The Fat Lady is singing

2seaoat wrote:Blame the liberal press and do not think the campaign needs to change course....but now double digit leads in ohio, Florida and PA. It is over. Romney is not driving a consistent message. He did a great job on education yesterday, but he is clueless about the average American.....and yes the average American knows Mr. Romney now.

2seaoat wrote:You just do not get it......Your hate for the black guy in the White House has blinded you to the fact that most Americans do not hate President Obama, they simply think he is wrong on a great deal of what he has done domestically in his first term. They actually like the man. However, Romney has a real problem with the average american. He simply is not liked because the average person does not trust him and does not believe he is working for them. If another Republican candidate had been nominated, and simply was message consistent, the American people would warm up to that person.....they still would not hate the President, but they could have believed that candidate could have made their lives better. Mitt Romney is working for special interests and that is the entire focus of Fox News as they beat the war drum and try to duplicate 2001. Most Americans do not hate the President, and that is what the crazy portion of the Republican Party just does not get.

knothead wrote:seaoat has articulated his point repeatedly and much of his positions are very tenable. What is not credible to me, according to seaoat, is that the GOP simply picked the wrong guy . . . . . Newt? The American people would have repudiated his caustic nature and his history. Newt would have crashed and burned . . . so who would have been better? Perry? Oops! Cain? 999, nonsense! Bachmann? Tea Party soccer Mom, duh . . . . never! Pawlenty? No backbone and refused to stand up to Romney in debates . . . not a leader! Hunstman (my favorite)? Serving as our Ambassador to China under the Obama administration was the kiss of death despite his impeccable resume' (much like Charlie Crist's Obama hug was his kiss of death). Hunstman was smart, informed, but reasonable and that single character quality doomed his candidacy. So welcome to the GOP of today. It is no longer the party of Reagan or Ike or Lincoln, it is the party of divisive social issues, an inability to recognize the demand for immigration reform, a penchant for a trigger happy foreign policy and tax policies that consolidate wealth and pull the rug out from under the working people. Republicanism could survive but conservatism, in its current version, will make the GOP irrelevant over the next decade.

PkrBum wrote:wishful thinking, anecdotal evidence, and talking point propaganda does not trump results. see 2010 election.

othershoe1030 wrote:

knothead wrote:seaoat has articulated his point repeatedly and much of his positions are very tenable. What is not credible to me, according to seaoat, is that the GOP simply picked the wrong guy . . . . . Newt? The American people would have repudiated his caustic nature and his history. Newt would have crashed and burned . . . so who would have been better? Perry? Oops! Cain? 999, nonsense! Bachmann? Tea Party soccer Mom, duh . . . . never! Pawlenty? No backbone and refused to stand up to Romney in debates . . . not a leader! Hunstman (my favorite)? Serving as our Ambassador to China under the Obama administration was the kiss of death despite his impeccable resume' (much like Charlie Crist's Obama hug was his kiss of death). Hunstman was smart, informed, but reasonable and that single character quality doomed his candidacy. So welcome to the GOP of today. It is no longer the party of Reagan or Ike or Lincoln, it is the party of divisive social issues, an inability to recognize the demand for immigration reform, a penchant for a trigger happy foreign policy and tax policies that consolidate wealth and pull the rug out from under the working people. Republicanism could survive but conservatism, in its current version, will make the GOP irrelevant over the next decade.

I worked a phone bank Monday night and talked to several Republicans who were quite emotionally involved in defeating Obama. When I asked if they were voting for Romney they hedged and said they'd find an independent. When I asked basically: 'so, it's ABO?' they said yes.

Romney hasn't even united his own party so how could he unite the nation?The reason the Republicans are in such disarray is the bulk of them have allowed themselves to be stirred up by the likes of F news and talk radio. They have fallen down the wing-nut rabbit hole and most don't realize it.

Who is going to lead them out of the wilderness of such narrow minded thinking? Good question. Any moderate gets "primaried" by the tea party. This is going to take quite a bit of time to say the least.

