Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
I didn't hear anything new, so what a waste of time. Obama just reiterated what we already know about Obamacare (which I'm for, by the way), but he never answered why he was taking "trillions" of dollars from Medicare to fund it. Romney made that accusation more than once, but Obama didn't address it. I'm for Obama, but I wish he hadn't look as though he would rather have been out to dinner with his wife than at the debate. He can appear very smug at times.
Yes, the jobs report is a joke. But political hay will try to made of it! Woe... is anyone surprised just 30 days from the election? Wow... only 7.8%? (Clapping Hands) So many have just given up looking. Just waiting for this election to see whether or not some "real hope" will come down the pipe.
As for the debate... Romney undressed Obama. The President didn't have a chance to become the Orator and Chief, dispensing his line of smoke, mirrors, and stereotypes. The next setting is more to his liking. He'll probably get to address the "Boxers or Briefs" question that is so much on the minds of people! And the questioning will be right up his alley... from a generation that has no clue what "Simpson/Boles" is... or "Dodd/Frank".... let alone who our Vice President is.
It will be about social agenda... the one where passions get touched on. Don't expect Romney to play as well there... and hopefully he will just be himself and be mature about the confrontational questions that will be thrown in his face... while Obama gets them handed on a pillow.
The spin machine is just much bigger than you think it is... It hammers us with the editing precision and snippet precision of modern technology. It's not surprising that you don't see the slant. I've become accustomed to watching it.
The reason Romney did so well in the debate is because it was right there in front of us instead of being told to us. Big difference. He also did not let the moderator be the center of attention. He put that squarely on the President. No editing and no interpretations.
One debate performance is nothing to gloat over. That's a rule.
What I don't get, Glenn, is how the filthy liberals have taken over the spin machine when it is the filthy rich who own it.
Are you sure that it isn't the spin machine that is making you think your being spun against, as a way of spinning for your side?
Believe me, I watched the spin machine in action when it was spinning up a case for attacking Iraq and it was quite frightening to see how effectively it could shut out facts that contradicted its agreed line (even li'l old me out here in Arabia got ordered to shut up because the Bush administration wouldn't like what I said). And I've seen it spinning nonsense about climate scientists conspiring to rip the world off because it makes them rich (and the most amazing thing was that the world's wealthiest capitalists have been able to persuade people of this by proclaiming - via third parties, of course - that scientists surviving on research grants are the greedy ones, and paying hefty fees to the few scientists willing to join their campaign).
But what I've noticed is that the spin machine always spins in support of the big business, the wealthy and their friends (who own it and supply the advertising revenues it depends on) yet here you are telling me that the machine is actually conspiring against its owners, which surprises me somewhat.
to be honest i don't really follow all that stuff much. i've seen pieces of it here and there.
obama looked like he has better things to do. like something more important was going on and he didn't want to be there. and he seemed like he was defending his position more than telling mitt that he was wrong half the time.
mitt had this really dumb smirk on his face that i couldn't stand. it was like this smug look you give when you think your smarter or better or richer than someone else. he told everyone that he will increase jobs, and remove programs? doesn't that increase job loss? and he will fire more in washington. he never said he would cut the war out, the biggest money waster of them all, or stop the redesigning of pocket change (i honestly had no idea they changed the penny a few years ago). you can't leave healthcare to each state. our corrupt governor of new jersey veto'd better healthcare. it's very expensive, he doesn't care, i think he pocketed the money.
in any case, to be honest i don't care for either of them. but i still vote for obama because i can't stand mitt. don't like the fact he pays his 14% tax every year (everyone else is 30%), i doubt the rich will have to pay that much. giving them more money is stupid, it doesn't trickle down ever. and if obama could focus on jobs like he did on that healthcare (which honestly was a waste of time but it showed he had some ability) it would be better off. i wish we could get clinton back.
