ROMNEY SCORES A BIG ONE State, National, International, posted by Middle of the Pack, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Let me start off by stating that I am a middle of the pack Republican. With that being said, I am thrilled at the results of the 1st presidential debate. Mitt Romney was stellar. Not only did he hold true to Republican ideals, he did with a bravado and flair that made me proud. He didn't resort to the extreme bombastic s of early Republican candidates. He did it with seasoned knowledge, leadership and the ability to communicate his views when it counts. Let's see what happens, but this was certainly a turning point in the election. I think I see a sparkling light in Washington with Mitt holding court in the White House come January. YEAH!
Posted by Center, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Romney wins on style points. On substance, I thought his performance was lackluster. Any specifics? Or are we supposed to simply trust this guy? And why didn't he own up to the 5 trillion dollar shortfall that will come from his coddling of the rich? I can't give my trust to a liar like he proved himself to be tonight.
Posted by Not sure we saw the same debate, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 10:07 pm
The Onion Voter's Guide to Mitt Romney Web Link is very funny. The best part is about how his views on immigration differ depending upon what state he happens to be in. In Northern states, he says the border should be "policed by predator drones, stealth bombers and if necessary, a bottomless trench extending across the US Southern border."
Posted by This is the best you've got?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 10:12 pm
I was amazed that his position he has been campaigning on for the past 6 months changed tonight. His ability to speak clearly is not a winning point when he is just saying what a particular audience is wanting to hear. I don't believe him because every time I hear him speak, he stands for something new.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 10:35 pm
"middle of the pack Republican" said: "Let me start off by stating that I am a middle of the pack Republican. With that being said, I am thrilled at the results of the 1st presidential debate. Mitt Romney was stellar.... I think I see a sparkling light in Washington with Mitt holding court in the White House come January. YEAH"
Well, "middle", before you get too carried away let me remind you that the election depends not on self-described democrats or self-described republicans like yourself. We already know who you're voting for regardless of how your candidate performs in the debates, and it is irrelevant how enthused or disappointed you are by your candidate's performance.. The election will be determined by how the independents swing.
As for myself, I do think that Romney was more assertive and more aggressive than in the past. However, I still didn't like some of the things coming out of his mouth. In particular, I'm a bit baffled why he feels that we need to spend even more on defense when we have by far the most powerful military on the planet and - since the collapse of the Soviet Union - no close military rivals AND we are supposedly trying to reduce our budget deficit. Obama may not have been as aggressive as Romney but I liked many of the things that he was saying more. I also haven't forgotten Romney's "47% speech". That moment of candor is going to stick with me regardless of what he says in the debates.
Posted by Independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Full disclosure: I do not like the direction Obama is taking this country and share Romney's views on the economy. With that said, based on the first debate, Romney has demonstrated the conviction, determination, and understanding of the complex issues necessary to move this country forward. When it comes to economic issues he shines. Round one goes to the challenger. Round two should be very interesting.
It is only the first debate. I can’t wait to view the Ryan/Biden exchange, which is up next.
Posted by Debater, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:06 am
It's no wonder our economy and jobs don't get fixed by some of the incredibily narrow thinkers on this site....sad for the next generation!...certainly not the 'greatest' generation !
I loved the ADULT DEBATE exchange, rather than one-minute sound bite answers to silly questions.
FYI, Progressive liberal,Ed Schultz on msnbc said he was "stunned" by Obama's non-performance, and Obama was "not the point guard tonight".
Bill Mahar, who gave $1 million to Obama campaign, said "it looks like Obama DOES NEED a teleprompter"! "Obama made lots of point tonight, mostly for Romney!".
Chris Matthews has quite a long rant on 'RealClearPolitics'.video . . "what was Obama doing up there, with his head down. . . . He needs to watch cable TV, we know more than he does."
CNN phone poll an hour after debate ended 67% Romney winner, 25% Obama, unheard of.
Jame Carville, was silent, just "Romney won the night".
Progressive liberal Chris Cillizza, WashPost blog, "Obama grim & uninterested". "Romney's demeanor handled a wide range of economic discussions with flying colors".
