A question for all you right-wing dittoheads.

If Romney wins. And two years from now things are no better. Are you gonna be telling us then that it's all because of Obama?
Of course your media cult leaders absolutely will be telling us that. But what about it, will that be your excuse too?

Bob,

I would tell you it's because our President is not doing what he was elected to do. Blame is something to find fault in somebody else and dodge responsibility. It is unproductive and does not solve any problems.

No, Bob, I won't.

First, I don't think he's going to win.

The thing I would hope for most should he, is that government spending will not increase as it would under Obama.

Secondly, government take over of things that should remain in the private sector will not increase as it would under Obama.

Thirdly, some of the business killing regulations will be lifted.

Ideally, that will lead to a better economy, but in any event, it should slow down the government's unbridled take over of all that we used to hold dear in the private sector.

Bob wrote:If Romney wins. And two years from now things are no better. Are you gonna be telling us then that it's all because of Obama?
Of course your media cult leaders absolutely will be telling us that. But what about it, will that be your excuse too?

You will see the nutties suddenly claim a +110k jobs report is no longer a sign of failure but unequivocal proof that Mitt Romney saved the economy.

You will see the idea proposed that the high number of people on food stamps is not a sign of failed economic policies but an indication that Romney is a compassionate conservative.

etc., etc...

Margin Call wrote:

Bob wrote:If Romney wins. And two years from now things are no better. Are you gonna be telling us then that it's all because of Obama?
Of course your media cult leaders absolutely will be telling us that. But what about it, will that be your excuse too?

You will see the nutties suddenly claim a +110k jobs report is no longer a sign of failure but unequivocal proof that Mitt Romney saved the economy.

You will see the idea proposed that the high number of people on food stamps is not a sign of failed economic policies but an indication that Romney is a compassionate conservative.

etc., etc...

Will he be afforded the same exception of blaming the previous administration as was the COWH?....

newswatcher wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

Bob wrote:If Romney wins. And two years from now things are no better. Are you gonna be telling us then that it's all because of Obama?
Of course your media cult leaders absolutely will be telling us that. But what about it, will that be your excuse too?

You will see the nutties suddenly claim a +110k jobs report is no longer a sign of failure but unequivocal proof that Mitt Romney saved the economy.

You will see the idea proposed that the high number of people on food stamps is not a sign of failed economic policies but an indication that Romney is a compassionate conservative.

etc., etc...

Will he be afforded the same exception of blaming the previous administration as was the COWH?....

Well, we do have to pick one guy to blame for all of our problems.....if you're smarter than a toaster...or something like that.

Bob wrote:If Romney wins. And two years from now things are no better. Are you gonna be telling us then that it's all because of Obama?
Of course your media cult leaders absolutely will be telling us that. But what about it, will that be your excuse too?

I don't remember Ronald Reagan blaming Carter during his time in office. For as much as Obama has screwed us over, it might take until this time in 2016 before we start seeing results.

stormwatch89 wrote:

The thing I would hope for most should he, is that government spending will not increase as it would under Obama.

First of all, Romney doesn't decide that. The Congress does.

Second of all, if you really truly do hope for that, you're in a small minority. Because it's not so much that the Congress doesn't want it. The Congress is in favor of what the public wants because what the public wants is what gets the Congress re-elected.
Do a poll in this district. Ask the people if they want their congressman to cut the level of DOD spending coming into this district.
Do that same poll in other districts which live or die on the military spending.
Ask the political leaders in any Congressional district if they want their Congressman to stop the earmarks coming into that district.
Ask the people in any district if they want their Congressman to vote to cut their social security or medicare benefits.

Because those things are where the lion's share of the spending is found.
And it's the Congress who appropriates that spending. Not Obama. Not Romney. Not Bush. Not any celebrity who wants to be President.

When the rubber meets the road, the public wants all this borrowing and spending. Oh sure they cheer when the politicians and media bloviators give lip service to "austerity". I imagine they did that in Greece too.
But when they realize their own ox will get gored, that lip service doesn't mean much.