Mike, exactly. But Clinton didn't give us any health coverage. Obamacare isn't perfect, but it is something. I'm at a point where something is better than nothing, which is what we had. I don't have time to wait for whatever Romney has up his sleeve. I need it now, and I thank Obama for that.
the thing is, people had jobs and money to pay for insurance in those years, they don't now. i don't know if obamacare will be anything since he waited till really late to start it, i could use cheaper or better insurance. in the clinton years, he balanced the budget, there was no war, the bank rates were really high. that stopped real fast when bush junior stepped in. and there is no one in the world who could have fixed that kind of mess in 4 years.
That still doesn't answer the question as to why Mitt Romney was labeled the winner of the debate. As I mentioned earlier, it was because nobody was there to spin for him (President Obama). I'm pretty well set on what I believe to be the truth about spin. I don't go about questioning about what I believe is true. I've already removed my "Question Authority" sticker from my car and realize where I stand.
What the powers that be do is out of my hands and I can only make a judgement based on what stands I see that they have and what they say they will do. I don't like Obama's approach to the problems...
i guess who ever accuses who is the winner. since obama didn't seem to stand up for himself and let himself be walked over he seemed like the loser by default.
yet at the same time i wouldn't want mitt to represent us to another country. he's as unprofessional as bush making those little giggle comments, where he thought it was a joke or funny but no one but him laughed...
maybe obama had a cold or something and he wasn't up. i'm sure there will be other boring debates.
Your figuring Mike really points out a greater problem about Obama's leadership. But the problem isn't that he allowed anyone to walk on him... it was that someone actually pointed out the lack of substantive approaches to the problem. It's easy to walk when a foundation is laid first.... which Obama has done. Simpson/Boles was a prime example. That was 2 years ago and only "now" is the President saying that he has an intention to use it in the next budget process. Well... what about the two lost years of meandering around the states playing golf and schmoozing with his Hollywood buddies when he could have done something? The problem with our President is he only shows up when he thinks it is necessary. To add to it, he thinks he is the smartest man in the room because he believes his own spin managers.
Only now when there is a real election and with his backside on the burner is he even addressing it... Simpson/Boles.
The party started long ago Mr President. Now you have to actually address someone who knows about budgets and how to manage them... not how to manipulate people and the system.
It's about the substance Mike... not if the President had a cold or couldn't hack the altitude. As I said before... he will probably feel more comfortable in the next session. It is a made-to-order setting for his rhetoric. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney forgoes trying to fit in and just decides to act like the father and grandfather that he is. It would do him much better rather than try to act as though he knows who Lady Gaga is. Being "pop" or up with the latest "fads" isn't the issue. Strong and assertive leadership is.
Mr. Obama has made a whole career on his ability to speak well and be a good debator. Also, he as the sitting president, and ahead in the polls, he should have had a great advantage. Yet, Gov. Romney beat him handely in the debate for many reasons. Romney was so much more informed on every issue that came up. Both men are intelligent, but Obama does not have a clue as to how to create jobs or ballance the budget. Romney has a business mind and I believe he will get it done.
For those who watched the debate, you know that Obama did not respond to some of Romneys statements until the next day, after his handlers had a chance to tell him what to say.
Now, in Democratic ads, they are saying Romney MUST be lying about his plan, because they do not see how it would work. LOL
It is well and good to be politically correct and give someone a chance, ( as Obama portrays himself ) a poor black child from a single mother. Poor or deprived was certainly not true. He had more than most of us.
But now it is time to face reality and move forward with an administration who is much more likely to really turn things around.
Don't be deceived by false stories that the econemy and the job market is getting better. Historically, each year at this time, more people are hired, - usually part-time people, because of seasonal business, such as Halloween, Thanksgiving, & Christmas. There are still millions of people unemployed, or under-employed, and have given up with no more unemployment benefits. There are still talks of massive lay-offs, and they try to tell us we are moving in the right direction ??? Give me a break, and vote for a REAL change .
