Obama vs. Perry: Who Would You Vote For?

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by Booth

The parties themselves aren't so different but the individuals running for the highest office certainly have their differences.

In the end they all become someones puppet.

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Recent polls beg to differ. By candidate Obama leads Romney by 1.4 points, Gingrich by 8.5 points, Cain by 9.2, Perry by 9.1, Paul by 6, Bachmann by 14, Huntsman by 8.7, and the GOP average by 1.

It would appear that the only the thing people don't care for at the moment is the GOP.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...andidates.html

Polls do not tell us shit.....If the unemployment rate is still at 9% + Obama is a goner.....

[Booth]

Originally Posted by harkontume

LOL:

I prefer not to show you my balls. Socialist Demos seem overly anxious to look at other men's Balls.

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

I like Herman Cain, but I doubt that would happen. I like the ex Governor from NM, But I doubt that will happen as well. It is looking like Ron Paul may have a chance. Anyone that wants less Government control of our lives will have my vote. To me the elections are a joke these days and we really are not given a real choice... It is all just WWE Booth......IF you actually think the Dems and GOP are different you are a fool.

Originally Posted by harkontume

Beg all you want.. You may not see my Balls!

Hey Hark: Wyldeman had the balls to name a couple of candidates he'd prefer and I'm not dissing him for it. Why not show some guts?

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Booth

That's hardly the only thing people are unhappy with. OWS wouldn't be happening if people cared for the job Obama is doing.

I can agree with that a little, but Obama's hands are really tied by Congress and the establishment in general. With the understanding that it's not the President's job to write and pass legislation, what do you suppose Obama could or should be doing to appease the OWS crowd? He lost my support the first year when he didn't make Wall Street regulation priority one, but even if he had it would have never made it through the House. Ultimately it's the House that needs cleaning, and I don't mean the White House.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Polls do not tell us shit.....If the unemployment rate is still at 9% + Obama is a goner.....

You still running with that idiocy after all we've been through on that tropic? Guess I will ask you for the umpteenth time: What do you suppose Obama should or could do to lower the unemployment rate? You simply can't provide incentive to private sector employers who currently pay little to nothing in taxes and are already enjoying record profits.

As far as I'm concerned, until you find a way to punish corporations for sending our jobs and cash overseas, 9% unemployment is going to be the new normal. Might as well get used to it.

Incidentally, care to make a little wager? I'll bet you anything you want Obama's going to win next year. I don't care if unemployment climbs to 10%, he'll still win and I'm willing to bet money on it. Are you?

[cckid2006]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

I don't trust any news media today they all have an agenda to make us not think for ourselves... By the remarks on this board it looks like their plan is working...

I was/am a fan of Ricky Nelson. When his plane went down in NE TX, the AAS ran a front page story on the plane crash and said the cause was free basing cocaine. After the FAA report came out saying the cause was a faulty heater, the AAS buried the story on page 42.

A local radio station had a call-in to talk to the ASS editor. When I lashed into him for exploiting Mr. Nelson just so he could sell newspapers, he responded "what's wrong with that?"

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

You still running with that idiocy after all we've been through on that tropic? Guess I will ask you for the umpteenth time: What do you suppose Obama should or could do to lower the unemployment rate? You simply can't provide incentive to private sector employers who currently pay little to nothing in taxes and are already enjoying record profits.

As far as I'm concerned, until you find a way to punish corporations for sending our jobs and cash overseas, 9% unemployment is going to be the new normal. Might as well get used to it.

Punish them will not do a damn thing, but ship more jobs over seas. Get rid of all the loop holes and most of the current tax code. Implement a standard tax put some sort of tax incentive on job growth and keeping jobs in the US. BTW GE is a huge Obama supporter, I wonder why???? Small business are over taxed and over regulated. Small business is our bread and butter in the US they are the ones that are crippled when the government over regulates and over taxes business.

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

He lost my support the first year when he didn't make Wall Street regulation priority one, but even if he had it would have never made it through the House.