2seaoat wrote:Blame the liberal press and do not think the campaign needs to change course....but now double digit leads in ohio, Florida and PA. It is over. Romney is not driving a consistent message. He did a great job on education yesterday, but he is clueless about the average American.....and yes the average American knows Mr. Romney now.

knothead wrote:

PkrBum wrote:wishful thinking, anecdotal evidence, and talking point propaganda does not trump results. see 2010 election.

Well I disagree. As shoe pointed out in her comment the ideology of the GOP is "the problem". We can call it conservatism or lunacy but it's like pornography . . . .we all know it when we see it. The Tea Party victory in 2010 did succeed in the sense that it brought into our Congress some of the most narrow minded inept ideologically driven freshmen EVER. Now the worm is turning as the people are beginning to understand the dangers these people represent. Responsible governance can only be accomplished when differing views are meshed to find a way forward . . . . the mantra of the Tea Party is our way or the highway (ask John Boehner). Either our parties will make ideological concessions on both sides or the nation will run off the cliff but the Tea Party of 2010 was chawing at the bit to say let me drive let me drive.

PkrBum wrote:

knothead wrote:

PkrBum wrote:wishful thinking, anecdotal evidence, and talking point propaganda does not trump results. see 2010 election.

Well I disagree. As shoe pointed out in her comment the ideology of the GOP is "the problem". We can call it conservatism or lunacy but it's like pornography . . . .we all know it when we see it. The Tea Party victory in 2010 did succeed in the sense that it brought into our Congress some of the most narrow minded inept ideologically driven freshmen EVER. Now the worm is turning as the people are beginning to understand the dangers these people represent. Responsible governance can only be accomplished when differing views are meshed to find a way forward . . . . the mantra of the Tea Party is our way or the highway (ask John Boehner). Either our parties will make ideological concessions on both sides or the nation will run off the cliff but the Tea Party of 2010 was chawing at the bit to say let me drive let me drive.

all i see in our future is a 20+ TRILLION dollar debt an unchecked federal reserve and continued foreign intervention.

the good news is that we won't have to pay it back... good luck kids.

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

knothead wrote:seaoat has articulated his point repeatedly and much of his positions are very tenable. What is not credible to me, according to seaoat, is that the GOP simply picked the wrong guy . . . . . Newt? The American people would have repudiated his caustic nature and his history. Newt would have crashed and burned . . . so who would have been better? Perry? Oops! Cain? 999, nonsense! Bachmann? Tea Party soccer Mom, duh . . . . never! Pawlenty? No backbone and refused to stand up to Romney in debates . . . not a leader! Hunstman (my favorite)? Serving as our Ambassador to China under the Obama administration was the kiss of death despite his impeccable resume' (much like Charlie Crist's Obama hug was his kiss of death). Hunstman was smart, informed, but reasonable and that single character quality doomed his candidacy. So welcome to the GOP of today. It is no longer the party of Reagan or Ike or Lincoln, it is the party of divisive social issues, an inability to recognize the demand for immigration reform, a penchant for a trigger happy foreign policy and tax policies that consolidate wealth and pull the rug out from under the working people. Republicanism could survive but conservatism, in its current version, will make the GOP irrelevant over the next decade.

I worked a phone bank Monday night and talked to several Republicans who were quite emotionally involved in defeating Obama. When I asked if they were voting for Romney they hedged and said they'd find an independent. When I asked basically: 'so, it's ABO?' they said yes.

Romney hasn't even united his own party so how could he unite the nation?The reason the Republicans are in such disarray is the bulk of them have allowed themselves to be stirred up by the likes of F news and talk radio. They have fallen down the wing-nut rabbit hole and most don't realize it.

Who is going to lead them out of the wilderness of such narrow minded thinking? Good question. Any moderate gets "primaried" by the tea party. This is going to take quite a bit of time to say the least.

OMGosh OS, you have really gone off the deep end.