I approve this message. ; )
sure for the rich people. mitt doesn't care about the poor - he even admitted it.
i feel that any opponent that only attacks and doesn't show a solid plan themselves isn't worth even listening too. when asked what his great plan was, mitt's staff couldn't tell or explain how it works because its too far complicated. he only attacks. i can't trust anyone who is just a bully.
i can't say whether anyone shows themselves as poor. as far as i'm concerned if you run for president you have to start as a millionaire. though i do think obama can see down to the level of poor folk, where as the other guy has no clue.
to be honest i don't think obama will help things more, but i don't think he will hurt things more either, i'm hoping him and clinton are good friends and they can both work together. i just don't trust mitt.
as far as jobs go - it will vary. there are many jobs being filled, but they are all commission jobs. i know for one that this year i'm making more than last selling images. this tells me that someone, somewhere are getting jobs and want to spend more. the only place you can find out if there are or are not jobs is the news, and that's never a good source.
to be honest i don't know how you can create a job. simply handing more money to a company won't make more jobs.
He never admitted anything Mike except that he felt the poor were not going to vote for someone who is not a sugar daddy for all their needs.
Attacking Mike? Get real. The President has been waging a class, social, and ethnic battle in a emphasized way for the past two years. Quite a plan. He is the worst President in my lifetime at reaching across the aisle. It doesn't exist in his vocabulary. More hate, separation, and intolerance than ever before.
Mike.... "...to be honest i don't think Obama will help things more, but i don't think he will hurt things more either, I'm hoping him and Clinton are good friends and they can both work together. i just don't trust mitt. Him and Clinton are not good friends. Surely you jest. The Clinton's are a pain that he must put up with or lose every ounce of credibility. Bill Clinton recognized the need to work across the aisle and because of it things got done. Obama uses the Clinton's name only. Hey, but waste your time on someone who isn't going to get anything done!
Trusting Mitt? What exactly has Mitt done to damage any trust you might have in him? He made a statement about 47% of people are probably not going to vote for him because they are feeding at the government (...our tax dollars) trough? Sometimes the truth hurts. 47% taking away and not putting in? A figure like that in America is disturbing at best.
so bush was a better president? thats hard to believe.
i consider mitt a rich snotbag that doesn't understand lower class or even middle class citizens. just the fact what he said about the 47% just shows he doesn't really care. the blatant assumption that they are bottom feeders some how is really dumb. in either case i feel that mitt is an over inflated wind bag, i don't trust him, and i won't vote for him. simple as that. the lesser of two evils.
Actually yes Mike... Bush was a better President. I would venture to say that he had many more catastrophes to deal with than our current President. 911 was as big as they could be. Katrina wasn't a small problem either.
Obama was opportunistic and rode the sentiment of hatred into office. He embarked on a policy of taking advantage of that sentiment and pushed Healthcare down our throats... with a mandate. He said he was against mandates when he ran for office. That was when he had to differ himself from Hillary. How about the cash for clunkers program? Nice way to put many dealers out of business. Especially those who are not Union members... like Used Car businesses. That was a waste and diversion. Oh and giving contracts to other countries for drilling in the gulf... or giving tax dollars to American companies that were supposed to be energy companies while the government procures their energy efficient units from China.
Mitt Romney is not George Bush. President Obama is not Bill Clinton.
President Obama already has a record to look at. The country is still floundering and being convinced to accept less as the new way of living. Not too many visionaries creating anything new.
Glenn, I'm not sure how it is being a "good president" to be attacked by a dude hiding in Afghanistan and to respond to that by attacking Iraq (which was actually a key enemy of the Afghan-cave hippy) thereby predictably dumping it into the hands of America's Iranian foes.
I mean, wouldn't it be a good thing to retaliate against those who attack you, rather than against those who have nothing to do with it? Just sayin.
Oh yeah, he managed to find the right country to attack in the end, that's true.
And Katrina? How long did it take him to get off the golf course/ranch/whatever and actually get round to doing something? Try checking out the news reports of the time.
