View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 17th, 2014, 6:58 am



Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney 
Author Message
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
UK Lion wrote:
It wasn't only about Obamacare, I agree. So to make out it was a referendum on Obamacare was unfair of me. But in my defence, I only did it to try and troll sly :lol:



Troll sly? That only proves that you Democrats/Socialists/Communists have to lie to get your point across. I laugh at you and any person with a brain should as well.

Remember that I called your European butt out over the similarities between the Democrats and the European Democratic Socialists and you had to agree with me. Facts are facts and truth is truth.

_________________
Image


November 12th, 2012, 8:02 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
regularjoe12 wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
SLY...you will NEVER win the hearts and minds of voter by calling them stupid bro. you NEED to revise your tactics. you are turning people AWAY from your cause!



of course I say this after i insult a guy by calling him a 7th grader....so i'm a hipocryte! lol :oops:

Stupid is as stupid does. I call them like I see them.


And you don't mind that they will continue to vote the way they do, cause you're not reaching them? I don't buy that for a second. remember my friend, you attract more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. If your goal is to start a revolution, and inspire change, you are your own worst enemy.

There's this thing called the 2nd Amendment that I plan to use. :D

Seriously though, I enjoy confronting my pro-Obama union co-workers on a daily basis. They can't deny the fact that thousands of people are being laid off and the stock market is crashing due to Obama. It irks their soul and I enjoy reminding them of the facts every day. It's what I do. :D

_________________
Image


November 12th, 2012, 8:18 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 403
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
slybri19 wrote:
They can't deny the fact that thousands of people are being laid off and the stock market is crashing due to Obama. It irks their soul and I enjoy reminding them of the facts every day. It's what I do. :D


Is your computer screen upside down? Because if a "crash" to you is an increase of 100% ... then that seems... backwards...kinda sorta. :lol:

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/in ... style=1013


November 12th, 2012, 8:48 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9764
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
I'll give you a perfect example of the difference between the people who voted for Obama, and the ones who voted for Romney. While watching the election results on ABC, they were interviewing voters who had already cast their ballots. The typical responses were something like this:

'Who did you vote for, and why?'

'I voted for Obama, because as a female I like his stance on woman's rights and how it could affect me.'

'I voted for Obama, because I'm a union electrician, and I know he supports the unions.'

'I voted for Obama, because as a minority I think he will do what's best for us.'


'And who did you vote for and why?'

'I voted for Romney because I think he'll point the country in the right direction financially and stop needless spending.'

'I voted for Romney because Obama promised transparency, and he's been anything but.'

'I voted for Romney because I think he can stop the needless government spending and start fixing our debt.'



People who voted for Obama mostly did so because they were in it for themselves. People who voted for Romney did so because it was what they felt was best for the American people as a whole. And that is the difference between Democrats and Republicans, in my eyes.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


November 12th, 2012, 10:48 pm
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
regularjoe12 wrote:

Long story short what you base your descicion making on voting for the pres should be changed. Put the focus of gay marraige and Abortion on to your localized and house/senate votes. The pres is for the overall direction of the country. Those issues simply don't have a real impact on the presidency is all.

Change the officials in your state and you can change the mormon-esk laws that are in place. The president will NEVER help you there. Ever.


Wow, this really makes me sad for a number of reasons. In my response, I'll try avoid sounding as condescending and disrespectful as you, since you seem to suggest that I don't know what my vote means.

With all due respect, I hope you'll take time to learn more about the POTUS' role in federal justice appointments and how the federal appeals process works. State laws are subject to federal appeals courts. So yes, I cast my vote locally for the candidates I support. However, states are capable of passing legislation that violates the US Constitution. Prop 8 in California is a perfect example. Federal district courts (which are nominated by the President) intervened to strike down the law. So that is one example of how the President is essential on social issues. It's not a simple matter of having an opinion--it's that the President's opinion manifests itself in a judicial appointment.

And no one can say that these issues aren't current. There were four statewide ballot initiatives last week regarding same-sex marriage, and my home state of NC passed a state Constitutional amendment in May to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. One or more of these laws will be tested before the SCOTUS in the near future.

These issues that you claim are solely state issues (religious freedom, same-sex issues, abortion, death penalty, etc.) have been brought before the House many times in the past few years--there were at least half a dozen bills on same-sex issues in the last Congress. What does this have to do with the President? If Romney had won the White House, and if the Republicans win the Senate in 2014, you can bet President Romney would be signing some new anti-gay legislation, or pro-life legislation. So there's another example of why social issues matter when it comes to the President.

The oppressive agenda of the evangelicals is already being successfully legislated at the state level, especially here in the South, and the House Republicans are working to push that agenda in DC as well. Having a Democratic president goes a long way toward preventing that from happening.