How can you even talk about uniting the country. obama has been the most devisive president ever. Talk about leading us out of the wilderness, OMG what gall you have. so what, you want to re-elect obama to lead us out of the wilderness? Yes, he's proven he can do that LOLOLOLOL

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

knothead wrote:seaoat has articulated his point repeatedly and much of his positions are very tenable. What is not credible to me, according to seaoat, is that the GOP simply picked the wrong guy . . . . . Newt? The American people would have repudiated his caustic nature and his history. Newt would have crashed and burned . . . so who would have been better? Perry? Oops! Cain? 999, nonsense! Bachmann? Tea Party soccer Mom, duh . . . . never! Pawlenty? No backbone and refused to stand up to Romney in debates . . . not a leader! Hunstman (my favorite)? Serving as our Ambassador to China under the Obama administration was the kiss of death despite his impeccable resume' (much like Charlie Crist's Obama hug was his kiss of death). Hunstman was smart, informed, but reasonable and that single character quality doomed his candidacy. So welcome to the GOP of today. It is no longer the party of Reagan or Ike or Lincoln, it is the party of divisive social issues, an inability to recognize the demand for immigration reform, a penchant for a trigger happy foreign policy and tax policies that consolidate wealth and pull the rug out from under the working people. Republicanism could survive but conservatism, in its current version, will make the GOP irrelevant over the next decade.

I worked a phone bank Monday night and talked to several Republicans who were quite emotionally involved in defeating Obama. When I asked if they were voting for Romney they hedged and said they'd find an independent. When I asked basically: 'so, it's ABO?' they said yes.

Romney hasn't even united his own party so how could he unite the nation?The reason the Republicans are in such disarray is the bulk of them have allowed themselves to be stirred up by the likes of F news and talk radio. They have fallen down the wing-nut rabbit hole and most don't realize it.

Who is going to lead them out of the wilderness of such narrow minded thinking? Good question. Any moderate gets "primaried" by the tea party. This is going to take quite a bit of time to say the least.

OMGosh OS, you have really gone off the deep end.

How can you even talk about uniting the country. obama has been the most devisive president ever. Talk about leading us out of the wilderness, OMG what gall you have. so what, you want to re-elect obama to lead us out of the wilderness? Yes, he's proven he can do that LOLOLOLOL

My wilderness reference was to the tea party people who need someone from their ranks to lead them out of the wilderness of black and white, knee jerk non-reality based thinking. It had nothing to do with President Obama. This is a Republican problem they need to solve from the inside.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You just do not get it......Your hate for the black guy in the White House has blinded you to the fact that most Americans do not hate President Obama, they simply think he is wrong on a great deal of what he has done domestically in his first term. They actually like the man. However, Romney has a real problem with the average american. He simply is not liked because the average person does not trust him and does not believe he is working for them. If another Republican candidate had been nominated, and simply was message consistent, the American people would warm up to that person.....they still would not hate the President, but they could have believed that candidate could have made their lives better. Mitt Romney is working for special interests and that is the entire focus of Fox News as they beat the war drum and try to duplicate 2001. Most Americans do not hate the President, and that is what the crazy portion of the Republican Party just does not get.

I have no hate for the MAN, just his policies that are ruining the country. If you cannot see that then you are not only bipolar (in your latest posts), but blind as well. BTW, Obama has his special interests as well and none of them are about America being the Democratic Republic which the Founding Fathers created.

knothead wrote:seaoat has articulated his point repeatedly and much of his positions are very tenable. What is not credible to me, according to seaoat, is that the GOP simply picked the wrong guy . . . . . Newt? The American people would have repudiated his caustic nature and his history. Newt would have crashed and burned . . . so who would have been better? Perry? Oops! Cain? 999, nonsense! Bachmann? Tea Party soccer Mom, duh . . . . never! Pawlenty? No backbone and refused to stand up to Romney in debates . . . not a leader! Hunstman (my favorite)? Serving as our Ambassador to China under the Obama administration was the kiss of death despite his impeccable resume' (much like Charlie Crist's Obama hug was his kiss of death). Hunstman was smart, informed, but reasonable and that single character quality doomed his candidacy. So welcome to the GOP of today. It is no longer the party of Reagan or Ike or Lincoln, it is the party of divisive social issues, an inability to recognize the demand for immigration reform, a penchant for a trigger happy foreign policy and tax policies that consolidate wealth and pull the rug out from under the working people. Republicanism could survive but conservatism, in its current version, will make the GOP irrelevant over the next decade.

