Magox

Maybe, but you're talking hypotheticals, I'm strictly expressing my judgement based on current TANGIBLE results. In regards to his perceived weakness, I honestly believe that is overblown, sure I'd rather have a president that APPEARS to be a little tougher and less apologetic but once again, I care about results, thats the way I was raised, its logical and everything else in between from my perspective is a bunch of noise.

Yeah, same thing

I don't know, most likely the trigger would of been pushed, but end result, he did and he died and I don't know about you but for my mother, brother, father and I, we celebrated and it happened during his watch. In regards to leading from behind, end result, he was taken out, we didn't lose lives and we spent hardly any money. WTF is wrong with that????????? Who cares what you or I think consists of "leadership" in the real world, whether its business or in our personal lives, what matters are results, so while many of you wanna argue that he didn't show leadership, who the !@#$ cares? The job was completed, in the most proficient of manners, without loss of life and tremendous cost to our nation, and anyone who can't recognize that fact has got too much partisan **** in their eyes and needs to take a step back and recognize. Now if you want to talk about the economy, the debt and our entitlement problems, then all one has to do is look at the product and see that he has failed miserably, but the end product from where we can judge now regarding foreign policy has been a sucess.

I do agree with you, but OBL is dead and most likely he won't be coming back, so the advantage of hindsight most likely won't change 20 years from now, and in regards to Libya, only unless you were Ron Paul, Khadafy (sp)? would of been taken out, so it just would of been a matter of how and considering that we didn't lose hardly any if any lives and didn't spend much time consumed over there and didn't incur hardly any costs,I would have to rate that (up to now)from my perspective a complete victory. I don't believe anyone should underscore the significance of taking out OBL, that was huge, on so many levels. There is plenty to criticize the man for, but in all honesty, foreign policy has been an area where he has outperformed relative to expectations.

Newt Gingrich is the largest cancer in the conservative movement. He is one of the most vindictive, self-absorbed politicians that I have ever seen. He sucks ass.

Yep, All in all I give him an A. Taking out Bin Laden was great for the country and gave us some much needed payback. The Apologizing for America I'll give him a pass on, considering the success we had with OBL and Libya. I actually am 100 % supportive of the lead from behind strategy, and from my perspective it worked phenomenally well. It's about time we encouraged our European "partners" to pony up and do more. I had this sort of discussion with someone else on FB the other day, I unlike many other people am not ideologically driven, these conservative litmus tests are for the idealogues and sheeples and I don't give two ***** about typical right or left wing rhetoric, so this bowing down to other foreign leaders has virtually very very very very little to do with my overall calculation in determining who is and is'nt a good president. I care about results, and in regards to foreign policy, he's delivered.

You're convinced Obama is great and that's that. Eyes, shut, ears plugged, neener neener. The reality is the president gets an A on foreign policy, an F at how he's handle the economy, an F at dealing with our National Debt an F at addressing our ever expanding Entitlement programs and an A on rhetoric. Ronald Reagan and Clinton were the last two good presidents we've had, the last two have been atrocious. In regards to this thread, it sucks, absolutely nothing wrong with the first lady promoting healthier eating, as a matter of fact, its great, the only REAL way we will help solve our health care issues is through wellness programs and diet is a huge part of that, but no, politicians are always looking for evil boogeymen just so mindless numbskulls can display their instinctual herd mentalities and parrot their talking points, such as blaming health insurance companies for our health care problems, which only partisan idiots fall for. and Really? You really brought the race card into this discussion. There is a reason why people hate politics,and one of them is when people parrot what politicians do which from the left side isto always bring out the race card. Truly pathetic.

Cue DC Tom

This is a poor analogy that the left has attempted to justify the health insurance mandate. One huge difference and that is called liability, if you are financing or leasing a vehicle to a customer, you need to require that the customer has insurance or it is more than likely, if an accident occurred that he may skip out on paying for the damage, leaving the creditor stuck with the loss. Also, liability insurance, if you are driving a machine that could kill or injure another person, then there has to be safguards in place to help ensure that the culpable party pays for the damage. But nice try Buftex

Na, I'm gonna annoint him, cuz thats whats gonna happen. Btw, he will continue to prove himself, watch and see. In regards to the Obama adm. stance on this position, they better do a 180, if not I see this as being a significant issue that would undoubtedly have an effect on the margins, and in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, if you piss off enough catholics, in these battleground states, a few percentage points could make the difference. And this is before all this **** is happening, if this thing carries on, those numbers will drop, and there are alot of Catholic prolife independent and moderate Democrats in the rust belt region.

