[iabob]

Bingo! And that is what is scarrie. There is a growing (correction) GROWING sentiment amongst the population of entitlement, give me, take care of me, I deserve it too - right now - regardless. That's one of the reasons, a big reason, I dislike the Liberals - they cater to and feed that sentiment. Liberals - always promising, over promising, and whether they can deliver, or that it will wreck the fiscal balance has NO BEARING. The reality of whether they can deliver has no bearing - just promise. The only thing that matters is, getting elected, retain your elected post - and then borrow and print more money to keep your position. That's the plan, and it's been well executed. The growing % of the population that do not understand the responsibilities, commitments, sacrifices and effort required to make this grand experiment work are growing in number. When their numbers were small, we could absorb them and carry them along. They were not a big deal. But, as their numbers grow, and their demands grow, and the expenses associated with them grows - it becomes a big deal. Then the cracks in society appear and expand. Eventually, it becomes critical. There are those that believe we are close to that precipice now. We shall see. And yes, it is frightening. It scares the hell out of me too.

Can you explain why you consider this a liberal problem when conservatives behave exactly the same? Don't get me wrong I realize they talk the talk but when it's time to walk the walk they do exactly as the liberals do.

 

[iabob]

George Bush did. George Bush was not a fiscal conservative. I am a Fiscal Conservative. But, George Bush is not the norm. No, Conservatives do not behave the same. Look at the Ryan Budget. That is a Conservative budget. Is that a big spending bill? Not so.

Well, let's for the sake of argument say all tax dollars are mine. Liberals -hey those poor people don't have enough to eat, they could work harder and do it themselves but they don't want to, we should spend Bob's dollars helping them. Conservatives - hey Walmart could pay for their own highway and infrastructure to put up a new store, but they don't want to so lets spend Bob's money and do it for them. Liberals - hey people won't need guns if we hire 100,000 more police to watch their every move, no problem spend Bob's money and do it! Conservatives - hey if we hire 100,000 more soldiers and buy a thousand new planes and a hundred more ships to carry them we can police the rest of the world too. Done! It's only Bob's money. Hey tax cuts for the poor, tax cuts for the rich! Subsidies for the farmer, subsidies for Exxon-mobile! Bob should pay for Solyndra, Bob should pay for Enron! Pay the teachers more! Pay the troops more! Free healthcare for the poor! The rich don't have to pay into Medicare! We know how to best spend Bob's money! No you don't, only we know how to spend Bob's money! Same, same, same, same. George Bush had zip zich zero to do with it. All the conservatives in his administration, all the conservatives in the senate, all the conservatives in the house, and all the conservatives that elected all of them, they are all as guilty as the liberals of being big spenders and fiscally irresponsible.

 

[iabob]

Donald Trump? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Really, that's funny, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! What, you mean some people take him seriously! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Even funnier!

 

[iabob]

It don't really matter who said it. The bad thing is the narrative is an accurate statement of the entire situation. But hey, the bright side is you don't have to prove your a citizen

Yeah that pisses me off too. I mean has ANYBODY seen Mitt Romney's birth certificate and verified it's real? This is serious stuff, we hardly know anything about this guy and he could be our next president!

 

[iabob]

You could choose to not take him seriously but it is hard to disprove the statement made...

Actually the very first sentence is pretty much a joke, but then that's what I expect from a clown. Paraphrasing: " we are to be gifted something that we are forced to buy or pay a fine..." No Donald, that's not it at all. Now here is a statement that's hard to disprove: Does Donald Trump already have health insurance? If yes then the ACA doesn't force him to buy anything, doesn't gift him anything, and doesn't fine him for anything. If you (any reader) already have health insurance then the same applies to you too.

 

[iabob]

I was actually referencing the recent SCOTUS ruling with AZ and the fact the Justice Department under the guidance of the POTUS is trying to undermine the ID requirements to vote. It shouldn't matter with Romney as we already elected Obama and all we knew about him was his whopping 18 months experience as a Junior Senator.

Ah sorry for the misinterpretation. In that case the I'd requirement to vote should be undermined. It's unconstitutional and does nothing to prove the voter is a citizen or even who they say they are. Plus it opens up many more opportunities for election tampering. But has anyone seen Romney's birth certificate?