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You just do not get it......Your hate for the black guy in the White House has blinded you to the fact that most Americans do not hate President Obama, they simply think he is wrong on a great deal of what he has done domestically in his first term. They actually like the man. However, Romney has a real problem with the average american. He simply is not liked because the average person does not trust him and does not believe he is working for them. If another Republican candidate had been nominated, and simply was message consistent, the American people would warm up to that person.....they still would not hate the President, but they could have believed that candidate could have made their lives better. Mitt Romney is working for special interests and that is the entire focus of Fox News as they beat the war drum and try to duplicate 2001. Most Americans do not hate the President, and that is what the crazy portion of the Republican Party just does not get.

I have no hate for the MAN, just his policies that are ruining the country. If you cannot see that then you are not only bipolar (in your latest posts), but blind as well. BTW, Obama has his special interests as well and none of them are about America being the Democratic Republic which the Founding Fathers created.

To the extent that Obama has allowed his policies to follow those of George W. Bush, he's "ruining the country". But he has also done much to reverse direction, and that's why he's getting my vote. It was (mostly) Republicans who took us to the edge of the cliff, beginning with Reagan, and nobody's buying a return to those fiscal policies except the close-minded crazy right wingers. The GOP has gone totally off the rails, and I'm sorry to be trite here but it reminds me of the followers of Hitler, who was really only a tool for the rich of his day.

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

knothead wrote:seaoat has articulated his point repeatedly and much of his positions are very tenable. What is not credible to me, according to seaoat, is that the GOP simply picked the wrong guy . . . . . Newt? The American people would have repudiated his caustic nature and his history. Newt would have crashed and burned . . . so who would have been better? Perry? Oops! Cain? 999, nonsense! Bachmann? Tea Party soccer Mom, duh . . . . never! Pawlenty? No backbone and refused to stand up to Romney in debates . . . not a leader! Hunstman (my favorite)? Serving as our Ambassador to China under the Obama administration was the kiss of death despite his impeccable resume' (much like Charlie Crist's Obama hug was his kiss of death). Hunstman was smart, informed, but reasonable and that single character quality doomed his candidacy. So welcome to the GOP of today. It is no longer the party of Reagan or Ike or Lincoln, it is the party of divisive social issues, an inability to recognize the demand for immigration reform, a penchant for a trigger happy foreign policy and tax policies that consolidate wealth and pull the rug out from under the working people. Republicanism could survive but conservatism, in its current version, will make the GOP irrelevant over the next decade.

I worked a phone bank Monday night and talked to several Republicans who were quite emotionally involved in defeating Obama. When I asked if they were voting for Romney they hedged and said they'd find an independent. When I asked basically: 'so, it's ABO?' they said yes.

Romney hasn't even united his own party so how could he unite the nation?The reason the Republicans are in such disarray is the bulk of them have allowed themselves to be stirred up by the likes of F news and talk radio. They have fallen down the wing-nut rabbit hole and most don't realize it.

Who is going to lead them out of the wilderness of such narrow minded thinking? Good question. Any moderate gets "primaried" by the tea party. This is going to take quite a bit of time to say the least.

OMGosh OS, you have really gone off the deep end.

How can you even talk about uniting the country. obama has been the most devisive president ever. Talk about leading us out of the wilderness, OMG what gall you have. so what, you want to re-elect obama to lead us out of the wilderness? Yes, he's proven he can do that LOLOLOLOL

My wilderness reference was to the tea party people who need someone from their ranks to lead them out of the wilderness of black and white, knee jerk non-reality based thinking. It had nothing to do with President Obama. This is a Republican problem they need to solve from the inside.

so you dont think the current situation of all the DEBT and foreign problems we got going on is a "WILDERNESS" that needs to be led out of by someone?

