Official Political Thread

[Rex Kwon Do]

Thanks for the links. Did a quick wiki refresher on FHA loans...currently 3.5% down and your second link proposed a raise to 5%...how has this not happened yet? If you can't come up with $5K per $100K to put down then you shouldn't be buying a house.

Also saw that there are several organizations that offer grants for down payments that are funded by who else, the government. Only in America do we make people put 3.5% down, which we give to them, and then eat it when they go belly up. Home ownership is not a right.

 

[Vismund]

CatsRuleSEC, how old are you again? I ask this because I could have sworn you mentioned being in your late 20's or early 30's, which would have put you, at best, at 16 during the Perot election. What gives?

And way to go out on a limb by picking Perot and Paul. Paul's already a republican and Perot was essentially a Republican that had never been elected to anything. Your toes are still eagerly waiting on that party line partner.

 

[CatsRuleSEC]

Originally posted by Irish Beck:
CatsRuleSEC, how old are you again? I ask this because I could have sworn you mentioned being in your late 20's or early 30's, which would have put you, at best, at 16 during the Perot election. What gives?

And way to go out on a limb by picking Perot and Paul. Paul's already a republican and Perot was essentially a Republican that had never been elected to anything. Your toes are still eagerly waiting on that party line partner.

Perot ran as an independent I thought?

I was of voting age when he ran....I'll say that.

yes, I know Paul is a Repub...just not a modern, traditional one. I like Paul and supported him over McCain.

 

[CatsRuleSEC]

So lets hear it...

who won the debate tonight?

I was pleasantly surprised. I thought all candidates sounded decent. I think the Republican field is much stronger than the media keeps trying to say...

The whole "weak Republican field" coming out of the mainstream media is B.S. in my opinion.

I think Romney will eventually be nominated. Bachman could get picked up as a VP candidate possibly. She was pretty good tonight.

Santorum still gets on my nerves and isn't practical.

 

[cbpointblank1979]

Originally posted by CatsRuleSEC:
Bachman could get picked up as a VP candidate possibly. She was pretty good tonight.

 

[CatsRuleSEC]

Originally posted by cbpointblank1979:

Originally posted by CatsRuleSEC:
Bachman could get picked up as a VP candidate possibly. She was pretty good tonight.

??

I guess you think she was bad? Or you think she would never get picked?

 

[Jeh_]

Probably both.

 

[cbpointblank1979]

I don't think she's a serious candidate, and I think there's a 0% chance of anybody picking her as a running mate just four years after the Palin mess.

To clarify, "serious" can have different meanings here. Santorum isn't a serious candidate because I don't think he really believes he can win. As I've said before, he's running for a TV show - not for President.

Bachmann is serious in the sense that I think she's legitimately trying to win. She isn't "serious" because she's going to get about 15% support (maximum).

The universal truth of Presidential elections is that you have to win the middle to win the White House. That isn't debatable, it's a stone cold fact. Certain candidates on the GOP side could conceivably do that (Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty). Others are hardcore wingers who will never win the middle (Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich). That's why these early debates are always so entertaining (on both sides). The crazies get a chance to let their flags fly on the same stage with the big dogs before heading home.
This post was edited on 6/13 11:39 PM by cbpointblank1979

 

[wildcatadam6]

I haven't heard from hunstman, and pawlenty seems pretty sharp. Rick Perry needs to get off the fence. His record on jobs speaks for itself. I still desperately wish Allen West would get in the race.

That said, I am still firmly in the camp of three candidates. Take any two of them and put them on the ticket and I'm a happy guy.

Paul
Cain
Bachmann (veep only)

 

[cbpointblank1979]

Originally posted by wildcatadam6:
I haven't heard from hunstman, and pawlenty seems pretty sharp. Rick Perry needs to get off the fence. His record on jobs speaks for itself. I still desperately wish Allen West would get in the race.