 

[iabob]

Actually doing something as easy as showing an ID card when you vote is not unconstitutional the best I can tell. If that was the case showing my ID for a loan, buying a house or any of that would be unconstitutional. I guess it isn't because every time I have done them things I have had to prove who I am by showing proof of identity. I'm not sure how it would improve the opportunity for election tampering but I'll take your word for it. I haven't seen Romney's real Birth certificate, have you seen Obamas?

Actually the Voting Rights Act, upheld as constitutional, charges the federal government, not the states, with enforcement of the 15th amendment and pretty clearly bars states entirely from placing conditions on voting that would disproportionately effect a certain group of people.so if it's easier for some people to show an ID than others...unconstitutional. Of course there is nothing in the constitution that protects your right to a loan or buy a house like there is to vote. As for election integrity the registration process has proven remarkably effective at keeping non citizens off the rolls. You or your organization can put their names on registration papers and send them in ala ACORN, but that doesn't mean they can vote. Part of the registration process is verifying that the applicant is a citizen, non felon, etc. before they get added to the rolls. While we have seen widespread examples of registration fraud there has been practically no evidence of voting fraud. As to ID's trying to fix something that isn't broke and making it worse, think about this. How did you buy beer when you were underage? Maybe you were a better kid than I, because I did it with a fake ID. Fake ID's might actually make it easier for an inellligable person to cast a vote than the registration process currently does. Furthermore, what kind of additional power does this give to poll workers? You know more power = more corruption...what happens if you show your photo ID to a poll worker and he says it doesn't look like you? More likely scenario...poll worker refuses a bunch of black voters a ballot on the grounds the photo doesn't resemble the person in a close race for mayor. Since we know blacks are more likely to vote democrat said worker might be able to tip an election...lots of what if's and hypotheticals that might never happen, and to be sure there are probably some others that nobody has thought of yet...but let's be totally honest. We know that ID laws will keep some valid voters at home on election day. We know that those people are probably going to vote democrat. So, are ID laws really about protecting the validity of an election? Or are the republicans unable to earn an honest win by being better candidates and therefore must resort to suppressing democrat turnout??? Honestly, I see a lot of power in politics, I do believe it corrupts, and I believe it corrupts regardless of party. In other words if some politician wants me to support some action supposedly for the good of the Union but just so coincidently happens to make it harder for an opponent to mount a challenge next election...I call BS on that.

 

[iabob]

I got my older brother or one of his friends to buy me beer when I was underage. I find reaching in my back pocket and pulling an ID out to be quite easy. I also think most states trying to enact voter ID standards are also making it quite simple to attain said ID and also are pretty liberal in granting waivers to the elderly, infirm or disenfranchised. So to me that falls well within the parameters of the Voting Rights Act. At least it appears that way here. I can't speak for other states. You also seem to be using Republicans as an example when most of the news lately about voting irregularities point to the Democratic party. I'm Independent but lean right. Either way, neither party can claim innocense or purity in regards to this issue. You see it your way and I see it mine. Based on the Army of Lawyers the President is mobilizing ahead of the election I would say the Dems are more worried about winning a legitimate election this time around with good cause. If they can't win it straight up they will attempt to steal it. Power and politics do corrupt and do so to the core. Washington is a fine example of that every day.

Yes, I acknowledge that most of my ire is currently focused on republicans, and that democrats are just as guilty. Among other things part of my bias comes from feeling like I was pushed out of the republican party. Every year it seems there's less and less room on the right for someone who thinks a strong national defense doesn't come from a large federal defense budget, but rather from the second amendment. But their purity campaign even more so pushes away people like me who don't care who you marry, or who think its ok to be a Muslim, or who thinks its none of my business if someone else wants to get an abortion. I joined them because I believed in what they were saying, less spending, more freedom, less government involvement, etc. but the longer I watched the more I saw them doing the same things as the democrats. The democrats want to give the handouts to their voters and send the bill to the republicans. The republicans want to pass laws that benefit their supports and send the bill to democrats. And the voters aren't much better than the politicians. I thought the hatred for W from the liberals was disgusting. They just couldn't get over the fact that America elected him president. They couldn't acknowledge one good deed he did, considered his election invalid, felt completely justified in calling him every name in the book, and would consider any tactic valid if it led to his defeat. Well that was 2004, fast forward 8 years and guess what I see...

