| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| GOP Primary 2011 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 11 2012, 06:23 PM (2,654 Views) | |
| uh-oh | Jan 20 2012, 10:08 AM Post #21 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I see...your argument is that the only thing we could do in the face of a failing health care system is adopt another form of an already failing system (aka faux-medicare/medicaid). Actually, tort reform would have been a step in the right direction, along with caps, interstate exchange, tax credits for HCplans not tied to employment. In other words, there are many ways to address a failing system. Instead, Obama put a public 'option' on top of an already failing system that he cannot pay for!! It may help a few, but will likely harm many more and place an additional burden on everyone--crazy! Also, I see you narrowly ascribe 'inconvenience' as my argument about the energy bill. Perhaps that is the way I described it--I really don't think light bulbs, appliances, or seat belts need government intervention. In truth, the energy bill is not only irritation because I like my light bulbs just as they are, but alas it is Obama's biggest impediment to small business success and economic growth. I don't think people really understand what 'cap and trade' is. It's nothing more than a way for the government to garner more taxes from the already struggling small business world. The politicans get bags full of tax payer money to spend on their failing social programs and the environmentalists get massive regulations on emissions. Great idea Obama, make it even harder for business to expand, require them to do even more to comply, and then tax the hell out of em' anyway!! Obama is in way over his head. None of his 'stimulus' plans have succeeded in doing anything other than putting us further in debt. The economy is in worse shape than when he took office and unemployment is still thru the roof. How anyone could vote for him again is impossible to understand. And yes, Michelle's wardrobe is horrific most of the time--I don't know why you are so offended by this. Laura Bush's wardrobe was boring, but appropriate. Girls do tend to care a little about fashion, its not a crime you know. Oh yeah, our insurance went up by $50 a pay period and our company's by 15%. Your little anedotal experience does not necessarily translate to the rest of the public. Edited by uh-oh, Jan 21 2012, 02:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Monkfish | Jan 20 2012, 09:25 PM Post #22 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Dow Jones Industrial Average on January 23, 2009...3 days after Obama took office: 8,076 Dow Jones Industrial Average on January 20, 2012...3 years after Obama took office: 12,720 How un-American is that? |
![]() |
|
| Monkfish | Jan 20 2012, 09:31 PM Post #23 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
psssst...President Bush was the one that signed your hated light bulb change http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf |
![]() |
|
| uh-oh | Jan 21 2012, 01:23 AM Post #24 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
oops,read below... Edited by uh-oh, Jan 21 2012, 02:19 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| uh-oh | Jan 21 2012, 02:18 AM Post #25 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| uh-oh | Jan 21 2012, 02:22 AM Post #26 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You see, George Bush set reasonable standards and gave people a choice. Obama pandered to his constituency (aka, financial backers), sold out the people and small business, and made the choice for them. Keep on drinking the Kool-aid...let me guess Monk...you belong to a union... |
![]() |
|
| n73pm | Jan 21 2012, 04:11 PM Post #27 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We're not sure what kind of ''marriage'' the 0maba's ''enjoy''. We know NOTHING about his (or hers,) ''private'' life, school life, social life, academia life, religious life, etc. He wasn't vetted AT ALL! We only know that he voted ''present'' for the majority of his short lived senate life. It's curious that there's no ''girlfriends'' or too many class mates that came forward to talk about the mystery man. You would think that there are some odd people that would want to lay claim to fame about knowing and partying with him in their youth. BUT NO! ODD! Or is it just me that thinks it's odd. I'm just thinking that there will be a lot of surprises that will eventually come out about this odd guy, Barack. Something is not right!