As exaggerated as your statement may sound, it's actually pretty spot on!

Exactly!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72209.html#ixzz1l40G3ExT I'm a pro choice guy, but I completely respect the pro life stance, and this bill makes alot of sense. It is yet another reason why a candidate like Rubio will appeal to many Americans, I have little doubt that he will one day in the not so distan future end up being the president of this country.

I don't believe Big Fatty respects your uncle Gene. I don't know, it just sort of seems that way.

I don't think you guys realize, ever since OWS, the White house has been winning the messaging war, which is "inequality" and "fairness" rather than the national debt and the economy. If the focus remains on this topic, they'll win, if the focus switches back to the economy and the debt then Romney wins. So in that regards, OWS has been successful.

People wouldnt be so skeptical if the policy prescriptions to attempt to solve this issue didn't include wealth distribution policies.

Turns out Debbie, Warren's secretary is very likely a "1%"er http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/

Romney took a major hit while he was in South Carolina, including independents,and if this trend were to continue he'd lose against Obama. Having said that, a major part of his horrible week, was his inability to answer effectively regarding his taxes and business experiences, it was as if he was embarrassed to speak of his own wealth, he looked evasive, he waffled around in his answers and it fit perfectly with the caricature of the corporate raider. However, this week he has found his voice, he gave great answers regarding his wealth and investments. All he has to do is continue to look sure of himself and make a ferocious defense of capitalism, as long as he does this, the only ones who will care about his wealth are the leftist lemming dipshits. It's like he said, its a battle for America's soul, do we go down the path of the entitlement nanny state or back to our more capitalistic society? He has experience to make that argument, now it's just a matter of him executing, and this week has been very encouraging. Also, my guess is that the next poll will show him doing better with those independents... Also, lets not forget that is just one poll, and Obama has been downin the mid 30's in virtually EVERY poll over the past 2 and 1/2 years.

He did? Link?

To be fair, this downturn is much worse than the one in the late 70's early 80's, back then it was an inflation **** storm, which sucks, don't get me wrong, but inflation has a clear cut answer which is higher rates. It' painful, but it solves the problem, this what we are going through is a massive deleveraging process in not just in the private sector, but in all spectrums, including the public sector and consumer. Just think of a continous ongoing massive rip current. Everytime the economy looks to improve it just keeps falling back because of this deleveraging process (rip current) that has to play out. Lenders are pulling back, consumers are repairing their balance sheets and state and local governments are shrinking (rightfully so). Now, I'm not saying that the recovery couldn't be better, nonsensical burdensome regulations, an activist EPA, and uncertainty in taxes and new legislations and policies are without doubt restraining the recovery, but to compare the lack of this recovery to the one of Reagans would be a intellectually dishonest one to make. Having said that, if I were a campaign manager I'd do it, because thats theonly arguments the left ever makes, intellectually dishonest ones