Beyond that, the sad truth is the country's economy is now so addicted to government spending that it will throw the country into recession if it's actually curtailed significantly.
We're now between a rock and a hard place, Stormwatch. We're like a nation of drug addicts who don't want to go into withdrawals when the drug is cut off.
Romney and Obama are just the beauty pageant contestants. But the pageant is corrupt and bloated and it will still be corrupt and bloated regardless of which wins.

PACEDOG#1 wrote: For as much as Obama has screwed us over, it might take until this time in 2016 before we start seeing results.

Damn Obama is already getting the blame for Romney' performance and Romney isn't even in office yet. You just can't make this stuff up. lol

That's all our politics is anymore. Just a huge exercise in passing the buck.

Bob wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

The thing I would hope for most should he, is that government spending will not increase as it would under Obama.

First of all, Romney doesn't decide that. The Congress does.

Second of all, if you really truly do hope for that, you're in a small minority. Because it's not so much that the Congress doesn't want it. The Congress is in favor of what the public wants because what the public wants is what gets the Congress re-elected.
Do a poll in this district. Ask the people if they want their congressman to cut the level of DOD spending coming into this district.
Do that same poll in other districts which live or die on the military spending.
Ask the political leaders in any Congressional district if they want their Congressman to stop the earmarks coming into that district.
Ask the people in any district if they want their Congressman to vote to cut their social security or medicare benefits.

Because those things are where the lion's share of the spending is found.
And it's the Congress who appropriates that spending. Not Obama. Not Romney. Not Bush. Not any celebrity who wants to be President.

When the rubber meets the road, the public wants all this borrowing and spending. Oh sure they cheer when the politicians and media bloviators give lip service to "austerity". I imagine they did that in Greece too.
But when they realize their own ox will get gored, that lip service doesn't mean much.

Beyond that, the sad truth is the country's economy is now so addicted to government spending that it will throw the country into recession if it's actually curtailed significantly.
We're now between a rock and a hard place, Stormwatch. We're like a nation of drug addicts who don't want to go into withdrawals when the drug is cut off.
Romney and Obama are just the beauty pageant contestants. But the pageant is corrupt and bloated and it will still be corrupt and bloated regardless of which wins.

The same Senate that has been on vacation for four years under the lack of leadership of Sen Reid?....The same Sen Reid that has already said the Sen Democrats will not work with President Romney?...Said it was "laughable" to think they will...

Bob wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

The thing I would hope for most should he, is that government spending will not increase as it would under Obama.

First of all, Romney doesn't decide that. The Congress does.

Second of all, if you really truly do hope for that, you're in a small minority. Because it's not so much that the Congress doesn't want it. The Congress is in favor of what the public wants because what the public wants is what gets the Congress re-elected.
Do a poll in this district. Ask the people if they want their congressman to cut the level of DOD spending coming into this district.
Do that same poll in other districts which live or die on the military spending.
Ask the political leaders in any Congressional district if they want their Congressman to stop the earmarks coming into that district.
Ask the people in any district if they want their Congressman to vote to cut their social security or medicare benefits.

Because those things are where the lion's share of the spending is found.
And it's the Congress who appropriates that spending. Not Obama. Not Romney. Not Bush. Not any celebrity who wants to be President.

When the rubber meets the road, the public wants all this borrowing and spending. Oh sure they cheer when the politicians and media bloviators give lip service to "austerity". I imagine they did that in Greece too.
But when they realize their own ox will get gored, that lip service doesn't mean much.

Beyond that, the sad truth is the country's economy is now so addicted to government spending that it will throw the country into recession if it's actually curtailed significantly.
We're now between a rock and a hard place, Stormwatch. We're like a nation of drug addicts who don't want to go into withdrawals when the drug is cut off.
Romney and Obama are just the beauty pageant contestants. But the pageant is corrupt and bloated and it will still be corrupt and bloated regardless of which wins.

I don't disagree with much of what you say, Bob. It's exactly the nation of drug addicts you mention that scares and depresses me. Obviously cuts are unpopular and we are left with a modicum of hope that we don't need to continue increasing the dosage of drugs currently prescribed.

