Just a simple question... if Obama wins re-election, and things don't get better, I mean, they continue to fail in the same way that they have been the past 4 years like:

1 - Median household income continues to drop.
2 - The value of the dollar continues to deflate against inflation.
3 - Unemployment stays relatively the same, or perhaps even gets worse.
4 - GDP continues to stagnate.
5 - Recipients of welfare continue to grow.
6 - Taxes go up for lower and middle class (like they're projected to)

If Obama wins, and this continues to happen, will you (as a Democrat voter) still place the blame on everyone but the administration? Will you still say that somehow, the Republicans are at fault?

------------------
Cliff Pennock - "I'm no Obama supporter. In fact, my personal opinion is that he's the worst thing that could've happened to your country."

Interesting, but the question is already slanted. What if Romney wins? Who will the republican voters blame?

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Interesting, but the question is already slanted. What if Romney wins? Who will the republican voters blame?

If Romney wins and the economy is still in the **** , then I will blame Romney. But I don't think that it will...

Corporations do not trust Democrats, that's a fact... like it or hate it, that's the way things are. Corporations do not like to be taxed aggressively, and they do not feel like Democrats provide for a prosperous environment for business... and I totally agree with them.

If Romney wins, the economy will improve if for NO OTHER REASON than the fact that Romney is a Republican. Even if he does nothing at all... I mean, absolutely nothing but maintains the status quo... the economy will still improve almost overnight. Corporations have more cash saved right now than at any other time in modern history that I could find, and it's all because they do not trust the current climate with Obama-care, and all the other proposed taxes and regulations that all take effect AFTER this election (presidents love to do that).

Corporations had no problem with Clinton.

I think people are gun-shy about spending money as the middle class was hit hard. The wealthy, well, they made all the money back that they lost. The rest of us who don't have the flexibility within our retirement, well... we are stuck and afraid that we will be bailing out wall street and banks, again.

I believe people/corporation are worried if Romney gets in there. He is not a cut/dry republican. He has changed his spots many times to become the nomination.

The middle class don't see Romney as the job creator either.... so.... those with low pay or no job.... well, they won't spend either. We need good paying jobs here in the US and I don't see it happening in either case (Obama/Romney).....sigh.

BTW, how many corporations really pay taxes. GE... didn't they pay zero?

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: If Obama wins, and this continues to happen, will you (as a Democrat voter) still place the blame on everyone but the administration? Will you still say that somehow, the Republicans are at fault?

This sentence reveals the true nature of the questions dishonesty.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Corporations had no problem with Clinton. I think people are gun-shy about spending money as the middle class was hit hard. The wealthy, well, they made all the money back that they lost. The rest of us who don't have the flexibility within our retirement, well... we are stuck and afraid that we will be bailing out wall street and banks, again. I believe people/corporation are worried if Romney gets in there. He is not a cut/dry republican. He has changed his spots many times to become the nomination. The middle class don't see Romney as the job creator either.... so.... those with low pay or no job.... well, they won't spend either. We need good paying jobs here in the US and I don't see it happening in either case (Obama/Romney).....sigh. BTW, how many corporations really pay taxes. GE... didn't they pay zero?

Really? You're going to use GE as your argument? Do you know how much money GE had donated to the Obama campaign in 2008? PLEASE... go do some research on them before you waste my time with this.

As for Clinton.... Clinton wasn't a socialist. He didn't regulate, as a matter of fact, he de-regulated a lot of things. He worked with congress along with the help of Newt Gingrich, and he significantly reformed welfare. He also slashed the budget, while still investing in new technologies. If you were trying to make a point, then you were making a VERY bad example.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: This sentence reveals the true nature of the questions dishonesty.

What exactly are you suggesting that I'm being dishonest about? I've been honest about every damn thing on this board! I'm so open about what I think, that half the time it needs a TMI sensor. Ask me whatever it is you think I'm now answering, and I will HAPPILY answer your question.

honestly it doesnt matter whos in office.
Business's still get tax breaks weather there production plants(jobs) are in the US or no.
Neither will get rid of that tax break due to funding of there campaign.

Because the jobs arn't in the U.S, Americans dont have the opportunities to work as they once did and make a comfortable living.

i could go into more but that pretty much the basics of the problem and unfortunately it wont be changing

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Sounds like a question from a host on Fox News....

You said corporations don't like democrats.... clinton was a democrat last time I looked... that is why I selected him.

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Sounds like a question from a host on Fox News....

Todd doesn't make any reservations about his political beliefs.

It isn't a formal news poll. He's just asking a question.