 

[iabob]

I do agree that we face grave threats from a variety of enemies, and I readily admit that I have no expertise so could be wrong...but I don't see the correlation between budget and security. Seems to me that if a trillion dollar defense budget kept our enemies at bay then Russia, China, Germany, Belgium, Brazil, Argentina, etc...those guys must be conquered by their enemies by now. I mean how in the world do they keep their security when their defense budget run around 1-20% of ours? Could it be they don't make the enemies we do? Could it be if you want to justify spending a trillion dollars on defense you better be pretty good at making enemies? Could the security we speak of really be a secure profit for those who benefit by a trillion a year in spending? I mean talk about power and corruption... What I think I've learned from watching Iraq, Afgahnistan, and our own revolutionary history is that an armed citizenry can pretty much stand up against any military power indefinitely. It's not military force that wins these battles, it's the will of one side that eventually decides that continuing to fight isn't worth it. Hence my faith in the second amendment. For the sake of argument say we do cut our defense spending by 50%, 75%, or even more. We still have an armed citizenry that's About ten times larger than the population of Afghanistan. And they've stood up not just against the most powerful military force in the history of earth for over ten years now, don't forget they did the same to the Soviet Union so actually they've taken on the TWO biggest most powerful military's in the history of earth. So if they can do that, who can possibly defeat us? I guess I believe Ike's prophecy has come true. Consider the web the industry has woven. What do we have, something like 90% of congressional districts receiving defense budget spending? How in the world is anyone ever going to cut that? Even if we elect Ron Paul it's not going to get cut. They own the politicians so their "interests" become "our interests". So now we have "operations" all over the world and coincidently have enemies all over the world. Chicken or the egg...do we have operations because we have enemies, or do we have enemies because of our "operations"? At first glance the former seems most likely, but when looking at the big picture and how ingrained and woven into the political process the military industrial complex has become...I think it would be niave to rule out the latter.

 

[iabob]

Well, I think we should emulate our leadership and just select what we desire to obey. I'm still thinking about what laws I'm gonna ignore. We all should do that, just like the Big Guy.

As we have seen in other threads it appears law enforcement agencies in Texas, and probably several other states, are way ahead of both you and Obama.

 

[iabob]

Or did Obama lead the way in setting that example? Just wondering as I haven't been paying attention lately. No real good news out there so I just quit watching/reading as of late.

Wish I could say there was "leadership" but alas no. While we have yet one more administration in a long line of them that pick and choose which laws to enforce at least they are enforcing something constitutional. The stories from TX, AZ, NV, WA, and elsewhere SEEM to be getting more and more frequent. Local and state law enforcement agencies completely ignoring citizens constitutional rights and making sh*t up as they go. Pulling motorcyclists over just to illegally confiscate private property, jailing citizens for holding up signs that say "speed trap", beating the crap out of teenage girls for jaywalking, racial profiling, etc. seems to be becoming almost epidemic.

 

[iabob]

This is the Obama model - Europe: "Eurozone unemployment rises to record high 11.1% By Annalyn Censky @CNNMoney July 2, 2012 NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Reports on Europe's job market and manufacturing sector both show the region's economic woes persist. The unemployment rate in the eurozone's 17 nations rose to a record 11.1% in May, the highest level since the euro launched as a common currency in 1999. In the broader 27 nations that make up the European Union, the unemployment rate remained at 10.3% -- the same as in May, the statistical office of the European Union, Eurostat, said Monday. Roughly 25 million people were unemployed in the EU in May. Spain alone is home to more than a fifth, or about 5.7 million of those unemployed workers. Spain's unemployment rate is 24.6%. the highest in the region." http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/02/news/economy/europe-unemployment-manufacturing/index.htm