Just a small sampling, it goes On and On.
I would say Obama was a meandering empty suit, and apparently lost without his teleprompter filled with information OTHERS have loaded. Sort of like OZ with the curtain pulled back.
Romney's substance was deep and presentation perfect, enthused, informed and informational, clear, right amount of deference, once or twice called Mr Pres, but also firm, and challenging. Perfect.
Kritical Krauthammer said Romney won by 2 touchdowns, and won most of the rounds. It was not a free-for-all, not proper and boring,...just right. I wish all debates were like that. Enough time to answer serious matters, seriously !!
Posted by Hoops, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 5:56 am
As an Obama supporter,I was stunned at his poor performance.He did not prepare and said everything Romney expected and Romney who did prepare had well rehearsed repsonses to counter all of Obama's points.Obama was over confident going in and if he does not get his energy up in the next 2 debates he will lose the election and will deserve to lose.Romney still has no real specifics as to his magical solutions but to the average viewer who has not been following closely,he looked like a better option.Romney of course totally distorted everything but most people who just tuned in to this circus will not know that.
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 8:13 am
There's a few things that were obvious in the debate.
1. Romney brought up that Obama used the first two years of his presidency trying to ram his vision of healthcare down our throats, instead of trying to get the millions of unemployed back to work. And, Romney is 100% correct.
2. Romney's fiduciary knowledge of how to run a large business (government?) obviously trumps that of our Chicago community organizer-in-chief.
Posted by Larry, a resident of Livermore, on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:01 am
Come on guys, give President Obama a break. He was speaking without his teleprompter so what would you expect. The guy that writes all his words should have been in the debate, then it would have been a closer debate.
Listen to what Obama is saying, believe him, not what you see with your own eyes.
Posted by AnnaS, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:31 am
What I don't understand is that people put any attention to these debates. Obama's administration made their views perfectly clear long time ago: people are property of the government, they belong to the Government; as long as people never claim their rights for their personal freedom and independence, the government would take a good (or, as good as they can) care of them.
Debates don't change a thing; the choice of these elections is very simple: if you want free stuff and no personal responsibility - vote for Obama, if you don't want to be treated as a farm animal and prefer freedom with all its consequences - vote against him.
I'm not a supporter of either Romney or Obama, but I believe that when choosing between two evils, trying the new one is the only chance to make a change for the better.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:55 am
"Impressed" said : "I was most impressed with Romney's examples of how he worked with a Democrat majority to effect change and his contrast with how Obama pushed through Obamacare without any major compromises. This is the kind of leadership we need in the partisan gridlocck environment we have."
Yeah, well, working with others across party lines at the state level is not quite the same as working across party lines at the federal level (i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives). People tend to be much more partisan and hardlined at the federal level. At the state level, not so much. Even Sarah Palin was able to work effectively across party lines at the state level as Governor of Alaska.
Posted by Impressed, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 10:10 am
Regardless of what level it happened, I am more comfortable with someone who has proven they can work in a bi-partisan way (Romeny) than someone who has taken the "my way or the highway" approach (Obama).
BTW, I was also impressed with how Romney used Obama's words against him with regards to raising taxes. Given the economy is in worse shape when Obama said it didn't make sense to raise taxes, why is Obama pushing for it now? Seems like a contradiction.
Lastly, I really appreciated when Romney brought up the point that total US government spend is now 42% (fed, state, etc.) which is the same as Spain's who is up sh-t creek right now.
The two visions of the future of this country were in stark contrast last night - Obama's bigger, more controlling trickle down big government vision - and Romney's free market (with appropriate regulation), smaller government vision.
With all that is going on in Europe with their big government/entitlement train wreck in the making, it is hard to imagine a sane person wanting the same future for the US.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 10:36 am
Impressed said: "Regardless of what level it happened, I am more comfortable with someone who has proven they can work in a bi-partisan way (Romeny) than someone who has taken the "my way or the highway" approach (Obama)."