Still recession to me, is better than total fiscal ruination like Greece, etc. They are beyond broke and still want more. Of course Congress is responsible for the budget and yes, they answer to their masses who love the earmarks. The 2010 changing of the house would indicate that there are still people who want to see some financial accountability, but the party war that has existed for the past 2 years has been totally non-productive. Could it get worse? Probably, but a change is needed.

We have seen our debt grow beyond anyone's imagination these past four years and regardless of how futile my hope might be, I have to hope. It astounds me continuously that people are willing to accept this type of financial irresponsibility and the ultimate consequences. I truly do not understand the thinking.

Being in a minority is not something foreign to me, Bob.

Bob wrote:If Romney wins. And two years from now things are no better. Are you gonna be telling us then that it's all because of Obama?

Since this is the second thread you asked this same question I will answer it here too since you did not respond to my question.

If BHO is reelected and two years from now things are not better are you going to continue blaming Bush? Talk about hypocrites!

newswatcher wrote:

Bob wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

The thing I would hope for most should he, is that government spending will not increase as it would under Obama.

First of all, Romney doesn't decide that. The Congress does.

Second of all, if you really truly do hope for that, you're in a small minority. Because it's not so much that the Congress doesn't want it. The Congress is in favor of what the public wants because what the public wants is what gets the Congress re-elected.
Do a poll in this district. Ask the people if they want their congressman to cut the level of DOD spending coming into this district.
Do that same poll in other districts which live or die on the military spending.
Ask the political leaders in any Congressional district if they want their Congressman to stop the earmarks coming into that district.
Ask the people in any district if they want their Congressman to vote to cut their social security or medicare benefits.

Because those things are where the lion's share of the spending is found.
And it's the Congress who appropriates that spending. Not Obama. Not Romney. Not Bush. Not any celebrity who wants to be President.

When the rubber meets the road, the public wants all this borrowing and spending. Oh sure they cheer when the politicians and media bloviators give lip service to "austerity". I imagine they did that in Greece too.
But when they realize their own ox will get gored, that lip service doesn't mean much.

Beyond that, the sad truth is the country's economy is now so addicted to government spending that it will throw the country into recession if it's actually curtailed significantly.
We're now between a rock and a hard place, Stormwatch. We're like a nation of drug addicts who don't want to go into withdrawals when the drug is cut off.
Romney and Obama are just the beauty pageant contestants. But the pageant is corrupt and bloated and it will still be corrupt and bloated regardless of which wins.

The same Senate that has been on vacation for four years under the lack of leadership of Sen Reid?....The same Sen Reid that has already said the Sen Democrats will not work with President Romney?...Said it was "laughable" to think they will...

***************************************************

I hope Harry Reid will convene the Democratic leadership and pledge in blood to make Gordon Geiko a one term President. . . . that is my hope.

nochain wrote:

Bob wrote:If Romney wins. And two years from now things are no better. Are you gonna be telling us then that it's all because of Obama?

Since this is the second thread you asked this same question I will answer it here too since you did not respond to my question.

If BHO is reelected and two years from now things are not better are you going to continue blaming Bush? Talk about hypocrites!

Sorry i didn't see your reply to the other thread. I've been rushing around doing voting and jury duty this morning.

Am I going to keep blaming Bush?
You don't see me blaming Bush. But yes if Obama wins, the libtards will still be blaming Bush for the whole next four years. Just like if Romney wins, the dittoheads will still be blaming Obama four years from now too. Pacedog has already confirmed that.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Bob wrote:If Romney wins. And two years from now things are no better. Are you gonna be telling us then that it's all because of Obama?
Of course your media cult leaders absolutely will be telling us that. But what about it, will that be your excuse too?

I don't remember Ronald Reagan blaming Carter during his time in office. For as much as Obama has screwed us over, it might take until this time in 2016 before we start seeing results.

I don't think you have a clue how bad bush Fucked up this world..

[quote="Bob"]

nochain wrote:

Bob wrote:If !

Sorry i didn't see your reply to the other thread. I've been rushing around doing voting and jury duty this morning.

Am I going to keep blaming Bush?
You don't see me blaming Bush. But yes if Obama wins, the libtards will still be blaming Bush for the whole next four years. Just like if Romney wins, the dittoheads will still be blaming Obama four years from now too. Pacedog has already confirmed that.