and what about that devisivness? Clue

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

knothead wrote:seaoat has articulated his point repeatedly and much of his positions are very tenable. What is not credible to me, according to seaoat, is that the GOP simply picked the wrong guy . . . . . Newt? The American people would have repudiated his caustic nature and his history. Newt would have crashed and burned . . . so who would have been better? Perry? Oops! Cain? 999, nonsense! Bachmann? Tea Party soccer Mom, duh . . . . never! Pawlenty? No backbone and refused to stand up to Romney in debates . . . not a leader! Hunstman (my favorite)? Serving as our Ambassador to China under the Obama administration was the kiss of death despite his impeccable resume' (much like Charlie Crist's Obama hug was his kiss of death). Hunstman was smart, informed, but reasonable and that single character quality doomed his candidacy. So welcome to the GOP of today. It is no longer the party of Reagan or Ike or Lincoln, it is the party of divisive social issues, an inability to recognize the demand for immigration reform, a penchant for a trigger happy foreign policy and tax policies that consolidate wealth and pull the rug out from under the working people. Republicanism could survive but conservatism, in its current version, will make the GOP irrelevant over the next decade.

I worked a phone bank Monday night and talked to several Republicans who were quite emotionally involved in defeating Obama. When I asked if they were voting for Romney they hedged and said they'd find an independent. When I asked basically: 'so, it's ABO?' they said yes.

Romney hasn't even united his own party so how could he unite the nation?The reason the Republicans are in such disarray is the bulk of them have allowed themselves to be stirred up by the likes of F news and talk radio. They have fallen down the wing-nut rabbit hole and most don't realize it.

Who is going to lead them out of the wilderness of such narrow minded thinking? Good question. Any moderate gets "primaried" by the tea party. This is going to take quite a bit of time to say the least.

OMGosh OS, you have really gone off the deep end.

How can you even talk about uniting the country. obama has been the most devisive president ever. Talk about leading us out of the wilderness, OMG what gall you have. so what, you want to re-elect obama to lead us out of the wilderness? Yes, he's proven he can do that LOLOLOLOL

My wilderness reference was to the tea party people who need someone from their ranks to lead them out of the wilderness of black and white, knee jerk non-reality based thinking. It had nothing to do with President Obama. This is a Republican problem they need to solve from the inside.

so you dont think the current situation of all the DEBT and foreign problems we got going on is a "WILDERNESS" that needs to be led out of by someone?

and what about that devisivness? Clue

Again, the wilderness reference was to the mental state of the tea party types. The right wing needs help, guidance from within its ranks. It has gone way too far to the right and the voters are rejecting that position.

We can disagree about the divisiveness. I along with many others see the President as trying to work with the Republicans and being faced with No, No, No even when a bill comes up that they once backed. But that is another story.

Here's a book I want to read about the financial meltdown written by the former chairperson of the FDIC, appointed by Bush serving two years in his administration and then continuing with the Obama administration serving another two years. Her service basically straddled the meltdown. She is critical of both administrations. I think these are they people we need to look to for answers re the debt and the budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sheila-bair-in-new-book-faults-obama-and-bush-advisers-during-financial-crisis/2012/09/25/dd84c412-0731-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html

By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Brady Dennis, Published: September 25

The Obama and Bush admin­istrations largely ignored the needs of beleaguered homeowners while focusing too narrowly on the well-being of Wall Street during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, according to a new book by a top participant in the government’s response.

The book, “Bull by the Horns,” by former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman Sheila Bair, says both administrations’ top advisers paid little more than lip service to helping borrowers at risk of foreclosure, instituting programs they knew were likely to fail and ignoring her recommendations about how to improve them.

2seaoat wrote:You simply do not understand lending and what happened. It had nothing to do with government actions, rather the absence of government action as wall street money flooded the real estate market, and was bundled as traditional mortgages when it was simply junk.....everybody made money......and this started at the title company, real estate brokers, lawyers, surveyors, pest companies, appraisers, wall street money people, and the bundlers.........the problem is that they were bundling junk.....and all across the world people bought the junk.........and the government had nothing to do with the buyers not being qualified......when the risk of repayment was being hidden and disbursed throughout the globe. You simply do not understand.