The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

crazyhorse1 wrote:you call anyone to the left of you a "Marxist."

Well, let's go to what you consider left. You consider Obama "right of center." Obama is working to nationalize health care, energy and financial services. Obama wants to ratchet up taxes on the rich and he's working to destroy evil corporations and cripple them with government mandates and regulation. And you consider that "right of center."

Yeah, anyone you consider "left" is a Marxist. Anyone you consider "center" is a Marxist. Even people you consider "right of center" can be Marxists, you've demonstrated that.

Obama's major problems last night had nothing to do with Romney's "lies"

- Obama can't be both the "reform candidate" and the "incumbent". Romney nailed him on that by pointing out "you've been President for the last four years." We know what your record is, we know what your policies are, we know that you never mean what you say or say what you mean. Obama forgets that when he was candidate Obama he was just as vague on the key issues.

- Obama bemoans the "partisan gridlock" without acknowledging his role in it. When Obama did make specific promises, he did so knowing he had no support from the right; he just didn't care. He painted himself into a corner by insisting what he was going to do was "the right thing to do" while simultaneously painting the other party as the villain. He still does that today. If Romney is going to be successful, he is going to need help from the left. He needs to allow room for concessions for the left without them using those very same concessions against him. That's called politics. Neither party gets 100% of what they want, but both parties meet somewhere in between.

Romney has had to do that, as he accurately pointed out last night, for his entire political career. Even Obama knows Romney trumps him on bi-partisanship which led to his snide comment about "you're going to have a hard time reaching out to democrats by repealing Obamacare on your first day; a program they like."

Yeah, the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis love Obamacare, but even a majority of Democrats are distancing themselves from it. All those who didn't make a fortune investing in Visa and pharmacutical companies before voting on the bill realize the bill is radioactive. That's why no democrat currently running for office is touting his vote for Obamacare.

Obama had plenty of room in his 2000 page bill to work in some of the Republican ideas, but instead he chose to tell them "I won" and ignored every one of them. He knew he didn't need Republican votes to pass it, but had to bribe a few democrats to make sure he could pass it in as partisan a way possible.

- Obama's cheerleaders, who currently bemoan the fact that Obama didn't bring up the "47%" should be thankful he didn't. I am certain Romney was ready for it and would have further bloddied Obama's nose on national television. Romney was dead-on. There are some people who irregardless of the facts you present to them will still vote for Obama; no matter what.

What his cheerleaders should actually be REALLY thankful for is that the discussion never made it to foreign policy. Hopefully, the public will have forgotten enough of this debate by the next one that the two won't compound as much, because when the discussion shifts to that, Obama is in real trouble. His "unclenched fist" policy hasn't worked in the middle east, it has only emboldened our enemies.

"Fast and Furious" anyone? No joint cooperation with the Mexican Government (unlike the plan under Bush where we had their cooperation BEFORE the mission), hundreds dead in Mexico, investigation obstructed by Obama himself? How about the Keystone pipeline that he first rejected and put Canada in a position where they decided that they'd sell their oil to the Chinese instead?

Sure it was easy when he was candidate Obama and the media could selectively ignore his gaffes and hide his extremism, but it's a little harder to shuffle Obama's problems under the rug now that he's been president for four years.

His only defense is going to be that Romney has very little foreign policy expirience in comparison, but when compared to his own record, he's going to have problems.

- Obama brought up taxes on Exxon and should thank his lucky stars Romney didn't really nail him on that. Romney chose to go after the $90 billion dollars lost on failed green energy firms (which all happened to be large campaign donors and were given money no strings attached; Romney didn't even really nail that point).

Romney could have nailed him on the foolishness of raising taxes on oil companies while Americans (rich and poor alike) are paying nearly $4 a gallon as it is. Who does he think that's going to hurt more? Exxon, or the American people as those tax increases get passed on as ever higher gas prices?

