Upcoming elections.

[Glock22Fan]

28% of this board currently voting for Obama ??????? WTF, miles ahead of Palin (well, I always said she could not win).

I haven't made my mind up yet, as the only ones with policies I like aren't going to get even close to winning on current showing. <facepalm>

Backman? maybe. Perry? possible but unknown. Ron Paul? right ideas in some areas, no support across too wide a spectrum. Cain? Too inexperienced, but would offset some "racist" criticism.

[ccmc]

Unless you are a single issue voter (and I know many on here are) SCOTUS appointments are always a mixed bag. Actually, President Obama's nominees are rather moderate although I would prefer they be stronger on gun rights. And while I like the gun rights positions of the activist judges appointed by President Bush, I do not like them taking the political power from the people and handing it over to corporations.

Don't you mean how Project Gunrunner changed after February, 2008?

Well this is a gun forum, so it's to be expected that RKBA would be a major factor. Obama's nominees seem pretty anti gun rights to me which isn't surprising given the past record on 2A issues of the man who nominated them.
No sure what you mean about Bush's nominees taking political power from the people and giving it to corporations (you forgot unions as part of that "power shift"). Corporations employ people, and people can invest in corporations. If enough like minded people invest in a coporation they can shape corporate policy to their liking/agenda.

I meant what I said about Project Gunrunner changing under Obama to a policy where the guns involved were allowed to cross the border. That didn't happen while Bush was president, and it seems to be pretty clear why the policy was changed ie to fit Obama's "under the radar" gun control policy.

BTW I like your screen name. I love wolves of al kind, but especially grey wolves. Had one as a pet a long time ago. She was a handful, but worth it.

[MolonLabe2008]

as I said before "nothing I could say would convince you" so why bother?

Some of what you say has merit, some is so politically twisted its almost funny. You put all the blame for all the worlds problems on one person, some of those problems are beyond his control, others are things that he inherited, some were things put in place by prior presidents and, yes, some were things that he did that he is to blame for.

It's a mix, and if you are going to take the perspective that "it is one persons fault" then you are not going to be convinced by anything that I say here. You seem to already have all the answers, at least in your mind.

I'm not putting the blame solely on Obama for some of the current events.

But, what gets me is that Obama was supposed to be different than Bush. Yet, he has done nothing but continue the Bush doctrine and compounded the problems with is socialist special interest agenda.

We are not better under Obama and will not be better.

If you like the government spending trillions, government controlled healthcare, special interest groups, lies, deceit, anti-gun justices, etc... then Obama is your man.

[loose_electron]

Corporations employ people, and people can invest in corporations. If enough like minded people invest in a coporation they can shape corporate policy to their liking/agenda.

In theory yes, but the truth be known the money, and where it goes, in a corporation is under the control of a small handful of people. Majority stock owners and members of the board.

I would like to see corporate influence, and special interest money out of politics. Do whats good for the majority of people, based upon the will of the people.

Notice how the closing of tax loopholes for big oil has quickly died? Just need to buy off enough members of congress, say $100 million, and get returns (tax favors essentially) of $2 billion a year. Thats 20:1 ROI, a good business decision.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576315273169397658.html

[lobonegro]

Perry FTW

[MolonLabe2008]

Yeah! Vote for Obama. He will save us.



The U.S. jobs gap

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/07/05/the-u-s-jobs-gap/

[Skidmark]

28% of this board currently voting for Obama ??????? WTF, miles ahead of Palin (well, I always said she could not win).

As noted earlier, it takes careful reading, but there is a difference between number of votes, and overall percentage of votes. Obama is now receiving just over 10% of the votes in this poll.

[MolonLabe2008]

Yeah! Vote for Obama. He will save us.

Inside the Disappointing Comeback

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576425793342142396.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

[Zimz]

I honestly don't think this country would survive 4 more years with Obama. It would be devastating. Right now we are at a tipping point, if not already going over, and the next 4-8 years are going to be critical in reversing it.

[loose_electron]

Yeah! Vote for Obama. He will save us.