Romney may not be able to make a credible case against Obama care, but the super Pacs can, don't underestimate the power of those TV ad's. The superpacs against Obama will have just as much if not more money than Obama will. Also, I've said this before, Obamacare isn't nearly as big of an issue asit is with GOP primary voters. Sure,indepedents don't like it, but they know where each stand, one said he will repeal it and the other one will push forward. Remember, independents are not nearly as ideologically driven as the lefies and righties are. The damage has been done on Obama in regards to Obamacare, and the superpacs will be the sufficent daily reminder Romney needs to keep it in their minds. So this argument that Santorum makes is ridiculous, independents don't want this to be the crux of a candidates campaign, they care about the economy much more so than this bill. All Obamacare will be for independents is just ONE more reason not to support him. And on a sidenote I see that Obama is tryig to make an indirect defense of Solyndra.... BIG MISTAKE!! also the more Obama brings up healthcare.... BIG MISTAKE!! These are tremendously unpopular initiatives and subjects. This is a tactical mistake they are making regardingthe alternative energy push. The Obama machine have three major negatives in this area, Solyndra which the right will paint as the poster boy of crony capitalism and desperate push to impliment their unsustainabe and nonfeasible green energy initiative at the expense of the U.S taxpayer. The decision to not build the Keystone pipeline which would have added PRIVATE SECTOR dollars in order to appease his enviro base and the high price of gasoline. Yeah, independents may not be fired up to go out and vote, but they do want a competent economic leader, sure Obama has wildly exceeded anyone's goals when it comes to fighting terrorism, but the economy is #1,#2 and #3 on voters minds. There is a reason why the political forecasters have this as tossup sort of election. Obama won't beat him easily, that you can count on, if Rubio accepts the VP offer, I would say that Romney stands at least a 60% shot at winning. Florida would be locked up, and many states that are battleground states with highlatino populations could be influenced enough at the margins to make te difference.

Screw it I'll tell you. McCain would have had a stimulus plan as well, it would of been slower, but equally ineffective, and most likely the recovery late 08 and early 09 would of been even weaker under McCain, simply because less money would of been spent, which means short-term weakness. There would of been less money for state and local governments, which means that many union state local gov workers would of been layed off, which of course would of had a residual effect on the economy. Also, there very well may not have been so many extended unemployment benefits. That would of meant a weaker economy for the short-term. Infrastructure projects, well there was so little in the first stimulus bill, I believe approximately 10% of it was used fo this, so at most there would of been slightly less under McCains plan. Housing plan, well, negligible effect for Obama, and I'm sure McCain wouldn't have had anything muchbetter, not for short term anyway. So end result for the short-term less economic growth. Longer-term effect. Those monies used to support local and state governments, only played a positive effect for the economy for a very short period. State jobs were based on R.E bubble era revenues, extremely overbloated, when the stimulus money ran out, those jobs were gone, hence the continued deterioriation o local and state gov. jobs. It's a painful natural process that has to play out. Unemployment benefits, sure, it is helping prop up the economy, however it isalso encouraging SOME people to stay unemployed. There are more people who have been out of work over a 6 month period than an anytime in US history. There is what I call job atrophy occuring,people are losing job skills, people have lost hope and some people are content milking everything they can out of the government until they can't anymore, in the meantime they are falling further and further behind. If the workforce was the size that it was in 2008, the unemployment rate would be at 10.9% Thats freaking amazing, this 8.5% number doesn't paint an accurate picture, at all. I find it more troubling that people feel so hopeless thatthey quit looking for a job all together, therefore dropping out of the workforce, making the jobless situation appear much better than it actually is. Dodd Frank Bill, Obama Care and the EPAs ridiculous crusade have all been netjob killers, I don't believe its as much as the hardcore right wingers believe, but it has been without a doubt been a net negative on the margins. The cost of capital has gone up which is never a good thing for companies that want to startup or expand. Also the psychology of added regulations is also playing a factor with companies. Obamas policies helped in the short-term, but long-term policies have been corrosive.

I mentioned this before but Mitt phrased this perfectly, it's a fight for America's soul. It's an inflection point, do we move more towards a wealth distributing nanny state or do we go back to our capitalistic system. No system is perfect, and without a doubt people have all the rights in the world to look at the gross misdeeds that occurred during the years of Wall Street Gone Wild, but it is the system that made the U.S number one in virtually almost every economic category. There just need to be better Enforced regulations,not more, just better implemented. All one has to do is look at Europe, is this what we want to become? High debt, high taxes and high unemployment? No thanks

On a semi-related note, I was watchin Mornin Joe this mornin, and David Gregory was giving his recap of last nites debate, and to show you how ideologically ill-equipped he is to host a show such as Meet the Press, he criticized the candidates up on the stage for not having a plan to help the housing market. In other words, he either is not able to fathom the possibility that allowing the market to find its natural bottom is indeed a solution, OR that he is such a partisan hack that he is making a dishonest case to discredit them. It's one of the two.