_________________
Proud member of the Contract Extension for Schwartz Fan Club.


November 12th, 2012, 11:38 pm
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels
User avatar

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 12:45 pm
Posts: 1834
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
m2karateman wrote:
People who voted for Romney did so because it was what they felt was best for the American people as a whole.

That sounds like socialism to me.

_________________
2011 Adopted Lion: Rob Sims/Looking for a side job at I.H.O.P because he can't stop making pancakes.


November 13th, 2012, 12:17 am
Profile
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3504
Location: WSU
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
Quote:
Sigh... someone acting like they understand ACA and yet saying that comments about medical management practices doesn't make sense. Are you an ER Doc?


No I am not but I do find this post revealing on what your opinion of physicians is. I believe very few people would trust a politician more than a physician but you seem to be taking that stance. Even fewer would mock someone for being under the suspicion of being a physician.

You are again misquoting me purposely on what I wrote about management practices. There are already creative minds in medical management yet that is not enough as things stand today. How does burdenning medical management more make it more likely for acceptable solutions to be found?

Quote:
I reject the idea that regulation is always bad, and that it "chooses" winning technologies. I recommend going to Shanghai and trying to breathe, and then get back to me on that. Sure, there is justification for evaluating and questioning all regulation, including being willing/able to change it if unexpected consquences surface. But to sit there and use terms like "impossible" to describe very well-thought-out and highly considerate (to the entire supply chain) regulation like ACA ... is what I would call the opposite of American can-do, innovation, leadership and "exceptionalism". ACA is an American call to the healthcare industry, challenging them to treat all Americans equally regardless of health, and to become more efficient and competitive. There won't be a shortage of physicians, networks, or hospitals as a result. But ones that sit there and say "impossible" might get their lunch eaten by other ones who rise to the challenge and become better and more efficient deliverers of service by devising better practices, using information better, and cutting their own costs instead of expecting to just pass it on down the chain.


True, zero regulation can result in some big problems but we were talking about heavy regulation which can pick favorites. Bad economy is not a good situation to increase regulation on already struggling industries that have failed to some degree bc of those regulations.

Again ACA doesnt affect the entire chain which it needs to do if it were to decrease costs of providing care. Here again you admit ACA is a "challenge" yet the ACA doesnt help solve the challenge, it just says "we are raising this hoop that you already cant jump through, now jump through it." People will be forced to try - doesnt mean they will succeed.

Id like to see where you get evidence to make the bolded statement above.

Quote:
I'm not going to argue against this stupid "socialism" strawman/bogeyman. It's a joke, and as far as I'm concerned was squashed by the election like a chirping bug.


Nobody is forcing you to argue or participate, you have done that willingly. Being irritated by the discussion doenst make your statements stronger.

As for your point about the election - it assumes the majority is always right. I think even the majority would disagree with your assumption.


November 13th, 2012, 1:19 am
Profile
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3630
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
mwill2 wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:

Long story short what you base your descicion making on voting for the pres should be changed. Put the focus of gay marraige and Abortion on to your localized and house/senate votes. The pres is for the overall direction of the country. Those issues simply don't have a real impact on the presidency is all.

Change the officials in your state and you can change the mormon-esk laws that are in place. The president will NEVER help you there. Ever.


Wow, this really makes me sad for a number of reasons. In my response, I'll try avoid sounding as condescending and disrespectful as you, since you seem to suggest that I don't know what my vote means.

With all due respect, I hope you'll take time to learn more about the POTUS' role in federal justice appointments and how the federal appeals process works. State laws are subject to federal appeals courts. So yes, I cast my vote locally for the candidates I support. However, states are capable of passing legislation that violates the US Constitution. Prop 8 in California is a perfect example. Federal district courts (which are nominated by the President) intervened to strike down the law. So that is one example of how the President is essential on social issues. It's not a simple matter of having an opinion--it's that the President's opinion manifests itself in a judicial appointment.

And no one can say that these issues aren't current. There were four statewide ballot initiatives last week regarding same-sex marriage, and my home state of NC passed a state Constitutional amendment in May to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. One or more of these laws will be tested before the SCOTUS in the near future.

These issues that you claim are solely state issues (religious freedom, same-sex issues, abortion, death penalty, etc.) have been brought before the House many times in the past few years--there were at least half a dozen bills on same-sex issues in the last Congress. What does this have to do with the President? If Romney had won the White House, and if the Republicans win the Senate in 2014, you can bet President Romney would be signing some new anti-gay legislation, or pro-life legislation. So there's another example of why social issues matter when it comes to the President.

The oppressive agenda of the evangelicals is already being successfully legislated at the state level, especially here in the South, and the House Republicans are working to push that agenda in DC as well. Having a Democratic president goes a long way toward preventing that from happening.