That said, I am still firmly in the camp of three candidates. Take any two of them and put them on the ticket and I'm a happy guy.

Paul
Cain
Bachmann (veep only)

Take this the right way, because I'm really not trying to be a smartass here. None of those three have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. Paul is an interesting guy, but if he was going to get the nod it would have happened in '08. Cain:2012 GOP field::Mike Gravel:2008 Democratic field. Bachmann is a loon.

Are those the only three you could support, or are there others who you could get behind?

 

[JHB4UK]

whoever gets the GOP nomination there is 1 choice and 1 choice only for VP....Rubio. just a GD grand slam and a winning combination with ANYONE IMO....a tea party icon, seals up Florida in the Republican column, steals an important % of the latino vote nationwide away from Obama.

 

[Deeeefense]

I though several of them looked like phonies fawning over that retired Navy guy, especially Pawlenty. I served a bunch of years too but I don't expect people to fall down and worship me because I wore a uniform.

I thought Romney looked and sounded Presidential and won the debate because he kept on message and consistently contrasted his views with Obama. Herman Cain is a "comer" IMO. He is obviously quite smart and displays a lot of confidence in his business knowledge and organizational ability - you could tell he really studied and preped for this too. As a centrist Democrat these two capture my interest but there is no way in the world I would ever vote for any of those other Yahoos.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
whoever gets the GOP nomination there is 1 choice and 1 choice only for VP....Rubio. just a GD grand slam and a winning combination with ANYONE IMO....a tea party icon, seals up Florida in the Republican column, steals an important % of the latino vote nationwide away from Obama.

I've made that point a few times too. If ever there was a Republican born to be vice president it's Rubio.

 

[wildcatadam6]

Originally posted by cbpointblank1979:

Originally posted by wildcatadam6:
I haven't heard from hunstman, and pawlenty seems pretty sharp. Rick Perry needs to get off the fence. His record on jobs speaks for itself. I still desperately wish Allen West would get in the race.

That said, I am still firmly in the camp of three candidates. Take any two of them and put them on the ticket and I'm a happy guy.

Paul
Cain
Bachmann (veep only)

Take this the right way, because I'm really not trying to be a smartass here. None of those three have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. Paul is an interesting guy, but if he was going to get the nod it would have happened in '08. Cain:2012 GOP field::Mike Gravel:2008 Democratic field. Bachmann is a loon.

Are those the only three you could support, or are there others who you could get behind?

I realize these three are among the least likely to be on the ticket. They're just the three I like best. I cannot support another McCain-type "Republican", so Romney and Gingrich, while they'd more than likely get a vote from me, it would feel like 2004. Douche/turd sandwich. I wrote in Ron Paul last time around, and I'm not against doing it again. I am tired of rationalizing my vote, but the stakes are too high this time.

I can see Bachmann or Cain getting a veep nod. Cain has business/job creation experience, and he's blacker than Obama. Bachmann is actually sharp, sits on some pretty important councils/committees/etc. Palin she is not.

 

[wildcatadam6]

Forgot about Rubio. He would definitely be a smart pick for VP.

 

[BleedBluNAZ]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:

Card carrying or not, his love and devotion to all of ACORNS efforts is not in question.

ACORN voter fraud is so flagrant, that even ABC News has to report what Obama's old associates are up to, and when Obama denies this relationship, or calls it a distraction, which he will, remember this quote:


"I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work." -- Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007


Not only that, but Obama, who has publicly endorsed ACORN, paid them at least $800,000 for its voter registration efforts -- Obama paid for the voter registration fraud.

Obama's association with ACORN goes wayyy back. He was ACORN's attorney in the "Motor Voter" case. He was also deeply involved in organizing "Project VOTE" in 1992. All of these activities had a single purpose -- to destroy the integrity of the voting system, and Obama has been at it for years, and years.

Obama’s long relationship to ACORN has led many of its members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s political campaigns.

