Obama 2012-Are You Better Off Than Four Years Ago?

[SparrowHawk]

Since you seem to be so fond of links here's one for you.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6023851.html

Paul voted against government assistance for victims of Hurricane Katrina and later told the Washington Post he had no regrets.
"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" Paul said. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"


Yet when it comes to his own home district that's been affected by a hurricane he brings home the money. As I have said so many times before why is it not the resposibility of people in Arizona to pay for hurricane damage in New Orleans but it is in his home district? Can you answer that one for me?

What I find dishonest about him is when he votes against a spending bill for Hurricane Ike yet made sure that $96 million went to his district. It's almost as if he's playing people like you for fools. He must be counting on people only picking up on the fact that he voted agaisnt aid for his home district. Not the fact that he sent a bunch on money to it anyway. Should not be suprising coming from someone who is in perpetual presidential campaign mode. That way he he can keep his district happy and his Youtube followers as well.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html

So don't vote for him. Say what you but he never threw the entire nation under the credit bus like Mr Hope & Change. It's laughable to be critical of a Congressman who gets 96 million and a POTUS the spends an extra 4 TRILLION that we don't have.

 

[Ms Tree]

That's only because he has never and will never be in charge. He has obviously proven that he is more than willing to waste money on things that benefit him and ignore the interests that do not.

 

[SparrowHawk]

That's only because he has never and will never be in charge. He has obviously proven that he is more than willing to waste money on things that benefit him and ignore the interests that do not.

My crystal ball is on the fritz so I'm unaware of what will happen in November of 2012! Right now the Current HMFIC (Head Mutha F___er in Charge) isn't looking to electable and a lot can change. Gas prices dropped close to 20 cents here since the downgrade, so maybe gas prices continue to drop and the economy picks up as a result and Obama can claim it was his leadership. Forgetting that if it all comes to pass it will merely be the unintended consequences of his overall ineptitude.

 

[Ms Tree]

Yea. You're right. Paul has a great chance of winning. He should start picking out patterns for the WH. He is a shoe in.

 

[tech2101]

Yea. You're right. Paul has a great chance of winning. He should start picking out patterns for the WH. He is a shoe in.

Hey, at least Sparrow will be able to scream at the bats in the belfry for another 4 years because he didn't vote for the loser (insert name here other than Ron Paul) who will occupy the white house.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Hey, at least Sparrow will be able to scream at the bats in the belfry for another 4 years because he didn't vote for the loser (insert name here other than Ron Paul) who will occupy the white house.

Just saw some interesting poling data from Rasmussen regarding Iowa. #1. Michelle Bachmann with 22%, #2. Mitt Romney -21%, 3. Ron Paul - 16%.

Ron Paul finished fifth in the 2007 Iowa Straw Poll. So if he finishes first or second or even third this year, it will in fact signal a major increase in his ability to reach and turn out voters. That might be because he’s making a far more intense effort to actually organize in Iowa than he did in 2007-8. Or it might be because, as Will did acknowledge, “events seem to be validating his message, which is that the country’s financial condition is awful.” But it won’t be something to shrug at.

Gallup has Ron Paul in third NATIONALLY with 14%, as well, and within striking distance of the leader, Romney. Perry is in second, with Bachmann in fourth, behind Ron Paul.

So we shall see. It's kind of like the Preseason predictions in Football, all grand, good and fun to talk about, but you still have to play the games.

 

[777 fixer]

Yea. You're right. Paul has a great chance of winning. He should start picking out patterns for the WH. He is a shoe in.

Listening to Paul supporters in 2008 you would have thought he was already President.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Listening to Paul supporters in 2008 you would have thought he was already President.

Man o Man he does have some rabid supporters doesn't he? If I were a Liberal/Progressive I'd be very concerned. A huge percentage of his support comes from people under 30 who are likely forming life long political views and will be active for a long long time. There's not many gray heads in a Ron Paul crowd.

Another poll I saw does bode well for Liberal/Progressive is the support for the Tea Party Movement has grown to slightly more in percentage terms then those who identify as Liberal. Tea Party support is running between 20 to 30 percent of likely voters versus 20 to 25 for our Liberal colleagues. I also find it funny how media outlets show there clear bias. MSNBC had some guy on who stated "Polling numbers show that the American People are against the Tea Party 2 to 1" OK, that's actually an accurate statement as we see from the above polling data as 30% identify as Tea Party. But look how it's presented. I don't mind that kind of biased reportage just so long as people realize that FoX News isn't the only one engaged in this type of blatant distortion.

Ross Perot got 19 million out of 100 million votes, so in MSNBC speak the American people hated him 4 to 1, what crap that passes for Journalism today

 

[777 fixer]

I told you that to make a point. No law could ever stop the scenario above. Not happening. The battle for equality is not about laws, rules and enforcement as you can't legislate morality. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the public and when you put laws in place that seem to pit one group against another you perpetuate racism.

Here's what you conviently ignore. Jim Crow was the law of the land in the south. If you think the people who ran those states were going to do away with them on their own you are high. Just look at the fight they put up agaisnt things like the 1964 act.

 

[Ms Tree]

Here's what you conviently ignore. Jim Crow was the law of the land in the south. If you think the people who ran those states were going to do away with them on their own you are high. Just look at the fight they put up against things like the 1964 act.

Little Rock High School in AR? Truman desegregated the military but the country did not pass the Civil Rights act till 1964.

I am sure that at some point desegregation would have happened on it's own, or at least I would like to think it would have. When that would have happened I do not know. Would Apartheid have ended without external influence? We will never know. Same thing with gay rights. I am sure that eventually we will realize that they deserves equal protection under the law but I do not see why they should have to wait.

I find it interesting that people say laws should not be used to correct social injustices but I cannot think of any situations where social injustices have corrected them selves? I also find it interesting that the social injustices that we usually talk about where laws on the books that were enforced. Yet when the people want to put a law on the books to reverse that injustice all of a sudden it is inappropriate to use the law for social engineering. I guess what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander, especially when the good is the christian white male property owner.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Here's what you conviently ignore. Jim Crow was the law of the land in the south. If you think the people who ran those states were going to do away with them on their own you are high. Just look at the fight they put up agaisnt things like the 1964 act.

Without going back and finding it, I'm pretty sure I stated that the Civil Rights Act should have been passed and then let "Mother Nature" take it's course. Government gets itself into trouble when it tries to pick winners and losers. I happen to think that Malcom, MLK and the rest of the leaders had the situation well in hand.

 

[Ms Tree]

Not sure what you mean by 'nature taking its course'

 

[Veritas]

Not sure what you mean by 'nature taking its course'

Evolution.

 

[xUT]

Evolution.

Darwinism, the rich will survive...

 

[delldude]

Here's what you conviently ignore. Jim Crow was the law of the land in the south. If you think the people who ran those states were going to do away with them on their own you are high. Just look at the fight they put up agaisnt things like the 1964 act.

Fear of letting them 'darkies' vote in retaliation to their oppressive southern ways.
For some strange reason like a moth and a light bulb at night.......Blacks swoon to the DNC.
I find this fascinating and inexplainable.