I never said you don't know what your vote means...I apaologize if I implied that somewhere, BUT the reasons your making your choices fall under the category of moot point...and you even made MY case in your post...

Quote:
There were four statewide ballot initiatives last week regarding same-sex marriage, and my home state of NC passed a state Constitutional amendment in May to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.


exactly! the Changes like this ALWAYS start at the state level. when enough states become progressive and change theirs the federal level will start to look at it and THEN you MAY see a change on teh federal level. Civil stuff like this NEVER starts at the top.


Quote:
These issues that you claim are solely state issues (religious freedom, same-sex issues, abortion, death penalty, etc.) have been brought before the House many times in the past few years--there were at least half a dozen bills on same-sex issues in the last Congress


Once again....house senate and local gpvernment is where the change occures. NOT the president. even in your posts you back me up!

Quote:
If Romney had won the White House, and if the Republicans win the Senate in 2014, you can bet President Romney would be signing some new anti-gay legislation, or pro-life legislation.


And Obama is going to declare a state of emergency to take control of the country for good too right? Come on lets keep this convo based in reality and keep the crazy conspiracy theories elsewhere shall we?

You seem to recognize that if these things are going to change they are going to be done through the house, senate or state levels....why are you trying to pin this on the pres again?? (without the consipracy theories please)


November 13th, 2012, 11:27 am
Profile
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
m2karateman wrote:
I'll give you a perfect example of the difference between the people who voted for Obama, and the ones who voted for Romney. While watching the election results on ABC, they were interviewing voters who had already cast their ballots. The typical responses were something like this:

'Who did you vote for, and why?'

'I voted for Obama, because as a female I like his stance on woman's rights and how it could affect me.'

'I voted for Obama, because I'm a union electrician, and I know he supports the unions.'

'I voted for Obama, because as a minority I think he will do what's best for us.'


'And who did you vote for and why?'

'I voted for Romney because I think he'll point the country in the right direction financially and stop needless spending.'

'I voted for Romney because Obama promised transparency, and he's been anything but.'

'I voted for Romney because I think he can stop the needless government spending and start fixing our debt.'



People who voted for Obama mostly did so because they were in it for themselves. People who voted for Romney did so because it was what they felt was best for the American people as a whole. And that is the difference between Democrats and Republicans, in my eyes.


Excellent post M2, and I agree completely.


I.E. wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
They can't deny the fact that thousands of people are being laid off and the stock market is crashing due to Obama. It irks their soul and I enjoy reminding them of the facts every day. It's what I do. :D


Is your computer screen upside down? Because if a "crash" to you is an increase of 100% ... then that seems... backwards...kinda sorta. :lol:

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/in ... style=1013


The Dow is down almost 1,000 points in the last 3 weeks, with no new data, other than Obama getting re-elected. Now the media is citing "fears of a recession like economy here in the U.S. similar to that in Europe." All they are doing is leaving out WHY those fears NOW suddenly exist here, because Obama was re-elected.


The Legend wrote:
Quote:
Sigh... someone acting like they understand ACA and yet saying that comments about medical management practices doesn't make sense. Are you an ER Doc?


No I am not but I do find this post revealing on what your opinion of physicians is. I believe very few people would trust a politician more than a physician but you seem to be taking that stance. Even fewer would mock someone for being under the suspicion of being a physician.

You are again misquoting me purposely on what I wrote about management practices. There are already creative minds in medical management yet that is not enough as things stand today. How does burdenning medical management more make it more likely for acceptable solutions to be found?

Quote:
I reject the idea that regulation is always bad, and that it "chooses" winning technologies. I recommend going to Shanghai and trying to breathe, and then get back to me on that. Sure, there is justification for evaluating and questioning all regulation, including being willing/able to change it if unexpected consquences surface. But to sit there and use terms like "impossible" to describe very well-thought-out and highly considerate (to the entire supply chain) regulation like ACA ... is what I would call the opposite of American can-do, innovation, leadership and "exceptionalism". ACA is an American call to the healthcare industry, challenging them to treat all Americans equally regardless of health, and to become more efficient and competitive. There won't be a shortage of physicians, networks, or hospitals as a result. But ones that sit there and say "impossible" might get their lunch eaten by other ones who rise to the challenge and become better and more efficient deliverers of service by devising better practices, using information better, and cutting their own costs instead of expecting to just pass it on down the chain.


True, zero regulation can result in some big problems but we were talking about heavy regulation which can pick favorites. Bad economy is not a good situation to increase regulation on already struggling industries that have failed to some degree bc of those regulations.

Again ACA doesnt affect the entire chain which it needs to do if it were to decrease costs of providing care. Here again you admit ACA is a "challenge" yet the ACA doesnt help solve the challenge, it just says "we are raising this hoop that you already cant jump through, now jump through it." People will be forced to try - doesnt mean they will succeed.