It's "Not". He's not a card carrying member. Nice copy and paste. At least source your material, garbage (which it is) or not.

You should look actually do your due diligence on that website.

First, Obama was never a staff attorney for ACORN. He represented one of their cases (back in the mid 90's) through contract work when employed by Miner, Barnhill and Galland LLC.

Second, Obama's political campaign did paid Citizens Services, Inc, an Louisiana affiliate of ACORN, for a get-out-the-vote program. So what? There was no fraud involved with CSI and the payment was legitimately disclosed.

Third, Project Vote is not affiliated with ACORN, they just worked together in voter registration programs. However, Obama is not a "card carrying member" of ACORN. ****, I can link rinky-dink sites stating McCain's connections with the group.

These comments are hilarious:

"Obama's association with ACORN goes wayyy back. He was ACORN's attorney in the "Motor Voter" case. He was also deeply involved in organizing "Project VOTE" in 1992. All of these activities had a single purpose -- to destroy the integrity of the voting system, and Obama has been at it for years, and years."

The US Department of Justice sided with ACORN in the "Motor Voter" case. And how in the wide, wide world of sports did Project vote aim to "destroy the integrity of the voting system"?

That site is a hoot. I'm surprised that it didn't call Obama a poopy-pants.
This post was edited on 6/13 7:46 PM by Mime-Is-Money

So, what exactly do you dispute?

 

[BleedBluNAZ]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:

and all indications are they are going to get worse.

That's not true. Most economists fully acknowledge the slow down (rather, they expected it at the end of QE2) but believe leading indicators will pick back up in Q3 2011. The WSJ forecast for unemployment at the end of 2011 is 8.5% (this is after subsequent adjustments to incorporate the less than stellar economic news of the last two months).

We're getting through a "soft patch" (term used to the fullest extent over the past two weeks) and most PM's/analysts see better times ahead after June.

Even if your delusion- which is what it is - proves true, no incumbent has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. His goose is cooked. It's better if you start to deal with it now.

 

[BleedBluNAZ]

Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:

Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:

Card carrying or not, his love and devotion to all of ACORNS efforts is not in question.

ACORN voter fraud is so flagrant, that even ABC News has to report what Obama's old associates are up to, and when Obama denies this relationship, or calls it a distraction, which he will, remember this quote:


"I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work." -- Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007


Not only that, but Obama, who has publicly endorsed ACORN, paid them at least $800,000 for its voter registration efforts -- Obama paid for the voter registration fraud.

Obama's association with ACORN goes wayyy back. He was ACORN's attorney in the "Motor Voter" case. He was also deeply involved in organizing "Project VOTE" in 1992. All of these activities had a single purpose -- to destroy the integrity of the voting system, and Obama has been at it for years, and years.

Obama’s long relationship to ACORN has led many of its members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s political campaigns.

It's "Not". He's not a card carrying member. Nice copy and paste. At least source your material, garbage (which it is) or not.

You should look actually do your due diligence on that website.

First, Obama was never a staff attorney for ACORN. He represented one of their cases (back in the mid 90's) through contract work when employed by Miner, Barnhill and Galland LLC.

Second, Obama's political campaign did paid Citizens Services, Inc, an Louisiana affiliate of ACORN, for a get-out-the-vote program. So what? There was no fraud involved with CSI and the payment was legitimately disclosed.

Third, Project Vote is not affiliated with ACORN, they just worked together in voter registration programs. However, Obama is not a "card carrying member" of ACORN. ****, I can link rinky-dink sites stating McCain's connections with the group.

These comments are hilarious:

"Obama's association with ACORN goes wayyy back. He was ACORN's attorney in the "Motor Voter" case. He was also deeply involved in organizing "Project VOTE" in 1992. All of these activities had a single purpose -- to destroy the integrity of the voting system, and Obama has been at it for years, and years."