Well, concerning Romney's claims of taking a bipartisan approach, I think that Obama made a good counterpoint when he pointed out that it was going to be difficult for Romney to claim to be a bipartisan champion if his first act as President is going to be to repeal Obamacare, which is something that has overwhelming democratic support. Do you think that Romney is going to be willing to compromise on Obamacare and work with democrats on a mutually acceptable solution? Or do you think that he's going to take a "my way or the highway" approach on repealing Obamacare? From Romney's statements on Obamacare thus far, I haven't heard anything from him that would indicate that he's interested in a bipartisan solution, have you?
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 11:20 am
We remember the "bipartisan" way the Dems handled the passage of Obamacare. Ramming Obamacare down our gullets when over 6 in 10 citizens were against it is something that has not been forgotten. Remember, it only passed by one vote, and they had to bribe somebody to gather that last congressional voter.
The electorate decided in 2000 to put some of those Pro-Obamacare congressional supporters on the paths to new careers -- And, I suspect that more will go in the upcoming election. So, with the exception of the stalwart dinosaurs, Harry and Nancy, and a few other militants -- Mitt's sledding might not be as tough as you might think.
Posted by 47%, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Perhaps this is what Obama calls a "Teachable Moment"... it's impossible to defend FAILED policies and results even for the "Chosen One" ... but the 47% don't care if America is headed down the tubes...
Posted by Bob McCutcheon, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm
I didn't see the debate but I read the transcript. Obama won on substance. Romney's 'specifics' were to improve education (but don't give money to it, in fact take some away), drill for oil and let wind and solar take a flying leap, rattle sabres with China, lets see, oh yeah, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Beyond those 'specifics', all Romney seemed to offer were little snitty insults and lies about the current administration. I think over the next few days the truth of the debate will catch up to the 'glamor' of a little guy standing up and lying to the American public's face.
Posted by Bob McCutcheon, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Oh, and I forgot to mention that another one of Romney's five 'specifics' was to increase defense spending. Yes, well, that is not what we need right now ... unless you're planning to draw China into a war with sabre-rattling and brinkmanship. And wouldn't that be fun?
Posted by Impressed, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:21 pm
The filtering of reality of some people (both left and right) is just astounding sometimes ...
Just one little point to counter the above. Romney said he wouldn't reduce Federal spending on education but instead redirect it through parent choice. But of course you didn't hear nor read this as your hate of Romney is drowning out everything else.
If Obama did win on substance last night (not), would you mind elaborating here on the key points you took away? I'd be curious to hear your take.
Posted by 47%, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Of course you didn't see it ... Our President was getting his A$$ kicked and couldn't even look the guy who was kicking his A$$ in the eyes to defend his FAILED policies and results ... as I said a "Teachable Moment" ... I don't want a coward running our country... but the 47% don't care that we are getting are A$$es kicked all over the place including here at home by a Govt who could care less ... can't even pass a budget ... this absolutely pathetic
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:44 pm
One thing that baffled me about Romney's statements was his heavy pushing for more defense spending. He even highlighted that at the very end of his closing statement. Do we really need more defense spending now with a weak economy and a big budget deficit problem? With the collapse of the Soviet Union, what major military rival do we have that would require even more defense spending by us?
Out of curiosity, I looked up how much we spend on defense compared to the rest of the world. Here's a list of the top 10 countries in terms of defense spending:
Let's ignore the fact that many of the countries on this list are staunch allies of the US. As it stands, the US already spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined. China, the closest possible rival, spends about 20% as much as we do on defense. Russia spends about 11% as much as we do on defense. And Romney thinks that we need to spend MORE on defense? Why?
Posted by Impressed, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Sam - I agree with you regarding your military spending point. This is the major point for me that makes me uncomfortable with Romney. I do agree that we need a strong military presence but do we really need to spend so much? I don't think so.
