our next President and First Lady?

The point is not whether its months - the point is he got them out.  If a republican was in, we'd be continuing this nonsense forever

pima, Romney did not just support the insurance mandate back in 2002 when things were different.  He supported the insurance mandate in 2009.  He's just misrepresented his views ever since.

And Obama never, not once, said we'd be out of Iraq within months.  What he said, over and over and over, is that we would get out "carefully". 

I guess I don't get what Obama's "hidden agenda" is??  He's pretty clearly spelled out in his book "Audacity of Hope" what he wants to do and he has clearly been trying to implement it for nearly 4 years.  Its no secret.

Hope, of course I read what you posted, and my response was to laugh, because all of it leans upon conjecture, especially on the part of those convinced he's "gonna take away our guns." I guess his evil plan to stage a sleeper cell attack "from the inside" will have to wait until his second term, too. All that decimation of Al Qaeda during his first term, all the vigilent thwarting of planned attacks thus far?---merely an ruse to lull conservatives into a sense that he might not be so "soft on terror" after all. But, you probably know otherwise, don't you?

poetsheart: You will note that no one spends times speculating about Mitt's agenda. I believe he will do what is best for the country, and what that will be is impossible to predict right now. I don't think anyone believes Mitt Romney has an agenda.

Are you kidding? People aren't speculating about Mitt's agenda because he has made it perfectly clear; His full time job for the last seven years has been running for President, and his agenda, above all else, is to get elected, and it's obvious he's willing to say whatever he, or his handlers believe will help him toward that end. And it's "impossible to predict right now" what he will do once in office because no one knows who the real Mitt Romney is. He's changed his positions so often on so many issues (sometimes stunningly quickly after having taken the opposite position), that that's the hallmark he's best known for within his own party. It is what it is. And you can't blame Democrats and Independents for that perception. It rests squarely upon Mitt himself. Did you read/view all the links I provided in my post down thread?

Don't throw stones at either unless you can say that you never ever changed your position in their circumstances. If you do, you are IMPHO motivated not by what is good for this country regarding our leadership, instead motivated by the fact they have a D or an R behind the name.

Unless one hasn't been paying attention, it is hardly possible for anyone to conclude that Romney is merely being criticized for changing his mind on a couple of issues over the years. Certainly it's true that everyone (with the possible exception of MiamiDAP over that CC) has been known to change his/her mind on an issue once in a while. Goodness knows I have. But, Mitt has a rather robust record as a serial flip-flopper, and within the last couple of days, two instances in particular have been dogging him: His whip-lash inducing flip-flop on the Blount/Rubio amendment, and his out and out lie over his own record concerning a personal health care mandate on the national level. And these are only two.

note: Once again, the quote box function on this site decided to go FUBAR. I actually enclosed my last quote within proper code, only to see that it presented a box with mere quotation marks and dropped the quote by pima I was trying to reference in the space below it

Curious as to what these things specifically are. Are these things said twenty years ago in one position and different today?

Since you're curious, here's an example of Romney's flip flopping.  In 2009 - not exactly 20 years ago - Romney wrote an editorial in USA Today in which he said Obama's problem with creating a healthcare program would be solved if only he instituted for the nation the mandate that Romney had instituted in Massachusetts.

You know, that mandate that Romney says severe conservatives such as himself would never ever ever think of applying to the country?

PS to poetsheart - I don't think Obama changed his mind on closing Gitmo.  He supported closing it, but couldn't get the House to fund the closure.    This is the most incredible piece of nerve from Republicans, that they stop him closing Gitmo, then accuse him of flip flopping because he didn't close Gitmo. 

poetsheart: You will note that no one spends times speculating about Mitt's agenda. I believe he will do what is best for the country, and what that will be is impossible to predict right now. I don't think anyone believes Mitt Romney has an agenda.

On the other hand, everyone, right and left, believes that Obama has an agenda. They just don't really know what it is, because the man seems to be incapable of telling the truth.

LOL---now let me get this straight...You claim Obama is lying consistently since he took office, but it's all predicated on the belief that he will "do the opposite of what he says" at some point in his second term, not that he's actually yet done so, but that he will do so down the road, assuming he even wins a second term. Okaaaay....

Did you read the link I posted?

I am not talking about candidates on the campaign trail making promises and then breaking them, or flip-flopping on issues to get votes.

I am talking about Obama lying to the American people consistently since he has taken office.

For instance, his last State of the Union was almost laughable--even he didn't seem to take it seriously.

People don't trust what he says, and are left projecting their own wishes/fears onto him.