The US Department of Justice sided with ACORN in the "Motor Voter" case. And how in the wide, wide world of sports did Project vote aim to "destroy the integrity of the voting system"?

That site is a hoot. I'm surprised that it didn't call Obama a poopy-pants.
This post was edited on 6/13 7:46 PM by Mime-Is-Money

You can't affiliate any other politician w/ ACORN to the level you can Obama. If you need more proof, just let me know. Your stupidity when it comes to sources shows your blind and childish allegiance to anything Obama. Let me know if you need further proof of his perpetual hard-on for ACORN. Gotta lotta more.!



From the Wall Street Journal:

Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at ACORN's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded ACORN's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls.

During his tenure on the board of Chicago's Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn. More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an ACORN affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for "staging, sound, lighting." It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.

The Obama campaign is now distancing itself from ACORN, claiming Mr. Obama never organized with it and has nothing to do with illegal voter registration. Yet it's disingenuous to channel cash into an operation with a history of fraud and then claim you're shocked to discover reports of fraud. As with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Mr. Obama was happy to associate with Acorn when it suited his purposes. But now that he's on the brink of the Presidency, he wants to disavow his ties.

The Justice Department needs to treat these fraud reports as something larger than a few local violators. The question is whether Acorn is systematically subverting U.S. election law -- on the taxpayer's dime.

 

[cbpointblank1979]

Originally posted by wildcatadam6:
and he's blacker than Obama.

I've only heard white people say this.

 

[BernieSadori]

Originally posted by cbpointblank1979:

Originally posted by wildcatadam6:
and he's blacker than Obama.

I've only heard white people say this.

I'm pretty sure Cain said this.

 

[AustinTXCat]

Originally posted by cbpointblank1979:

Originally posted by wildcatadam6:
and he's blacker than Obama.

I've only heard white people say this.

From the Conservative White Trash, Headline of the Day Department

Salon: "Herman Cain still wants you to know that he's blacker than Obama".

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:
no incumbent has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. His goose is cooked. It's better if you start to deal with it now.

That is factually inaccurate and the actual number is for the most part a meaningless statistic because going back to 1948 there have only been 3 occasions when unemployment was higher that 7.2% during the presidential election cycle:



1976 - 7.7% incumbent Ford lost to Carter

1984 - 7.5% incumbent Reagan beat Mondale in a landslide

1992 - 7.5% incumbent George H.W. Bush lost to Clinton



The source below doesn't go back further than 1948 but if it did you would find FDR winning with a big unemployment number in 1936.



So over the last 75 years incumbents have been reelected twice and been defeated twice with unemployment numbers over 7.2%
This post was edited on 6/14 9:45 AM by Deeeefense

Bureau of Labor and Statistics

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Originally posted by cbpointblank1979:
The universal truth of Presidential elections is that you have to win the middle to win the White House. That isn't debatable, it's a stone cold fact. Certain candidates on the GOP side could conceivably do that (Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty). Others are hardcore wingers who will never win the middle (Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich). That's why these early debates are always so entertaining (on both sides). The crazies get a chance to let their flags fly on the same stage with the big dogs before heading home.

That's an interesting theory. How do you explain Reagan's electoral success in that context? Surely he still qualifies as a winger?

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Mojocat:
How do you explain Reagan's electoral success in that context? Surely he still qualifies as a winger?

He named Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich - none of these dwarfs could make a pimple on The Gipper's ***.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by Mojocat:
How do you explain Reagan's electoral success in that context? Surely he still qualifies as a winger?

He named Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich - none of these dwarfs could make a pimple on The Gipper's ***.

Perhaps you are reading him correctly - and he meant his point in that narrow fashion, and that it only applies to 3 people. I thought him to say that no one on the far right could ever win a national election because you have to win the middle, and no one on the far right could ever do that.

Of course, "far right" is in the eye of the beholder. Bush the younger, for example, I think was fairly moderate, but there are plenty who froth at the mouth while insisting he's just to the right of Hitler. It's the "I don't like conservatives, and I don't like Bush, so Bush must be a conservative" formulation....