You certainly have a rose-tinted version of the guy. It's very hard to see how Obama (or me, or you) could have made a bigger mess of either of those challenges.
OK he did face bigger tests than Obama did. What you are missing is that, being tested, he consistently failed.
This is a very popular discussion with 117 responses. In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts. Everything in the middle has been skipped. Want to read the entire discussion? No problem: click here.
a good example of why I don't trust either candidate, I hadn't really considered in the way you worded it, I simply saw it as a politician attempting to straddle the fence, he's probably just trying to steal some votes from obama
his real position is - say anything to get the vote. or confuse them enough to get the vote. people have a tendency to follow that last person that spoke. if he simply parrots everything obama says and insults him at the same time, he could trick the public into voting for him. of course it's a black and white issue literally and pretty easy to remember who is who.
i don't really trust either one. if i had my pick i would go with ron paul, even though he had a few screws loose. it's hard to say if obama can fix the mess the last guy left. i have no idea how anyone can make jobs, but just giving money to the rich isn't the answer. if that were the case then the money should go to small business owners that want to grow. i don't trust mitt at all, never have. he seems to be the guy who will say what he thinks the public wants to hear. and as the romnesia thing sets in, he forgets that he said it. obama says he outlines what he plans on doing, i wonder if mitt has that plan as well...
is he still running? because i haven't heard much about him. but i doubt he would win and i don't want to waste the vote. everything he says is unconstitutional, and he is right for the most part. but i think he would probably unravel the states more than fix them. even though i like him better then the both of them.
and then there is what his face - the guy who took the simcity plan and quoted pokemon. i don't even remember his name. but he was at least fun to listen too.
Of course they are playing to the people! Isn't that what politicians do to get elected?
There are no two people on this earth that agree on everything... and when the truth is laid out to the masses they don't accept anything except the part that makes them more comfy cozy. Reality is a far and distant consideration.
With that said... we have a record to go on with this President. If you like what is happening.... vote him back in. If you are concerned about the next four years, Fire Him! If you have found comfort in the "New Reality", he's your man. If you decide to let him go, he'll land on his feet... and probably on Mount Rushmore.
I happen to believe that 4 unfettered years of an intensified agenda like this will make the United States a second world nation... under the direction of the United Nations and their third world leaders.
yes but then there is the evil involved. if i vote for the guy i actually like, and the guy who seems safer than the shmuck he's against, and the current guy loses because i wasted the vote - that would be annoying. because i don't think ron will win at all. it's like when every movie star ran for Governor in california. personally i would have liked to see gallager in there instead.
Do you really want Ron Paul as President? Perhaps you would rather have Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson! And Roseanne Barr captured the Peace and Freedom Party’s presidential nomination in August and chose anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan as her running mate. Great alternatives for the discontent. But no viable chances.
Also... there are more than just Presidents to crown. Those pesky local and state people working to jump into our pockets for their causes... like... themselves.
.... perhaps because Romney is beginning to pull away?
It's about the economy. Why would we vote for a flailing economy to continue?
P.S. My daughter just came out of a meeting with her company. They spent lots of time on the Obamacare issue and it's consequences to them. One of the issues was an immediate 15 million dollar increase for employees medical costs. The other was how they would probably have to cut many full time employees down ( to 24 hrs maximum per week ) so that they can avoid penalties from the Federal Government with regards to the extent of the medical coverage. Also, the amount of money it is going to cost them for their reporting efforts to the Fed in a new intensified way.
Obamacare is going to destroy businesses and their ability to make profits. It is also going to force many more Americans into employment from two sources instead of one in order to make a living. Their Attorneys also believe that turning back the Obamacare mandate is going to throw a problem into those businesses that have been established recently under the basis that it will be carried out... setting Mitt Romney ( If he wins ) up to look like a bad guy is he repeals it after winning this election. Obama will have a free reign to continue his assault on American ingenuity and spirit without having anyone to impede him but a Congress that will still be labeled as a "NO" if they don't fall in line... should he succeed to win the election
Rectifying the American Economy after Obama is going to be a great challenge. If Romney wins... he will have to make some very tough decisions in his first couple of months to halt this slow roll and throw it in reverse... back to how it was built to work... tapping into the Entrepreneurial Spirit of those who are willing to take a chance again.