A piece on this I just happened across:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obama-allies-foes-speculate-on-a-bigand-hypotheticalsecond-term-agenda/2012/03/01/gIQAkLMOrR_story.html

Both are still convinced they haven’t seen the real Obama yet — or the real Obama agenda.

-- Edited by hope on Monday 5th of March 2012 06:01:22 AM

Strange that you would deem Obama "deeply duplicitous" but not Mr. No Convictions Mitt Romney. It would seem to me that few things are more duplicitous than a politician whose widely reputed MO is to say totally opposite things within weeks or even hours of one another, each dependent upon whatever seems to be most politically expedient at the moment. And while it's true flip-flopping can hardly be called a rare political phenomenon, few have such a long and well documented record of breathtakingly extreme flip-flops as Mr. "I have been severely conservative" Mitt Romney. Interesting choice of words there, "severely...

But, as they say, YMMV as far as whom any individual might consider "deeply duplicitous." And just as everyone possesses a certain orifice, everyone has their own opinions on just about anything.

Considering the title of this thread, however, I was just now wondering...Who, among our former Presidential office holders, might the denizens of this forum consider as having been close to perfect? I'll admit, I can't think of anyone as having fit that bill.

But, never mind.

That's big of you.

As far as I'm concerned, it's okay to admit you hate the Obamas (or perhaps go cross-eyed with rage and indignity at the very thought of them). At least that would be honest. But, please don't pretend you have the capacity to be objective by any measure when it comes to them. I assure you I don't think this marks you as racist.

Again, big of you.

When Obama makes a fool of himself, people are permitted to call him on it.

Yes, all presidents have egos, but many, many people believe Obama is in a class by himself.  Not just me! Maybe you need to broaden your reading material. The quote is indeed accurate, which you could have easily googled, instead of implying that I am making it up.

Jeepers.

I really wish you'd stop doing that, poetsheart. It doesn't reflect well on you.

Well, hope, I can only go by your rabid propensity to dig up, post, and generally twist and spin as the epitome of evil, all things Obama. But, never mind. As far as I'm concerned, it's okay to admit you hate the Obamas (or perhaps go cross-eyed with rage and indignity at the very thought of them). At least that would be honest. But, please don't pretend you have the capacity to be objective by any measure when it comes to them. I assure you I don't think this marks you as racist.

And you know he didn't say he was the fourth greatest President in history: that's your spin. If indeed the quote you referenced is accurate, he only said what he said, and what he said was that he'd place his legislative and foreign policy accomplishments during his first two years in office against those of almost any modern President, with the exception of those he listed. Sure that's a sizable dose of swagger. His belief that he (along with Former President Bush) helped bring this country back from the brink of economic collapse, The passing of health care reform, the saving of the American auto industry, the decimation of all Al Qaeda's most dangerous leadership, etc, is probably what he believes justifies that statement.

It most certainly can be well argued that his accessment of his own accomplishments is overblown, and inaccurate, to say the least, but I've yet to observe any President to be lacking in ego. Politicians tend to be wired that way. That's why it takes one to harbor enough audacity to assume he/she is qualified to be President of The United States in the first place.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Saturday 3rd of March 2012 07:20:03 PM

I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Obama just like I did when I voted for GW for a second term.  I think at this stage I'd vote for GW over any of the current republican candidates - that's how bad they are.

yep. 

Go Ron Paul, John Anderson, Ralph Nader, and Pat Paulson. 

The issue here is not gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we've got a lot more work to do. And we're gonna keep on at it. 

President Obama in his Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, kindly edited out of the interview by CBS.

But I guess haters gotta hate....

I really wish you'd stop doing that, poetsheart. It doesn't reflect well on you.

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 3rd of March 2012 06:30:22 AM

I'm sorry, but exactly where in this speech does he liken himself to Ghandi?

Plus, we learned from him that he is only the fourth greatest president--behind Lincoln, FDR, Johnson-- not the first!!

Since such a statement can't be found in the link you provided, hope, would you care to provide one that proves he proclaimed himself the "fourth greatest President?"

It takes more than a single term. It takes more than a single president. It takes more than a single individual,"

Hmmm....sounds like he's saying that what it takes is ordinary citizens who keep believing, who are committed to fighting and pushing and inching this country closer and closer to our highest ideals.

Why yes, I believe those were his exact words. Unless he also claimed he can simultaneously be more than a single individual, but many ordinary citizens as well, I fail to see where he's taking credit for singlehandedly moving this country closer to our highest ideals.

But I guess haters gotta hate....