 

[BleedBluNAZ]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:
no incumbent has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. His goose is cooked. It's better if you start to deal with it now.

That is factually inaccurate and the actual number is for the most part a meaningless statistic because going back to 1948 there have only been 3 occasions when unemployment was higher that 7.2% during the presidential election cycle:



1976 - 7.7% incumbent Ford lost to Carter

1984 - 7.5% incumbent Reagan beat Mondale in a landslide

1992 - 7.5% incumbent George H.W. Bush lost to Clinton



The source below doesn't go back further than 1948 but if it did you would find FDR winning with a big unemployment number in 1936.



So over the last 75 years incumbents have been reelected twice and been defeated twice with unemployment numbers over 7.2%
This post was edited on 6/14 9:45 AM by Deeeefense

I stand corrected. The stat I listed when it was mentioned stated that it was in the last 30 years. Kind of cherry picking I know but the overall point still stands. I don;t think Obama draws any comfort in knowing that FDR was re-elected in 1936 with high unemployment figures. And sorry, unemployment goes hand in hand with the economy which spells doom for Obama.

 

[Deeeefense]

^The economy posses a huge political obstacle for Obama no doubt about that. Obama will attempt to frame the economy on the theme that "we are making progress - stay the course". The pubs will attempt to say everything he tried has failed. That's your debate in a nutshell right there.

In reality the type of economic hit we took in 2008 will take several years to recover from 5-8 IMO and unemployment number may never come down much lower than 7% in the next 20 years - that's due to globalization and the dumming down of the youth who are not trained for the jobs of the 21st Century. There isn't much any president can do about that in the near term.
This post was edited on 6/14 10:26 AM by Deeeefense

 

[wildcatadam6]

I see we're still calling bush a conservative.

 

[WillGolf4Food]

Originally posted by wildcatadam6:
I see we're still calling bush a conservative.

Hard to imagine a republican governor from TX as anything but.

Is R Perry a faux conservative as well?

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Looks like most of the commentary on the right thinks Bachmann helped herself last night, and Pawlenty, not so much.

I think this was well-put:

Jen Rubin noticed that, one hour into the debate, there were no questions on national security. We went one hour and forty-five minutes before any serious question on foreign policy.

Before then, CNN asked about abortion on two questions, including the particularly morally thorny circumstances of cases of rape or incest, gays in the military, gay marriage, and the separation of church and state. Oh, and whether Herman Cain prefers deep dish pizza or thin crust.

My instinct is to mock the Democrats when they refuse to appear on debates hosted by Fox News Channel, but debacles like tonight make the concept of a GOP reciprocal strategy hard to dispute. The social issues listed above are probably big topics in the newsrooms of CNN, the Manchester Union Leader, and the local television affiliate that sponsored last night’s debate, or more specifically, to non-conservative journalists, these social issues are the ones that make Republicans weird. So these are the sorts of questions that these reporters want to know about, even though every poll of every state of every demographic indicates that voters are concerned about jobs, jobs, jobs. You could have done a half hour on creating jobs, a half hour on entitlement reform, a half hour on what should be done post-Obamacare, and a half-hour on balancing the budget. There really is enough ground to cover there.

And just think, CNN is supposed to be better than MSNBC. If large swaths of the debate time is going to be consumed by issues that the media is more interested in, or idiotic frivolities like which reality shows they prefer, perhaps Republican candidates will be justified in rethinking participation in debates on some networks.

 

[BernieSadori]

Originally posted by WillGolf4Food:

Originally posted by wildcatadam6:
I see we're still calling bush a conservative.

Hard to imagine a republican governor from TX as anything but.

Is R Perry a faux conservative as well?

While he was a Gov., yes.

As President? Not even close.