Coming right from the article you are quoting:

"In some ways the recovery is much like the 1991 and 2001 post-recession periods: All three are marked by gradual output growth rather than sharp snap-backs typical of earlier recoveries. But this recovery may remain lackluster for years, many economists say, because of heavy household debt, a financial system still damaged by the mortgage crisis, fragile confidence and a government with few good options for supporting growth. "

"The biggest problem may be household indebtedness. At the peak of the economic boom in the third quarter of 2007, U.S. households collectively had borrowed the equivalent of 127% of their annual incomes to fund purchases of homes, cars and other goods, up from an average of 84% in the 1990s. The money used to pay off that debt means less available for new spending. Households had worked their debt-to-income levels down to 112% by the first quarter, in part because banks have written off some debt as uncollectible. "

Your article, your selection.... So now the big question. How can any president, political affiliation does not matter, fix the above?

It's easy to claim perfectly placed tight groups of rapid fire shots if you have never picked up the gun and been timed in a defensive shooting test. Even more challenging to do it in an actual firefight.

Every politician can claim they will do perfectly, because its easy to stand on the outside and criticize. Talk is cheap, being critical without real solutions is the mainstay of politics on all sides, until you get put into that firefight.

[DocSkinner]

But she knows there are 50 states (unlike the 57 in Obama's America), right? Maybe she even knows there's no such thing as the Austrian language as Obama seemed to think, or a hundred other moronic things Obama has said that the MSM doesn't pound into the electorate like they do whenever people like Bachman or Palin slip up. The point is we've already got a president who doesn't have the depth to be president, with the added disadvantage that he's not a 2A friendly kind of guy.

Not saying Obama is the answer, but yes sometimes Obama (and everyone) slips up, but Obama immediately corrects himself, Bachmann keeps making the same errors over and over. She doesn't bother to LEARN. Paul Revere riding out to taunt teh red coats, founding fathers fighting slavery (half+ were slave owners...) until slavery was abolished, even though they all died WELL before the emancipation proclamation. THOSE aren't slip ups, those are ignorant statements. If you can't tell the difference between slip-ups and ignorant statements, then yeah, Bachmann and Palin are definitely your prime candidates.

Being Pres you should be able to learn from your mistakes quickly and recover. Palin and Bachmann have proven that not only do they not learn, but that that insist on persisting in their ignorance even when offered corrections. Palin even brags about it in her book.

But they say overly simplistic things people want to hear (like all politicians) so people love them, and either over look their persistent mistakes or are just too ignorant themselves to notice how ignorant the statements are.

[DocSkinner]

It's not his staff or his media exposure. He, himself, does not come across well on TV. He comes across as a crotchity old man. That's enough to turn away a lot of voters.

Unfortunately, many people base their decision of who to vote for on appearance alone.

Better that than air heads that look nice and say purty things!

[Coded-Dude]

[ccmc]

Not saying Obama is the answer, but yes sometimes Obama (and everyone) slips up, but Obama immediately corrects himself, Bachmann keeps making the same errors over and over. She doesn't bother to LEARN. Paul Revere riding out to taunt teh red coats, founding fathers fighting slavery (half+ were slave owners...) until slavery was abolished, even though they all died WELL before the emancipation proclamation. THOSE aren't slip ups, those are ignorant statements. If you can't tell the difference between slip-ups and ignorant statements, then yeah, Bachmann and Palin are definitely your prime candidates.

Being Pres you should be able to learn from your mistakes quickly and recover. Palin and Bachmann have proven that not only do they not learn, but that that insist on persisting in their ignorance even when offered corrections. Palin even brags about it in her book.

But they say overly simplistic things people want to hear (like all politicians) so people love them, and either over look their persistent mistakes or are just too ignorant themselves to notice how ignorant the statements are.

Everything you've said applies equally to Obama as it does to Bachman or Palin. The only difference is the MSM repeats Bachman's and Palin's gaffes over and over while ignoring Obama's. I stand by my statement that Bachman and/or Palin would be no worse than Obama who does not have the depth to be president yet got elected on the basis of overly simplistic statements like "hope and change" with an overly compliant media backing him.

[GrayWolf09]

You call them "moderates." I call them left wing extremist.

Yeah, and when I went to John birch Society meetings in the 60's they told me President Eisnehower was a Communist.

Freedom of speech for all.

Nowhere in the Constitution is freedom of speech abridged for a certain group or entity.

Great, I'm glad we agree in opposing the Republican efforts to silence public employee unions in places like Wisconsin and Ohio.

ML2008, long time, no see. Ye got those Muslims rounded up yet?