Obama doesn't care about that; he's more interested in punishing the rich than he is helping the poor and that comment alone shows it.

Romney laid the trap for Obama about the 47% and practically dared him to bring it up because his response was going to be about finding a way to get those who can work into jobs where they are working (and paying taxes instead of sucking up tax dollars). He was ready for it, and while I can't say exactly what he would have said, all the markers were there.

- The only way Obama wins the next debate is if the moderator helps him out. This one last night let both candidates go at each other. Yes, he gave Romney a lot of time, but he did the same for Obama. Obama's only trick left is the same trick he's used in every election he's ever run. Demonize your opponent, look for something, anything in his background and when all else fails, paint him as a racist/mysogynist/homophobe

^^^^^ Bob, I like your style.... +1

I vote for Bob for Prez...!!!

Well, it's Thursday night, one day after the debate Obama lost and Romney won to such an extent that he's back in the game. Oh, wow. Look at polls!.

Obama +4 and Obama +2: Two national tracking polls. How about that?

If anyone is interested here are the links to both candidates plans.


http://www.mittromney.com/JobsPlan

http://www.barackobama.com/economy?source=primary-nav

crazyhorse1 wrote:Well, it's Thursday night, one day after the debate Obama lost and Romney won to such an extent that he's back in the game. Oh, wow. Look at polls!.

Obama +4 and Obama +2: Two national tracking polls. How about that?

Silly goose.........YOU KNOW the media has a "lovefest" for Obama.
There are many accurate polls out there and the ones you site are most likely SKEWED by most mainstream media (who seem to be in the back pocket of the DEms)... It's a sad commentary

crazyhorse1 wrote:Well, it's Thursday night, one day after the debate Obama lost and Romney won to such an extent that he's back in the game. Oh, wow. Look at polls!.

Obama +4 and Obama +2: Two national tracking polls. How about that?

Yes, Obama's got it in the bag, tell all your friends they can relax, no worries.

Hey....good news on UNEMPLOYMENT --- NOT

Unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%....best since Barry (aka Barack) took office.

Some 800K people reported to "have found work"

BUT only 100+K .........NEW JOBS were created. Meaning, over 600K of these jobs are PART TIME JOBS.

Folks, we need to create NEW JOBS - not a bunch of rehires of old jobs as part time........!!!

This office is trying to be clever with this report - BOGUS

As someone who plans on voting for Obama I definitely think Romney kicked his butt. Every time either one talked they exposed a weakness but Obama rarely took advantage while Romney almost always did. The clear loser was the moderator - good lord!

I think Romney's vagueness leading up to the debate worked for him. he got very specific during the debate and caught Obama with his pants down so to speak. The exact opposite happened to Obama. All his specifics were well know and Romney was ready. A similar thing happened in reverse 4 years ago.

It was good TV.

My current prediction remains 51-48 Obama in popular vote while I've adjusted my electoral vote to 318 to 220 for Obama.

Romney needs a lot of rain in certain cities as well as a few more voter ID laws and such.

DarthMonk

Best excuses for the Prez not doing well @ 1st debate:

1. the air was too thin in Denver.... (Al Gore)
2. Prez didn't "fight back" during debate for fear of being seen as an angry black man (some black PHd from a university said that)

You gotta be kidding me....!!!

tribeofjudah wrote:Best excuses for the Prez not doing well @ 1st debate:

1. the air was too thin in Denver.... (Al Gore)
2. Prez didn't "fight back" during debate for fear of being seen as an angry black man (some black PHd from a university said that)

You gotta be kidding me....!!!

I heard #1 as well - pretty lame. If true it's still Obama's fault. I remember puking in Colorado after going too high too fast.

Generally speaking there is truth in #2 - not with regard to the debate but he must remain cooler than usual in general.

tribeofjudah wrote:Best excuses for the Prez not doing well @ 1st debate:

1. the air was too thin in Denver.... (Al Gore)
2. Prez didn't "fight back" during debate for fear of being seen as an angry black man (some black PHd from a university said that)

You gotta be kidding me....!!!