 

[CatsRuleSEC]

Originally posted by Mojocat:
Looks like most of the commentary on the right thinks Bachmann helped herself last night, and Pawlenty, not so much.

I think this was well-put:

Jen Rubin noticed that, one hour into the debate, there were no questions on national security. We went one hour and forty-five minutes before any serious question on foreign policy.

Before then, CNN asked about abortion on two questions, including the particularly morally thorny circumstances of cases of rape or incest, gays in the military, gay marriage, and the separation of church and state. Oh, and whether Herman Cain prefers deep dish pizza or thin crust.

My instinct is to mock the Democrats when they refuse to appear on debates hosted by Fox News Channel, but debacles like tonight make the concept of a GOP reciprocal strategy hard to dispute. The social issues listed above are probably big topics in the newsrooms of CNN, the Manchester Union Leader, and the local television affiliate that sponsored last night’s debate, or more specifically, to non-conservative journalists, these social issues are the ones that make Republicans weird. So these are the sorts of questions that these reporters want to know about, even though every poll of every state of every demographic indicates that voters are concerned about jobs, jobs, jobs. You could have done a half hour on creating jobs, a half hour on entitlement reform, a half hour on what should be done post-Obamacare, and a half-hour on balancing the budget. There really is enough ground to cover there.

And just think, CNN is supposed to be better than MSNBC. If large swaths of the debate time is going to be consumed by issues that the media is more interested in, or idiotic frivolities like which reality shows they prefer, perhaps Republican candidates will be justified in rethinking participation in debates on some networks.

Pawlenty did fine. They all looked decent. Don't believed the lies from CNN and the rest of the liberal channels about a "weak Republican field". There are some strong candidates in that group who can beat Obama. The media, except for Fox, will do anything to spin for Obama and keep him in the White House.

They will continue to portray all Republicans as "out of touch" and "out of the mainstream"......and they will continue the lie that Obama is a "moderate" when he's the most radical left-winger ever in the White House.

Just like it's a FACT he was the most liberal voting senator in the Senate compared to all other Senators. He is not, and never was, a moderate. This is one of the biggest lies ever told by the mainstream media about a politician. Obama is an extremist and always has been his whole political career.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:

Even if your delusion- which is what it is - proves true, no incumbent has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. His goose is cooked. It's better if you start to deal with it now.

My delusion? That the unemployment is projected to decrease to the mid 8% by the end of this year? That's not my prediction, it's the forecast from market analysts. These could obviously be adjusted with subsequent economic data but, as of now, most, if not all, analysts foresee a pick-up in Q3 & Q4. I can list these forecasts if you'd like?

Defense has already dismissed the '7.2%' claim (twice now). Reagan was re-elected when the unemployment rate was 7.4%.

There's a long time between now and the election. You have to remember that the economy stank in the summer of 2003 before the Bush election. Interestingly enough, Bush's approval ratings at that time were similar to what Obama's is now (~ 50%) and that was after the 12% ratings bump on Q1 2003 when launching the campaign in Iraq.

There's a long way to go. Obama can, and will, certainly lose if the economy continues at this pace. If it picks up, with gas prices decreasing, you should expect a boost in favorability.

This post was edited on 6/14 12:29 PM by Mime-Is-Money

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:

You can't affiliate any other politician w/ ACORN to the level you can Obama. If you need more proof, just let me know. Your stupidity when it comes to sources shows your blind and childish allegiance to anything Obama. Let me know if you need further proof of his perpetual hard-on for ACORN. Gotta lotta more.!



From the Wall Street Journal:

Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at ACORN's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded ACORN's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls.

During his tenure on the board of Chicago's Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn. More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an ACORN affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for "staging, sound, lighting." It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.

The Obama campaign is now distancing itself from ACORN, claiming Mr. Obama never organized with it and has nothing to do with illegal voter registration. Yet it's disingenuous to channel cash into an operation with a history of fraud and then claim you're shocked to discover reports of fraud. As with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Mr. Obama was happy to associate with Acorn when it suited his purposes. But now that he's on the brink of the Presidency, he wants to disavow his ties.