Regardless of this reservation though, I am still voting for Romney. His fundamental understanding of how a market-based economy works is exactly what we need right now.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:54 pm
One more thing that is interesting about the Table of information that I posted (which can be seen more clearly at the Wikipedia web link) is that not only does the US already spend more on defense than the next nine countries combined, but the US also spends more on defense as a percentage of its GDP than any other country on the Top 10 list with the exception of Saudia Arabia. China spends 2.0% of its GDP on defense. Russia spends 3.9% of its GDP on defense. The US now spends 4.7% of its GDP on defense and yet Romney apparently thinks that that's not enough. Can anyone explain what he's thinking?
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Impressed said: "Sam - I agree with you regarding your military spending point. This is the major point for me that makes me uncomfortable with Romney. I do agree that we need a strong military presence but do we really need to spend so much? I don't think so. Regardless of this reservation though, I am still voting for Romney. His fundamental understanding of how a market-based economy works is exactly what we need right now."
OK, fine. We'll see what happens. If Romney wins it will be because of the economy and his ability to convince people that he's better equipped to fix the economy than Obama.
Posted by AnnaS, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Oct 4, 2012 at 3:04 pm
I don't think that it would be a very good idea to compare American defense spending with Europe. The main reason why Europe spends so little is that they don't assume that they will ever need to protect themselves without help from US. It would be even worse to compare American defense spending with China and Russia; they never consider their soldiers as valuable resources and never worried much about human losses. However, we don't need to spend that much on defense or any other spending, including the president's family expenses: Web Link
We need to spend our tax money more wisely which would not be possible under Obama's administration.
Posted by Debater, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Obama is back on college campuses today, like he was all this last month. Kids who never had jobs or paid taxes elected him last time, with the help of their parents, as instructors had brainwashed kids.
Obama surrogates today said their plan is to concentrate this month on 18-29 yr olds, mostly latino and black, mostly at colleges, His adult white male support (not public union gov employees) is near single digit.
Apparently, according to Obama's performance last night, he has spent a bit too much time with first-timers who are easier to fool.
I appreciate that we had an 'adult' debate, with proper discussion. We the people WON. One minute 'sound-bite' answers are an insult to our process and our people.
I like that Romney made the most important connection in our last 4 years. Why when you had total DEM control of the governemnt, Pelosi leading House, Reid leading Senate, did you all spend your first 2 years fighting over 2,000 pages of a health care plan, all while the country was suffering, you didn't focus on jobs and economy ???? Why?
It also comes to mind that about 2 weeks on the job, he announced in defense of something, ""because 'I' WON the election!". That pretty much set the tone of the Administration. It appeared that last night he is still feels 'I' am a celebrity, I really don't want to bother with this nonsense...just crown me.
Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 3:40 pm
AnnaS, stated "Debates don't change a thing; the choice of these elections is very simple: if you want free stuff and no personal responsibility - vote for Obama, if you don't want to be treated as a farm animal and prefer freedom with all its consequences - vote against him."
First, nothing about this election is "simple", despite your absurdist remark, and suggesting that "trying" the challenger "is the only chance to make a change for the better" fails all attempts at logic and rationality.
Second, you need to get out into the world more. A comment like "The main reason why Europe spends so little is that they don't assume that they will ever need to protect themselves without help from US" and Europeans "never worried much about human losses" is ill-informed and fundamentally flawed nonsense.
Posted by Sam wrote:, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 4:30 pm
"OK, fine. We'll see what happens. If Romney wins it will be because of the economy and his ability to convince people that he's better equipped to fix the economy than Obama."
On that singular topic is there really any doubt that Romney/Ryan are better equipped to address our economic woes? IMO, neither Obama nor Biden have attained the required level of private sector job experience to formulate a plan to address some very serious economic issues. I like both Obama & Biden. I just don't like their philosophy as it relates to our economy. This country can't afford four more years of government expansion and failed economic policy. Period.
This is one of the few elections where I can't wait for the Vice Presidential debate. I expect the Biden/Ryan debate to be very enlightening. Don't forget to watch.
Posted by 47%, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 4:32 pm
ps ... you know there are 40 million local/state/federal government employees and another 49 million on food stamps... what percentage is that of the adult population in the USA? ... does that give you pause ... if not, you are part of the 47% who don't care that America is going down the tubes ...