I heard #1 as well - pretty lame. If true it's still Obama's fault. I remember puking in Colorado after going too high too fast.

Generally speaking there is truth in #2 - not with regard to the debate but he must remain cooler than usual in general.

Post pad much?

Post pad much?

Post pad much?

DarthMonk wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:Best excuses for the Prez not doing well @ 1st debate:

1. the air was too thin in Denver.... (Al Gore)
2. Prez didn't "fight back" during debate for fear of being seen as an angry black man (some black PHd from a university said that)

You gotta be kidding me....!!!

I heard #1 as well - pretty lame. If true it's still Obama's fault. I remember puking in Colorado after going too high too fast.

Generally speaking there is truth in #2 - not with regard to the debate but he must remain cooler than usual in general.

Obama's too nice? What are you looking for, a crowbar and a tire iron?

He's not an angry "black man" he's just an another angry liberal. The more liberals get their way, the more they roll on the floor foaming at the mouth they are getting nothing...

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Post pad much?

guilty....!!!

NO-bama

NO mas........!!!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
He's not an angry "black man" he's just an another angry liberal.

You mean "Marxist."

DarthMonk wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
He's not an angry "black man" he's just an another angry liberal.

You mean "Marxist."

No, you're a mean Marxist.

^^^^^^^^
Speaking of.... You hear this Office talk about "Sustainability", from the Pres, the EPA, etc.

Sustainability is just another cute term for equality in Social/Economic/Environmental Justice. This has the rabid undertones of a Marxist movement.

It's the Green Initiative of the Obama Admin. Wake Up People.

And to that, I say: NO-BAMA

Countertrey wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Not even Americans could elect somebody who calls himself Mitt, could they? He would be the first US president that European leaders haven't tripped over themselves to meet first......

That, alone is a major selling point.

Beyond that, they elected a man with no experience, no particular vision, and no plan in 2008... Why not Mitt?

Mitt's a flaming liar. We have no idea what he'll do in office, plus he was a horrible governor in Mass. Thousands of people left the state and Mass was close to last in the country in job creation. By the way, Mitt made millions by investing in Stericyle (sp?), which disposes of medical wastes, including aborted fetuses. Outsourcing (check), investing in slave shops in China (check.) The guy is a low-like punk who'll throw anybody under the bus.

tribeofjudah wrote:This has the rabid undertones of a Marxist movement.

OK, Kazoo Jr.

Deadskins wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:This has the rabid undertones of a Marxist movement.

OK, Kazoo Jr.

Another liberal cliche. I stated my standard for being a Marxist, the planks of the communist manifesto. Wow, where did that come from? I think the planks of the Communist Manifesto define a communist! Oh, that's reasonable, isn't it? So, you have a scale, what do you do?

Do you go to the planks and show how Obama opposes that?

No, you run around in circles like your hair's on fire saying how ridiculous it is. Or you do a Mini CH and say he's not a communist because he doesn't like the phrasing.

That you can't address a clear, reasonable standard with content is a pretty strong statement I'm right.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:This has the rabid undertones of a Marxist movement.

OK, Kazoo Jr.

Another liberal cliche. I stated my standard for being a Marxist, the planks of the communist manifesto. Wow, where did that come from? I think the planks of the Communist Manifesto define a communist! Oh, that's reasonable, isn't it? So, you have a scale, what do you do?

Do you go to the planks and show how Obama opposes that?

No, you run around in circles like your hair's on fire saying how ridiculous it is. Or you do a Mini CH and say he's not a communist because he doesn't like the phrasing.

That you can't address a clear, reasonable standard with content is a pretty strong statement I'm right.

Wow! Beat up straw men much? Show me where in that post I addressed your standards for stating that Obama is a Marxist, or even disagreed with you that he is one.