Id like to see where you get evidence to make the bolded statement above.

Quote:
I'm not going to argue against this stupid "socialism" strawman/bogeyman. It's a joke, and as far as I'm concerned was squashed by the election like a chirping bug.


Nobody is forcing you to argue or participate, you have done that willingly. Being irritated by the discussion doenst make your statements stronger.

As for your point about the election - it assumes the majority is always right. I think even the majority would disagree with your assumption.


I agree completely. I don't know how they plan on covering some 300% more people, without adding additional infrastructure, additional hospitals, and without a plan to increase the amount of doctors by the same margin. Seems ridiculous to me.

Donald Trump said it best about Obamacare:
Quote:
Let me get this straight . . . ... We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!! 'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'


November 13th, 2012, 4:04 pm
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3630
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
that quote from Trump is downright scary aint it?


November 13th, 2012, 4:10 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9244
Location: Dallas
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
I thought BO had quit smoking?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


November 13th, 2012, 4:20 pm
Profile WWW
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3630
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
Pablo wrote:
I thought BO had quit smoking?


i know thats an old quote....from when he pushed the bill through. maybe he hadnt by then? no idea.


November 13th, 2012, 4:22 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3009
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
Since someone had mentioned the Stock Market here I wanted to ask if this seems peculiar.

Scott Walker gets re-elected for the second time and the next day the SE has a HUGE increase.

In the last 3 weeks, BO has been re-elected and the SE is reportedly down 1000 points.

It seems that the market responded with confidence when Walker got his victory, because of what his administration brings to the table, and how tough choices have taken a State that was in the Red, and Systematically put it back in the black.

I think as a country we missed a TREMENDOUS opportunity, as all of these companies, (ie the 1%) who are sitting on that cash, are now not going to invest it. I think the example of Walker would have skyrocketed the SE out of response to a Romney victory, and now that the realization of more crap, and regulation from this administration has demoralized the engines or our economy. But we'll never know now, because we have four more years (maybe) of the status quo.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


November 13th, 2012, 4:40 pm
Profile
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Since someone had mentioned the Stock Market here I wanted to ask if this seems peculiar.

Scott Walker gets re-elected for the second time and the next day the SE has a HUGE increase.

In the last 3 weeks, BO has been re-elected and the SE is reportedly down 1000 points.

It seems that the market responded with confidence when Walker got his victory, because of what his administration brings to the table, and how tough choices have taken a State that was in the Red, and Systematically put it back in the black.

I think as a country we missed a TREMENDOUS opportunity, as all of these companies, (ie the 1%) who are sitting on that cash, are now not going to invest it. I think the example of Walker would have skyrocketed the SE out of response to a Romney victory, and now that the realization of more crap, and regulation from this administration has demoralized the engines or our economy. But we'll never know now, because we have four more years (maybe) of the status quo.


If Romney would have won, the stock market would have risen 500+ points. Once Obamacare was systematically dismantled it would have gone up even more. If the Bush tax cuts were made permanent it would have gone up even more. I do think it will recover through the holiday season, but after the seasonal hiring subsides I think you're going to see a big crash as the unemployment and jobless #s continue to get worse. You'll really see it tank if the Dems and Reps can't agree to at least extend the middle class tax breaks.


November 13th, 2012, 4:43 pm
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pm
Posts: 2205
Location: Austin, TX
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
wjb21ndtown wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Since someone had mentioned the Stock Market here I wanted to ask if this seems peculiar.

Scott Walker gets re-elected for the second time and the next day the SE has a HUGE increase.

In the last 3 weeks, BO has been re-elected and the SE is reportedly down 1000 points.

It seems that the market responded with confidence when Walker got his victory, because of what his administration brings to the table, and how tough choices have taken a State that was in the Red, and Systematically put it back in the black.

I think as a country we missed a TREMENDOUS opportunity, as all of these companies, (ie the 1%) who are sitting on that cash, are now not going to invest it. I think the example of Walker would have skyrocketed the SE out of response to a Romney victory, and now that the realization of more crap, and regulation from this administration has demoralized the engines or our economy. But we'll never know now, because we have four more years (maybe) of the status quo.


If Romney would have won, the stock market would have risen 500+ points. Once Obamacare was systematically dismantled it would have gone up even more. If the Bush tax cuts were made permanent it would have gone up even more. I do think it will recover through the holiday season, but after the seasonal hiring subsides I think you're going to see a big crash as the unemployment and jobless #s continue to get worse. You'll really see it tank if the Dems and Reps can't agree to at least extend the middle class tax breaks.


IMO.. above everything else the tax breaks to the Middle Class need to be there till the economy recovers.

_________________
Image

NEVER GIVE UP!


November 13th, 2012, 5:26 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.