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm
AnnaS wrote: "I don't think that it would be a very good idea to compare American defense spending with Europe. The main reason why Europe spends so little is that they don't assume that they will ever need to protect themselves without help from US."
Please, Anna. If you look at the table I provided you'll see that just three of the European NATO countries (Great Britain, France, and Germany) have a combined defense spending that is over twice the size of Russia's. That's ignoring all the other western European countries that make up NATO. In addition, both France and Great Britain have independent nuclear deterrents. I assure you that they can defend themselves quite well even without the US. Claiming that US defense spending is so high because the Europeans can't protect themselves is silly.
Posted by Hoops, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 6:58 pm
It will be interesting to see how many positions Romney changes in the next debate.It is amazing how he looks into the camera and lies with a smile on his face.I think Obama was shocked and should have called him out but did not.Romney will not get away with it again.Tha arithmetic will have to add up next time.Romney will go dwn as the most dishonest candidate in history.
Posted by 47%, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Wow .. first, the excuses ... it was the altitude, Lehrer is an idiot, the noise on the stage distracted him, he wanted to avoid being an angry black guy... second, invent the mantra that Romney stood there and lied for 90 minutes ... it is all predictable, just keep watching MSNBC ... the only one lying to the American people for four years is Our President ... of course the 47% don't care as our country goes down the tubes
Posted by 47%, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Hey jack ... I know, they are all now on Food Stamps ... the numbers (89 million) are the same ... does it give you pause? does it concern you? ... if not, you are part of the 47% who don't care as the country goes down the tubes...
Posted by Hey Jack, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 10:37 pm
from your link:
"We found that between January 2009 (when Obama took office) and June 2011 (the most recent month available), Krugman was right for overall government employment -- the combination of federal, state and local government workers. Overall government employment declined by 518,000 workers, or about 2.3 percent of the January 2009 level.
So his statistic is correct. But the closer you look at the data, the more varied the data becomes.
First, let’s look at federal government employment, which accounts for just 13 percent of all government employment. The number of federal workers has increased by 38,000 over the same period -- an increase of 1.4 percent.
And if you separate out the U.S. Postal Service, the growth was even bigger. Non-postal federal employment -- about 10 percent of all government employment -- increased over the same period by 139,000 workers, or 6.7 percent."
So, during a period of great economic decline, Obama has increased the size of government. Seems to support the theory that Obama = BIG GOVERNMENT I'm not saying that is good or bad. I guess that depends on what you think best moves the country forward.
Posted by Bob McCutcheon, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 10:48 pm
It's pretty amazingly easy if you listen to Romney. We'll cut taxes on the rich to the tune of 5 trillion dollars, and because just by Romney being elected we'll gain 5 million jobs, we won't have to do much else. We can replace Obamacare and put nothing in its place. We can institute vouchercare for medicare, and when people who have done lousy in the stock market get sick, we won't have to pay anything because we'll just let them die. No pain, no sacrifice. Just vote Romney and our problems will disappear. Honest! Romney made lots of money for himself, and if we forget to mention the people who lost money while he raked it in, then it's easy to see how everyone is going to become rich.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 7:55 am
"47%" said: "... if not, you are part of the 47% who don't care as the country goes down the tubes..."
Well, "47%", maybe you didn't get the memo or haven't been reading the news, but Mitt Romney just disowned his little "47% speech", saying that it was "completely wrong". So if you're still clinging to the 47% idea, you're pretty much out on a limb all by yourself.
As for Mitt Romney, I'm not sure what to think. It's great that he realized that he was wrong and took back his words. I feel tempted to congratulate him for openly admitting his mistake and correcting it. At the same time, I have to wonder why he didn't realize how wrong it was immediately after he said it and why he stubbornly insisted that although his basic message was correct, his words were just "inelegantly stated". Now he's telling us that, no, his words were not just "inelegantly stated" - that they were "completely wrong".