To claim this has any relation to an Obama model seems to be a pretty big stretch. Granted I don't watch a lot of news but I haven't heard Obama once say, " hey let's be more like Europe". Unless of course you're suggesting that Obama's endorsement of Romneycare for a national model...but that's still a stretch as euro zone countries have a wide variety of healthcare systems... In any event I think we all agree, Euros and Americans that we want better economies. Question is how to do it. More tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of financial and insurance industries? Yeah that worked so good last decade...so if our choice is an Obama economy, very slow growth...what is Romney going to do better? Everything I've heard him say sounds a lot like " let's get off this very slow growth and go back to catastrophic loss". No thanks. That economy might have worked well for the people Mitt Romney associates with, but nobody I know.

 

[iabob]

The fact that the left is fighting this so hard, is proof enough for me. The idea that they want to "protect peoples voting rights?" Please. When have they EVER been in favor of the individuals rights? Only when it serves their interests. They never seem to have any problem substituting the Government in place of the Individual. Mayberry

Uhhhh when has the left been in favor of individual rights??? Well let's see, what if you're black and don't want to be a slave? Buy a house? Or vote? What if you're a woman and want to go to college, get a job, serve in the military, or vote? What if your a white male but want to pray to the God of your choice and still get a job or buy a house? What if your a white male but you like other white males and you want to get a job, buy a house, serve in the military, or get married? What if you're a woman and you don't want to carry your rapist's baby? What if you're a white male heterosexual Christian but you don't want the government reading your emails, tracking your credit cards, tapping your phone, or kidnapping you taking you to a foreign land and torturing you? What if you don't feel like speaking English? What if you want to protest peacefully without being tear gassed or pepper sprayed? What if you're female and want to feed your baby like God intended? What if you want to use birth control? What if you want to marry someone from a different race? What if you have cancer or glaucoma and smoking a joint gives you some relief? What if you like to consume pornography? What if it's not even porn, what if you like to read books, even ones that might be risqué or unchristian according to some? What if you want to go to school and not be forced to pray to someone else's God? Should I keep going? Because all of those are individual rights and freedoms that are or we're opposed by the right and fought for by the left. Ok your turn. Please name individual rights that the right has fought for...

 

[iabob]

Let's see ...... who was responsible for the slaves being freed - and getting their voting rights? Hmmm ..... that's a hard question. Let's see - how did those really cool Liberal Democrats treat Condoleeza Rice's Father? Well - they wouldn't let him join the Democratic Party because he was black. "As she told the 2000 Republican National Convention, "My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did." Very nice.

Be fair now. The question put to me was liberals, not democrats. I think even Mayberry and Biggie will agree that the republican party and the democratic party are nothing today like they were then.

 

[iabob]

I think Joe Biden wrote the precursor to the Patriot Act after the Oklahoma City Bombings but that legislation was defeated. He claims the Patriot Act is modeled after the Legislation he wrote. I think Joe stands to the left of the centerline don't he? Trying to make everyone that leans right look like an evil person is silly, just like it is trying to make the same statement of those that lean left. The truth is both sides have their nutcases that lean to the extremes and most everyone falls somewhere in the middle. It absolutely cracks me up when someone tries to paint the far liberal left as Saints...or even the Democrats as a whole today..lets use an example of democratic greatness...Ted Kennedy...Nancy Pelosi???

I don't disagree with that at all. Actually funny you should choose the words you did. After I jumped into this thread recently I've been thinking about how so many insist on viewing politicians as either saints or sinners. A presidential election is no longer about two candidates, or four with running mates, it's that one guy is a can-do-no-wrong saint, and the other guy can only sin. A lot of us are going to decide if we think Romney Blank is going to be better than Obama Biden. But when I look around I see a lot of people that think if you don't vote for the same guy your either stupid or hate the country. Cause obviously smart patriots would vote for the saint that's going to save the country, not the sinner who has a secret agenda to destroy it. But believe it or not there are a lot of us that in 2008 we didn't see either. We saw Obama Biden vs McCain Palin and picked between those two. This time won't be any different. It's not Armegeddon vs Nirvana, just two politicians.