|
| I support Global Warming cuz nothing grows in ice! | |
![]() |
|
| Monkfish | Jan 21 2012, 06:08 PM Post #28 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Cap and Trade" merely speeds up the process, with the ultimate goal being a cleaner planet. I remember when recycling first started, many balked at that as well. What a terrible inconvenience it was, how there were plenty of places to bury all of our trash. Same as the bottle deposit law. But what really happened? More jobs were created, as new technology was needed to efficiently carry out the task of sorting the items, where now we can recycle more items than ever. And what do you think the half life is of a soda or beer bottle/can in the State of Michigan? Zero, because someone picks them up long before and returns them for the dime. Would people litter more if it weren't for the deposit law? The tax on Cap and Trade is the company's incentive to get cleaner, otherwise why would they? Because they're morally responsible? Riiiiight. Therefore, each company has a choice, invest in a cleaner environment, or pay a tax not too? Is that unfair? Oh, and if you choose too, you can trade the credits you earn by being responsible with companies that are not, thereby making your company MORE PROFIT (read:very American). Sorry to disappoint, but I'm in management. |
![]() |
|
| Monkfish | Jan 21 2012, 06:10 PM Post #29 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps there's nothing to hide? I know in a world of hypocrites that's difficult to fathom. |
![]() |
|
| Monkfish | Jan 21 2012, 06:28 PM Post #30 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't drink Kool Aid, but I did enjoy a lovely bottle of champagne after opening my year end 401K statement. ![]() I know how to identify propaganda when I see it (from BOTH sides). You may want to try it sometime, but it will require you to turn off ALL forms of mainstream media, especially your beloved Fox (Fixed) News. You'll find it will do wonders for your paranoid schizophrenia. |
![]() |
|
| Monkfish | Jan 21 2012, 06:45 PM Post #31 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Propaganda Techniques Here's one to consider...instead of calling those earning $1,000,000 or more per year "wealthy", let's refer to them as "job creators", even if they don't create any jobs. Glittering Generalities: Glittering generalities was one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. It also occurs very often in politics and political propaganda. Glittering generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. When these words are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved. For example, when a person is asked to do something in "defense of democracy" they are more likely to agree. The concept of democracy has a positive connotation to them because it is linked to a concept that they value. Words often used as glittering generalities are honor, glory, love of country, and especially in the United States, freedom. When coming across with glittering generalities, we should especially consider the merits of the idea itself when separated from specific words. |
![]() |
|
| uh-oh | Jan 22 2012, 01:44 AM Post #32 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In typical liberal form, you won't argue the issues, but instead just resort to name calling and personal attacks. I'm not the paranoid one, nor am I Schzophrenic--not that you actually understand what those terms mean--you are in management after all, and I guessing it's not the management of a mental health facility. (Outside of meds actually, nothing helps a Paranoid Schzo, btw. You really should learn more about the topics you speak of or the names you hurl...) Also, I made no reference to income as it relates to job creators. What is your point here? Maybe you are just rambling about the defination of propaganda or something. So is your problem with those who are wealthy or is it with job creators? Or maybe you generally don't care for either. You and your Obama lovin self don't care much for small busness owners either do you? There are many small business owners--the majority actually--who make far less annually than your 1 million figure and they are the job creators and the risk takers. How is that propaganda? Sadly, Libs buy into the democrats 'propaganda' that business is bad, gov't good. Those big, bad millionaires and business owners are so mean and don't share and don't give back, blah,blah,blah....quite the opposite is true. Propaganda at it's worst--we live in a capitalistic society--success is good! Clearly, you don't understand Cap and Trade--it does far more than speed up Bush's Energy Star. Yeah, yeah its all about the greener planet--talk about your propaganda. You definately do drink Kool-aid--even if it is the bitter, bubbly kind. BTW, I don't watch fox, but I do occasionally listen to Mark Levine. Also, You should quit the name calling...it's really quite juvenile and doesn't strengthen your position. Edited by uh-oh, Jan 22 2012, 02:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Monkfish | Jan 22 2012, 03:20 PM Post #33 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here's my point. The only candidate I would have considered voting for (that was on the list of this thread) was Huntsman. While I may agree with some of the points that all of the other candidates have made, not one candidate strikes me as the one that will look out for my best interests, or the interests of the American people as a whole. Retreads like Romney and Gingrich aren't inspiring me one bit. (C'mon conservatives, come up with some new blood, and don't you dare tell me about Palin) In my lifetime, I have voted for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan (twice) and George H Bush (twice). I ask you these simple questions: Have you ever voted for a Democrat? And since you miss George W so much, do you believe he ran up the deficit- from an inherited surplus-like a drunken sailor or not? Because if your answer to any of those questions is no, all the arguments in the world about the issues won't make a bit of difference. Comments like those about Mrs Obama's wardrobe (as if somehow the dress she's wearing affects my life in any way, shape or form), or Obama's High School drug dealer (didn't Bush admit to snorting coke?) appear to me to come from those that are in the "anyone but Obama" camp. Really? ANYONE? |