Seems to me that he could have gotten anything he wanted through the Pelosi led house, but he chose to waste 2 years on pushing a health care bill through that 60% of the American population opposed. Jobs legislation would have been a nice priority.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Punish them will not do a damn thing, but ship more jobs over seas. Get rid of all the loop holes and most of the current tax code. Implement a standard tax put some sort of tax incentive on job growth and keeping jobs in the US.

By getting rid of loopholes, all you will be doing is raising taxes, not lowering them. So let's say you do what you're suggesting and eliminate loopholes and "most of the tax code". You then put in a flat rate of say, 23% to match our current annual budget. You then put in some sort of "incentive on job growth and keeping jobs in the US". What exactly have you accomplished? Seems to me, you simply proposed EXACTLY what I just said...Punishment in the form of higher taxes if they do not hire here. You can call incentive if you prefer.

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Small business are over taxed and over regulated. Small business is our bread and butter in the US they are the ones that are crippled when the government over regulates and over taxes business.

Oh Bullshit Wyldeman. Why don't you give us some examples of this over-regulation?

Do you know what percentage of U.S. revenue is paid by corporations? 8%! U.S. corporations are currently paying the lowest amount of taxes to GDP in all our history. Do you ever know what that means? In a nutshell it means they are making more money, while giving less of that money to the government. Here's a pretty picture in case the words evade your ability to comprehend.

Now where exactly do you get this completely unsubstantiated bullshit of yours? Further, why do you insist on forming your opinions around ideas that have no merit what-so-ever?

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

Seems to me that he could have gotten anything he wanted through the Pelosi led house, but he chose to waste 2 years on pushing a health care bill through that 60% of the American population opposed. Jobs legislation would have been a nice priority.

Waste? Hardly. I have yet to hear someone who actually understands the healthcare bill oppose it in it's entirety. I'd prefer to see that 60% of yours get sick and denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. As for jobs legislation, he tried to push three seperate jobs bills in three years and none of them have passed.

You know what our GOP Congress was working on this week instead of jobs legislation? They passed a bill declaring that tomato sauce can be considered a vegatable and potatoes considered "whole grain" for junk food lobbyists so the food manufacturers could continue poisoning our children at public schools with pizza and french fries.

So what was it you were saying about jobs legislation again?

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Waste? Hardly. I have yet to hear someone who actually understands the healthcare bill oppose it in it's entirety. I'd prefer to see that 60% of yours get sick and denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. As for jobs legislation, he tried to push three seperate jobs bills in three years and none of them have passed.

Typical liberal bullshit. If 60% oppose it, they just don't understand it.

Do you not understand that there was an overwhelming Democratic majority in the house and a super majority in the senate for 2 years of Obama's term? How could anyone be so dense to blame the GOP for failure to pass something in congress during these two years, yet you do it over and over.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

I like the ex Governor from NM, But I doubt that will happen as well.

So you like Bill Richardson. Good choice!

I always suspected you were a wannabe Democrat!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Now, try again.

I believe you have given BS a headache!

[harkontume]

Originally Posted by Booth

Hey Hark: Wyldeman had the balls to name a couple of candidates he'd prefer and I'm not dissing him for it. Why not show some guts?

I like them all Ballboy I like them all.
Not a problem.

You still may not see OR Touch my balls.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

Typical liberal bullshit. If 60% oppose it, they just don't understand it.

Typical huh? This forum is a perfect example. Why you tell me what part of the healthcare legislation you dislike and why? I've posed this question to others here many times and have yet to receive a logical, rational response.

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

Do you not understand that there was an overwhelming Democratic majority in the house and a super majority in the senate for 2 years of Obama's term? How could anyone be so dense to blame the GOP for failure to pass something in congress during these two years, yet you do it over and over.

You're wrong Billy. The Democrats at their highest point held only 58 seats in the senate, not enough to overcome a fillibuster, which the GOP chose to use in spades. It wasn't the majority that ruled the 111th, it was the fillibuster.

"The Senate averaged about one filibuster a year until 1970, while in the last two sessions it has averaged 70 per year."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily...gress-20101216