 

[iabob]

OOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! So let me get this straight. You want to TAKE CREDIT for suposed "Liberal" victories of the past in your post, but then DISOWN THEM when it suits you?!!! Typical Liberal double speak. Mayberry

Geesh your not very good at this game. Yes, all those things I mentioned were liberal causes concerning individual rights, going from the beginning up to modern day. Once again, now it's your turn. But to help you get in the mood I will happily give you a head start: What if a guy want to buy a gun? What if that guy wants to put his own gun in his own pocket? What if a guy works all his life and manages to save a few dollars, and wants to give it to his kids without them being taxed on money he already paid taxes on? What if a guy wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? What if a guy wants to eat a Big Mac, supersize fries and wash it down with 32 ounces of good 'ol American Cocoa Cola?... Those are individual rights and freedoms that are conservative causes, even if said conservative happens to have a label that starts with a D at that particular point in time. See it is fun if you just try...

 

[iabob]

Dude, you need to go back and read some of your own posts! It was YOU who made "Liberals" out to be the champons of the people. Man I can't disagree more. This is the most important election of my life time. The power that this Healthcare law affords the Government will change this Country for the worse for good. What REALLY sucks, is something that none of us will ever even get to vote on. The Roberts decision basically says that the Government can force us to buy or obtain just about anything it wants us to. Just as long as they tack onto the law, "Or you will pay a tax". No, they can't do it under the "Commerce Clause", but they can with the newly broadened taxing authority. Obamacare MUST be repealed, and new statutes passed to strengthen individual liberties to protect us from Legislative and Judicial over reach. Mayberry

Actually if YOU will go back and read my posts you might begin to understand me. You ASKED me to name individual rights that liberals championed, so I did. Does that mean I'm in love with every democrat and reject anything proposed by a republican? Well in typical partisan double speak maybe, but I am not a typical partisan. And for the record, if you don't buy a house, you pay more tax. If you don't get married, you pay more tax. If you don't have kids, you pay more tax. If you don't make your living off of other peoples money, you pay more tax. If you don't buy high efficiency appliances, you pay more tax. If you don't give to charity, you pay more tax. If you don't spend enough on healthcare, you pay more tax. If you don't buy an electric car, you pay more tax. I guess the government is forcing us to buy houses we don't want, marry people and have kids with them we don't want, make our living off of capital gains instead of making things, buy new washers and dryers, go to church, get sick and go to the hospital in a tin can battery operated car.

 

[iabob]

Yes, I have to admit. You are very good at this game. You seem to switch teams whenever your argument fails. Then turn to the other guys and say, 'It was them...not me". Then just walk away. Man I wish I was that good. Mayberry

So because the Government doesn't give you a tax break......you are being FORCED to engage in commerce in a certain way? No one is forcing you to do ANY of those things. The Government IS FORCING you to buy health insurance. You don't have to buy a house, marry or have kids as a condition of your citizenship. Now you DO get some tax BREAKS if you engage in some of those things. Those are called "Incentives". Now you can argue that you don't LIKE these incentives. Separate issue. But being REWARDED for doing something, is a far different concept from "PUNISHING" someone for NOT doing something. Which is EXACTLY what the healthcare law does. If I don't buy a House, I don't get the "Incentives" for engaging in that activity. No harm. No foul. If I don't buy a Health Insurance plan, I have to pay a TAX for doing nothing what so ever wrong. It should be MY choice to do so. Your argument is to try and make the concepts of Incentives and Punishment look as though they are one and the same. When in truth, they are not even CLOSE to being the same thing. This is what I mean about the left "Pretending" to care about Civil Liberties, but actually being about collecting power to a central Government. Geee. You're not very good at this game are you....? Mayberry

Now whose doing double speak flip flop! What is it, a tax or a penalty? If you don't buy a house, you pay more tax. If you don't have health insurance, you pay more tax. Same thing period.