![]() |
|
| uh-oh | Jan 23 2012, 11:18 AM Post #34 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay, fair enough. Here is my point. For me, it is 'Anyone but Obama' although I'm not from any 'camp', so to speak. I don't like anything this President has done and I think he is extremely inexperenced and not all that bright, frankly. Laywer or not. As was previously mentioned, he was not vetted and his educational past is sketchy at best. He vacations far too much, says weird and inappropriate things to other leaders, and outside of health care, he hasn't been able to fulfull one campaign promise despite having both the senate and house. Also, his stimulus pkg. has done nothing to improve the economy and certainly hasn't created any lasting effect on unemployment. He also has a serious spending problem. That doesn't leave much does it? Pre-children, I was a huge liberal. (I even had a mute Newt bumper sticker on my car!!--Oh the irony!!!) My voting history icludes Clinton(2x), Gore(I'm embarassed to say), Bush, and McCain. I have to say I loved Clinton at the time despite his lying and philandering! I also hated George Bush(and thought he wasn't that bright) when he was elected and loved him by the end of his second term! I think I figured out that it the country doesn't always benefit from an academic genius(like Clinton)--sometimes it takes a smart person with serious moral fortitude(like Bush). Obama doesn't have any of these qualities, IMO. I consider myself a moderate conservative with a seriously liberal social policy side. Check this out...here is why I don't buy into you DOW theory and comments above. http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2011/10/22/want-to-fix-the-economy-fix-the-stock-market/ Also, the point of the 'drug dealer' story was merely to illustrate how the liberal media will go after any conservative, but left Obama alone--still they leave him alone, and he is a dismal failure!! As for the first (and worst) lady, chalk that up to the shallow, jealous, girlish side of me--she has access to any designer she wants, and she still looks like hell most of the time!! It really doesn't have any bearing on my vote--just side commentary. Finally, GWB did run up the debt 4.9 Trillion in 8 years. Obama has already done that in less than four. Obama did not experience 9/11 and the ensueing war either!! It makes me crazy when Obama supporters complain about GWB's debt but turn their head about Obama's even though he is spending at warp speed--double the pace really!!! His stimulus pkg, sold as an investment, has been a horrible failure. We are not any better off than when GWB left us. In fact, we are in much worse shape overall. At this time in America, we need someone new and yes, any of the ones running would be an improvement over Obama. He is completely irrelevant at this point. I couldn't care less about the 'greening of America'--that should be the lowest priority right now. If we do not figure out a way to get the economy moving, put people back to work, increase manufacturing, improve our trade system, decrease unemployment, and decrease our deficit, we will be owned by China in a few years! That is not paranoia, that is reality. Can u really argue with that? Edited by uh-oh, Jan 23 2012, 12:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ava | Jan 24 2012, 11:48 AM Post #35 |
![]()
So what? Who cares?
|
There is only 1 candidate that makes sense, and he is being ignored by the media. The republicans are kidding themselves if they think Romney or Newt can win over Obama. If they nominate Romney or Newt, Obama is in. I sure hope Mr. Paul runs as an independent. He won't win, but we desparately need a third party. The momentum is building...people are getting tired of the status quo and their blah, blah, blah. |
![]() |
|
| uh-oh | Jan 24 2012, 04:41 PM Post #36 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Really Ava? Why would anyone in their right mind re-elect him--please explain it to me cuz I don't get it? (BTW, his approval ratings are lower than any other President at this time in his Presidency. No other President with ratings this low at this time has been re-elected.) Edited by uh-oh, Jan 24 2012, 04:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ava | Jan 25 2012, 09:26 AM Post #37 |
![]()
So what? Who cares?
|
I do not pay attention to polls. I don't watch mainstream media. I consider myself an independent. The Repubs don't have anyone that can win; they blew it. Obama will win by default. We need a third party; there are no good choices in this election. Get ready for 4 more years of Barack. The competition is a joke. |
![]() |
|
| injuneer | Jan 25 2012, 02:28 PM Post #38 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If paul runs as a third party it will guarantee Obama the win by splitting the republican vote just like we had with Perot and Bush 41. I dont see a need for another party. if you consider yourself an independent then you already dont care about party affiliation and vote based on the candidates themselves regardless of what their party mantra is. Beside you already made the point that he has no chance of winning anyway. |
![]() |
|
| Ava | Jan 26 2012, 03:15 PM Post #39 |
![]()
So what? Who cares?
|
Well, yes I agree. Paul would split the vote and Obama would win for sure. But...I still think he will win anyway because Newt and Romney are not strong enough. I will not vote for Obama, Romney, or Newt and it has nothing to do with their party affliation. Their message is more of the same and this country needs something different. I actually heard Romney speaking about liberty and freedom the other day.....wonder where he got that from
|
![]() |
|
| injuneer | Jan 27 2012, 10:00 PM Post #40 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Charlie Sheen would win against Obama if the election were today. All things staying equal in November Romney or Gingrich will have no trouble against Obama. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