OK I should have said "liberals". I continue to wonder why more people don't blame the Congress and Senate? Regardless of who is elected this round if those mental midgets don't get their act together things will just get worse.

nochain wrote:Regardless of who is elected this round if those mental midgets don't get their act together things will just get worse.

There's another and even much larger set of "mental midgets" to blame when things keep getting worse.

knothead wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Bob wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

The thing I would hope for most should he, is that government spending will not increase as it would under Obama.

First of all, Romney doesn't decide that. The Congress does.

Second of all, if you really truly do hope for that, you're in a small minority. Because it's not so much that the Congress doesn't want it. The Congress is in favor of what the public wants because what the public wants is what gets the Congress re-elected.
Do a poll in this district. Ask the people if they want their congressman to cut the level of DOD spending coming into this district.
Do that same poll in other districts which live or die on the military spending.
Ask the political leaders in any Congressional district if they want their Congressman to stop the earmarks coming into that district.
Ask the people in any district if they want their Congressman to vote to cut their social security or medicare benefits.

Because those things are where the lion's share of the spending is found.
And it's the Congress who appropriates that spending. Not Obama. Not Romney. Not Bush. Not any celebrity who wants to be President.

When the rubber meets the road, the public wants all this borrowing and spending. Oh sure they cheer when the politicians and media bloviators give lip service to "austerity". I imagine they did that in Greece too.
But when they realize their own ox will get gored, that lip service doesn't mean much.

Beyond that, the sad truth is the country's economy is now so addicted to government spending that it will throw the country into recession if it's actually curtailed significantly.
We're now between a rock and a hard place, Stormwatch. We're like a nation of drug addicts who don't want to go into withdrawals when the drug is cut off.
Romney and Obama are just the beauty pageant contestants. But the pageant is corrupt and bloated and it will still be corrupt and bloated regardless of which wins.

The same Senate that has been on vacation for four years under the lack of leadership of Sen Reid?....The same Sen Reid that has already said the Sen Democrats will not work with President Romney?...Said it was "laughable" to think they will...

***************************************************

I hope Harry Reid will convene the Democratic leadership and pledge in blood to make Gordon Geiko a one term President. . . . that is my hope.

I hope Harry Reid becomes incapacitated in some fashion where he is no longer in charge and stays that way through eight years of a GOP WH.

The day after the election, Congress should start posturing over the looming expiration of the 2-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. Sequestration is on the horizon, and the DOD is already planning on the supposition that there may be no agreement on the tax cuts, and that Sequestration will occur, effective January 2, 2013.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121105/DEFREG02/311050006/DoD-Pentagon-Planning-Sequestration?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

In any case, the Lame Duck Congress could provide us some interesting entertainment on this issue....

[quote="nochain"]

Bob wrote:

nochain wrote:

Bob wrote:If !

Sorry i didn't see your reply to the other thread. I've been rushing around doing voting and jury duty this morning.

Am I going to keep blaming Bush?
You don't see me blaming Bush. But yes if Obama wins, the libtards will still be blaming Bush for the whole next four years. Just like if Romney wins, the dittoheads will still be blaming Obama four years from now too. Pacedog has already confirmed that.

OK I should have said "liberals". I continue to wonder why more people don't blame the Congress and Senate? Regardless of who is elected this round if those mental midgets don't get their act together things will just get worse.

The DO NOTHING Senate....under the lack of leadership of Harry Reid?...The House submitted several bills and sent them to the Senate and well.....remember...The GOP Bills are 'DOA'?...And the democrats call the republicans the party of 'no' and obstructionists...The Senate has been a joke and they were the majority of both the House and Senate for two years...what did they accomplish?....[Name] COWHCare and repealing don't ask don't tell...BRAVO!...That's turned the economy around...

I hope Harry Reid becomes incapacitated in some fashion where he is no longer in charge and stays that way through eight years of a GOP WH.

Frankly I wouldn't care if Reid had a heart attack and died. But it wouldn't do any good because there are plenty more to follow in his footsteps.