I have to wonder if this remarkable conversion has anything to do with the fact that the election is now just 30 days away and he and his advisors are perhaps realizing that the memory of his "47% speech" was hanging from his neck like a lead weight. Has he really had a true change of heart? Or is this simply a cynical "etch-a-sketch" maneuver? Who is the real Mitt Romney?
Posted by GX, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 8:51 am
Romney was wrong on the 47% comment but directionally correct.
Current government spend represents 42% of the total economy. And transfer payments as a percent of total national income is now 21% vs. 6% in 1960. For the first time ever, over 50% of the population (165m of total 308m) are dependent or partially dependent on the government.
Like it or not, we have become a government dependent society. This is not good for anyone.
And yet, we still have people saying the government is not getting enough money. Completely insane. We all know what happens to countries when government becomes too large. It never ever ends well.
Honestly ask yourself what this country will be like if/when government spend tops 50%. Do you really want to live in a country like that?
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 10:26 am
GX said: " And transfer payments as a percent of total national income is now 21% vs. 6% in 1960. For the first time ever, over 50% of the population (165m of total 308m) are dependent or partially dependent on the government."
You're distorting the picture a bit. A large portion of the people who are "dependent or partially dependent on the government" are Social Security retirees who are merely getting back the money that they put into the system. I pay into Social Security, basically giving an interest-free loan to the Federal government. When it comes time for me to retire and get back a portion of the money that I put into the system, does that make me a "freeloader" who is "dependent or partially dependent on the government", or is it more accurate to say that I'm simply getting some of my own money back from the government?
Posted by GX, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 11:56 am
Sam - I understand your point regarding the large number SS recipients distorting the total number and agree with it.
BTW, I'm not one to say that everyone is on their own and that there is no need for a safety net. There is a very legitimate role for this in our compassionate society.
But at the same time, we need to look at the numbers and recognize that things can't continue as they are. We are transferring 42 cents out of every GDP dollar to something called "government" that isn't even close to being efficient. This is lowering the standard of living for everyone except the extremely wealthy people and is lowering our economic growth.
We need to start taking a critical eye to what is work and not working and fix the big issues. Romney's consulting/business background makes him perfect for this juncture. I don't agree with him on most social issues or military spending, but I believe he would be eminently more effective than Obama on the economy and getting us back to a more true market-based economy (the one that made the US great).
Posted by 47%, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2012 at 9:37 am
47% will still vote for O .... and what about those great employment numbers we add 114,000 jobs and the unemployment rate goes down to 7.8% ... .3 points ... you've got to be kidding, there are 23 million people out of work, we add 114,000 jobs ... simple arithmetic (Clinton's words) say you would need 920,000 jobs added to reach that number ... of course 47% don't care and watch the country go down the tubes...
Oh BTW, now I'm hearing Romney kicked O's A$$ because he used a handkerchief ... O's a Pansy
Oh BTW 89 million people on the govt dole does not count SS (people earned SS at least for now, will be bankrupt shortly)
Posted by Curious, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2012 at 10:00 am
Im still curious how good news for our country is still bad news if it makes our current administration look good. Yet many celebrate a Romney "win" for standing up and lying about what he does. Web Link This is really the kind of leader you celebrate? One who says something different every time he speaks? Or is this just a matter of "winning" an election?
Posted by This is great..., a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2012 at 10:42 am
This is great... listening to all you guys arguing over Democrat or Republican... heck I don't care who is in power... You play the hand you're dealt... kept my nose to the grind stone and made a few $... and now taking advantage of Democrat's inability to understand economics, using "sugar rush" stimuli to juice the markets and cooking the employment numbers … now making a "killing" in the stock market, while all you guys are looking for a job, collecting 0% on your savings, taking pay cuts, paying $5+ for gas, swallowing 50% college tuition increases, health care insurance premiums going through the roof, how’s that grocery bill lately? Jerry Brown asking for more money… Union teachers making $76K a year working 9 mos striking for more money and no evaluations … I love watching this stuff! … it’s hilarious and sad what these Pols can get away with…
... my family is set, but your kids will have to pay the Bill! ... then they figure out that this Keynesian stuff doesn't work ( how many times do you have to try it?) and we get back to a real American Capitalistic economy... I will simply put my $ back to work building wealth and leverage my dollars in building businesses and acquiring Real Estate ...