Beware of the legislation that is in the works with regards to control of the internet and your personal information. They are working heavily on that right now. Gotta have a hand in every area of our lives. It's all about Control.
I have not been on this thread for a while, but as time draws near to deciding the on the future of America, I urge everyone to think about what is really best for us all. It is about one week until national election day, and every vote is more important than ever. I voted early last week, and there was a very long line, but it was worth the wait, and it will be an even longer line at all the polls on Nov. 6.
For me it is really difficult to believe that some will vote to have the same administration for another 4 years, as bad as things are in the states and around the world. No matter who Mr. Obama wants to blame the problems on, the national debt is much higher, the umemployment rate is much higher, the cost of health insureance for most people is higher, and national security is worse with the growing discord in the middle east and around the world.
Some say the unemployment rate is actually up to about 18 to 20% when you calulate all the people who have ran out of unemployment insureance and have given up trying to find work. Obama says he has created about 5 million jobs. If so, they are not subtracting the people who are still loosing jobs. I know that folks are still being laid off in my area. American Airlines has announced they are going to lay off more people. Many of my friends and relatives have been victims of lay offs and job closings. Yet the current administration is still trying to convience people that they are better off than they were 4 years ago. I say don't fall for it. Don't vote for someone just because of the party or the race they supposedly represent. Vote for the good of America as you study the facts. Remember the future of your children and grandchildren.
"Their Attorneys also believe that turning back the Obamacare mandate is going to throw a problem into those businesses that have been established recently under the basis that it will be carried out... setting Mitt Romney ( If he wins ) up to look like a bad guy is he repeals it after winning this election."
The idea that Presidents create or don't create jobs is so naive I can't understand why it is treated seriously. Their policies (if they can implement them) may or may not create conditions favourable to job creation or may mitigate or exaggerate economic shocks that would undermine businesses and destroy jobs.
If (as serious economists contend) Obama's policies prevented the US sliding into a second Great Depression which would have destroyed many millions of jobs, isn't that the same as creating those millions of jobs? How can anybody quantify these things? And how can anybody know if they would have done better or worse if the other guy had won last time?
Serious economists? So Obama has a monopoly on who is a serious economist? Everybody else is just plain stupid or ignorant... right?
Obama's policies are but a band aide that has no real lasting substance. Borrowing that continues to escalate and must be dealt with. I think the housing crisis is the perfect analogy for what the borrowing crisis is. Sustaining the economy with no real fuel in the tank has to come to an end. That can only happen successfully in the United States when the private sector is allowed to do what it does best. It can never adequately happen when the government has replace the private sector.
Government knows best is the biggest danger to the United States.
No, Glenn, I am merely pointing out that these are not my opinions, they are the opinions of people with the academic qualifications to comment. You do like to ascribe things to me that I never said or thought, or even implied!
I agree that the US appears to be a bubble economy and the bubble needs to be let down. The obvious place to start is with a massive cut in military spending, but that won't happen because the military and the arms industry have too much influence.
So what you actually need to do is slice through the umbilical cord that links together business and government, making government the servant of business and banking, which it is at the moment. You see, I agree that government cannot and should not replace the private sector; but neither should the private sector take control of the government: both need to operate independently of each other, in the interests of their constituencies - the shareholders on one side and the nation on the other. As it is, big business and the banks have captured the US government, more so the Republicans than the Democrats, but the difference isn't really that big.
Breibart got it wrong and the New York Times got it right. Good. Particularly given the latest reports on Netanyahu's enthusiasm for starting a war, the last thing I needed was a US President who has already committed to supporting a new, Israeli-launched Middle East war.