The Justice Department needs to treat these fraud reports as something larger than a few local violators. The question is whether Acorn is systematically subverting U.S. election law -- on the taxpayer's dime.

Stupidity when it comes to sources? What does that even mean? I could only assume that your copy & paste came from 'The Obama Files (ZOMG!!11!)' since you didn't provide a link. You don't think that site is garbage?

This article basically says the same thing, except without the 'ACORN is going to kill your children!!1' schtick.

At least you referenced the WSJ in this one, albeit an opinion piece. However, the question is not whether Obama has relations with ACORN. He does, as do other politicians.

The Obama campaign didn't have anything to do with illegal voter registration. I can certainly see why Obama's spokespeople reaffirmed that position.

What WhitesRuleSEC got incorrect, which neither of your opinion pieces can support, is that Obama was a member of ACORN. He was not a member. Yes, semantics, but at least the guy who made the bold statement of 'Need I say more' is learning something.

ACORN certainly has its faults, and I'm glad their unethical voter registration practices were brought to light. However, the organization has never been convicted of voter fraud continues as a successful community organization effort.

This post was edited on 6/14 12:39 PM by Mime-Is-Money

 

[WillGolf4Food]

Originally posted by CatsRuleSEC:
Obama is an extremist and always has been his whole political career.

I believe the entire idea of a representative Republic is to reflect the views of your constituents. Senator Obama was from one of the most (if not #1) liberal areas in the mid-West. So he did his job.

As president he’s acted as the moderate which is where the majority of American’s fall. Once again he’s done his job representing his constituency.

So, to no one’s surprised, you’ve swung and missed. Again.

 

[Vismund]

Originally posted by WillGolf4Food:

So, to no one’s surprised, you’ve swung and missed. Again.

Anyone else sick of getting trolled?

 

[wildcatadam6]

Originally posted by WillGolf4Food:

As president he’s acted as the moderate.

 

[BleedBluNAZ]

I actually thought all of the candidates preformed well. I have to say I was shocked at how well Bachman did. Palin needs to do herself a favor and stay as far away from these debates as possible.
Romney looked much more comfortable in his own skin than in 2008 and a lot less stiff. All of the candidates were wise in that their message and answers all had to with Obama and his pathetic record. Keep hammering that home and the candidate who evolves will win.

 

[Jeh_]

Originally posted by wildcatadam6:

Originally posted by WillGolf4Food:

As president he’s acted as the moderate.

Can you answer why he isn't moderate or do you need time to google?

 

[BleedBluNAZ]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:
no incumbent has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. His goose is cooked. It's better if you start to deal with it now.

That is factually inaccurate and the actual number is for the most part a meaningless statistic because going back to 1948 there have only been 3 occasions when unemployment was higher that 7.2% during the presidential election cycle:



1976 - 7.7% incumbent Ford lost to Carter

1984 - 7.5% incumbent Reagan beat Mondale in a landslide

1992 - 7.5% incumbent George H.W. Bush lost to Clinton



The source below doesn't go back further than 1948 but if it did you would find FDR winning with a big unemployment number in 1936.



So over the last 75 years incumbents have been reelected twice and been defeated twice with unemployment numbers over 7.2%
This post was edited on 6/14 9:45 AM by Deeeefense

Not sure where you are getting your numbers but this is according to Wilson Perkins Allen Reserch. I suppose they could be wrong but this is not the only source.

"The only president to win re-election in the last fifty-six years with the unemployment rate over 6% was Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Reagan had successfully reversed a spike in the unemployment rate that occurred in the middle of his first term, bringing unemployment back to 1980 levels. Though the rate was over 6%, Reagan had made considerable progress.
This two-year drop accounted for President Reagan’s increased approval ratings and his landslide victory."