I loved the 80's-90's - good times ... got to witness each recovery from too much Govt ... Carter was a great wake-up call! 20% interest rates, gas lines, 8% unemployment, commodity prices going through the roof, BIG govt new Dept of Education! ... Reagan was fun watching him show everyone how Capitalism works and kick the Communist butts without breaking a sweat, not to mention the Air Traffic Controllers Union!... was even more fun watching the Republicans come in 1994 after 40 years of Democratic Congresses (it only took two years of Bill & HillaryCare to realize what was going on!) and show Clinton how to balance a budget! Wow that was fun!! … riding that Technology wave that Real American Capitalism generates... Life is Good!!
I just Hope America is able to withstand this latest assault on the American Ideal and we again become the World Power and Capitalistic model that everyone respects... We should never apologize for our Success!!
We've been able to avert disaster in the past… we stopped O in his tracks with 2010 election, not quite as timely as 1994 as the Democrats were able to “Buy” ObamaCare by one vote … hopefully we have enough folks left who know what Real American Ideals are and can pull 2012 off ... Enjoy the ride... Vote! … Gotta love it!!!
Posted by This is great..., a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2012 at 11:05 am
I also remember what the media were saying about Reagan in 1980 ... two-bit actor, out-of-touch, liar, divisive, too conservative, ill-informed, dangerous , etc ... Carter was up by 8% with a week to go ...Reagan "wiped the floor" with Carter in their only debate and the rest is history ... hopefully America understands where we stand ... Gotta Love It!!!
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2012 at 11:36 am
Hey, "This is great". Do you have a point to make? If so, it got lost in all of the "...." ellipses that you peppered throughout your rambling post. If you want people to read your posts, then try to make a greater effort to express yourself clearly and knock it off all of the ellipses. I'll agree with you on one point, however. The union teachers did a horrible job if you were able to pass junior high school basic English composition class writing like this.
Posted by Curious, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm
GX I posted a link to specifics of what I was talking about - “No. 1,” declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate. Web Link
This is just one example, every time I hear him speak, he has a new belief and plan. It seems to depend on the current audience and what he thinks they want to hear. This is not a trustworthy quality that I see as deserving celebration for "winning".
Posted by This is great..., a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Thanks for the critique... I post the same rambling post about once a week... glad someone finally read it... I'll take your advice and try to reduce the ellipses... maybe I should put some uhs ... and mms ... or just use a teleprompter ... Gotta Love it!
Posted by Debater, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 7, 2012 at 12:23 am
Gee, Obama didn't offer any plans 4 yrs ago...just hope and change, and NOBODY, not even the media cared to even ask what kind of change.
NO questions. Just lemmings without any questions or ideas.
This time Obama still offers nothing about his next four years, yet Nobody cares to ask, certainly not media. We just know any of his scarier ides will be full blown. Remember he told Russia's Putin, "shh, just wait until I get through this (final) election, then I can do anything I want (without worrying about being reelected).
He even put his own election ahead of our national safety. When TERRORISTS MURDERED OUR US Ambassador in our Libyan Embassy. 3 US aids ON 9-11 ANNIVERSARY, Obama, in total denial, refused to admit because of his campaign. Instead calling it a video protest ! How pathetic a lie of desperation,...an insult to the intelligence of all Americans!
Obama went on a few hours later to jet off to Las Vegas for fun fundraising...he would let nothing interfere with HIS personal mission. He and his surrogates continued the stonewalling and lying for another 11 days !
Thankfully we have CNN reporters always around the world, who had feet on the ground within hours to show & tell the truth to Americans as it was happening. Only in-the-tank for Obama msnbc aided in the lies and cover-up. The whole cover-up was a very sad and needless ordeal for Americans, even as much as he tried to silence the news. With proper security, it would never have happened in the first place.