 

[iabob]

Can't help myself I'm going to post in here again. As it stands now here are the pros and cons I see with my options: Cons: ROMNEY: * is only advocating policies that made the rich very wealthy, and helped crash the economy. He has very little time left to tell me what he is going to do that W didn't already do. * He's not endearing me with his honesty. Now I'm not singling him out as all politicians twist the truth, but c'mon that's all I've seen so far. Get off the "you didnt build that" and the welfare thing, we all know the truth behind those, start telling us what you are going to DO for US, the little guys. I already know a tax cut for the wealthy won't do anything so lets start talking about something that will. Furthermore, if Harry Reid is lying prove it already. If Obama has to "prove it" with hospital records and government sealed birth certificate...Romney should produce the tax returns. Fair is fair. OBAMA * That ad with the guy claiming his wife died because Romney laid him off...you're making Romney look like a choir boy. Yeah I now, super PAC un affiliated with the campaign. I don't buy that when Romney uses it either. * Yes I know how all the Romney campaign does is twist truths, take things out of context and outright lie. I'm not stupid. Let's get of the whining wagon and start talking about what YOU are going to do different the next four years. Pros: ROMNEY: * He ran a good Olympics. * Sorry but that's it. I don't consider his success at redistributing wealth from the masses to himself to be that impressive when it comes to running the whole country. Show me a manufacturing company he started from the ground up, employed people and actually generated wealth. That impresses me. Buying companies, slashing payrolls and giving yourself huge bonuses for doing so is not my idea of successful business. OBAMA * when he took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we are adding jobs. Not enough, but that's a he'll of a lot better than losing. * Osama bin Laden is dead. Yes of course I know who the hero's are but fair is fair. If W ordered the hit and we got him he would get credit for getting him too, you know it. * Affordable Care Act is looking better and better all the time. My Dad just had heart valve replacement and the insurance he paid for can not drop him now or give him a lifetime limit. Without that his next ailment could be his last. I also now have a son in college and a daughter about to be. It's nice to be able to keep them covered, which I'm paying for. Lastly, I look at all of our recent two term presidents. Regan, Clinton, and W. As far as I'm concerned all three had a significantly more successful second term compared to their first. Considering my choice as it sits now, a mildly successful incumbent vs a challenger who is offering me very little to go on...at least as of now my choice is pretty clear.

 

[iabob]

Wow! That's it? That's all you have to offer as a case for voting for Obama? The only pro with Romney is that he ran a good Olympics? Really? And the only con you find in Obama is that he is running a disgusting add claiming Romney killed a former steel worker's wife? Really? It hardly deserves a serious response. As we all know, both sides use truth-twisted adds against the other. I don't like it from either party. As bad as that is, it's a nit issue compared to the real issues we face.
Your concluding statement summarizing the meat of your analysis couldn't be more wrong. Obama hasn't been a mildly successful president. He's been a miserable failure for the well documented reasons in preceeding posts. Romney is the one who has a record of multiple acheivements as a chief excecutive running large complex organizations. It's fair to argue what degree of success he's had. But he's never been a failure. Ever. Obama doesn't even understand capitalism and free markets. Even several key leading democrats are beginning to talk openly about Obama's failures. His socialist-leaning policies will never, and can never, restore our free market economy to historical robust levels.

I'm sorry Alan but I think you've been watching too much Fox. Romney has success at what? Creating HIS OWN wealth? Check. I totally agree. What has he created? Name me one company he started that produced anything? Buying and selling corporations as with stock is not creating anything, it's just redistribution. If I had 100,000 dollars that I wanted to become a million in five years without me actually doing anything...Mitt would be my guy. But if I want wars ended, terrorists killed, healthcare reformed, and jobs added instead of jobs lost...BO's my guy. Am I in love with his first four years...hardly. Does that make him a "miserable failure"... that's a ludicrous accusation. He doesn't understand capitalism and free markets??? That's even a stretch for Fox and Friends. GM without Obama, dead. GM after Obama...it's biggest profit in its entire history. How can socialism lead to record corporate profits? And besides GM, how about GE? How about Apple? How about the majority of our fortune 500 companies??? Profits profits profits. Why do you think the DOW and NASDAQ have doubled since December 2007? If he didn't understand free markets and was instituting socialism I think it would be pretty hard for those companies, like POLARIS, to generate record profits. Facts are facts, capitalism is alive and well no matter how many times the Chicken Littles cry "socialism". What's not alive and well right now is middle class, blue collar incomes.