You can claim it's biased but... of course it is. Again, this isn't a news program.

quote Originally posted by D3M6B: honestly it doesnt matter whos in office. Business's still get tax breaks weather there production plants(jobs) are in the US or no. Neither will get rid of that tax break due to funding of there campaign. Because the jobs arn't in the U.S, Americans dont have the opportunities to work as they once did and make a comfortable living. i could go into more but that pretty much the basics of the problem and unfortunately it wont be changing

Of course, the global economy. That's another problem that socialist Democrats have... they don't understand the concept of the global economy. They believe that America will just ALWAYS have jobs and they simply do not understand why companies continue to move production (and their businesses) to other countries. They can't comprehend how or WHY we aren't physically stopping them.

Even still... there has been a recent trend in India and China... and that's the growth of unions... (woo hoo!!!) there's been a push for unionization throughout the workforce and they're right now going through America of the 50s-70s all in the span of a single decade pretty much.

The only thing is, places like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand are still heavily into production... they're continuing to steal jobs from India and China. Speaking of, some great ETFs to invest in are EWM and VNM.

We can still bring it back, we just need to be competitive again. If Obama doesn't totally destroy this country, I see chip manufacturing coming back to America...

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Sounds like a question from a host on Fox News.... You said corporations don't like democrats.... clinton was a democrat last time I looked... that is why I selected him.

Obama has swung the pendulum so low, that putting Clinton in the same category as Obama is absurd. It's like comparing FDR with JFK. By today's standards... Clinton would be a hard-center moderate.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: What exactly are you suggesting that I'm being dishonest about? I've been honest about every damn thing on this board! I'm so open about what I think, that half the time it needs a TMI sensor. Ask me whatever it is you think I'm now answering, and I will HAPPILY answer your question.

I never suggested you were being dishonest.
I stated the question was dishonest.

I don't think I'm smart enough to explain writting, debate, or communication, but that question did not look very neutral to me (like a question should be?).
It looked more like a statement, then a question.

Read it again.
If you don't see it, I can probibly rewrite it in the way a question should be phrased.
I can try, anyway.
Like I said, I ain't no English wiz.

It just struck me as more of an accusation then an honest question.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I never segested you were being dishonest. I stated the question was dishonest. I don't think I'm smart enough to explain writting, debate, or communication, but that question did not look very neutral to me (like a question should be?). It looked more like a statement, then a question. Read it again. If you don't see it, I can probibly rewrite it in the way a question should be phrased. I can try, anyway. Like I said, I ain't no English wiz. It just struck me as more of an accusation then an honest question.

Neutral? Did Ban-Ki-Moon just dub me the head of the United Nations? I wasn't aware that I was neutral. I do suppose that because I've voted for almost as many Democrats as Republicans, that I COULD be considered somewhat neutral, but I'm not. I'm a fiscal conservative, and Obama is the absolute farthest from that. So my question was... if Obama wins again and the economy stays in the **** or gets worse... will the Democrats continue to blame everyone but their own administration?

Seems to me this is a very simple question... one that a few of you here are having a real difficult time answering.


Todd

Corporations get tax breaks because they hire people and pay them a salary these employees then pay income taxes on those salaries. With the salaries, the employees buy stuff, paye sales taxes as well. When you tax industry at high rates they don't hire workers (the profits go to the taxman ) rather than new employees.

No matter who get elected, you all can expect to pay more in taxes. How that extra tax dollars is spent is the question..Obama's income redistribution or Romney's pay down debt and encourage industies growth.

I suppose a better question is why are those listed thing happening?
1 - Median household income continues to drop.
workers/labor are continuing to be devalued
2 - The value of the dollar continues to deflate against inflation.
printing moneies to pay for unfunded wars
3 - Unemployment stays relatively the same, or perhaps even gets worse.
same as #1
4 - GDP continues to stagnate.
GDP is being shipped to asia, by people like Rmoney
5 - Recipients of welfare continue to grow.
back to #1 & #3
6 - Taxes go up for lower and middle class (like they're projected to)
and, as they should, to pay for them unfunded wars.
dropping taxes and going to war is the stupidest thing a leader has ever done, next to invading russia in the winter

all these issues distill down to them 2 things. the wars & foreign labor.
and, I agree Obama has not done enough.
but, I really believe Rmoney will just aggravate it more with expanding the wars & foreign labor, while raising taxes even more on the lower & middle class, while lowering taxes for his bud's.

luckily - we dont have to elect either one of these - tho - I'd easily take known OK, but not enough, Obama over known etch-a-sketch outsourcing draft dodging Rmoney who has sourounded himself with the same chuckleheads which brought us Iraq.

I think the question is discriminatory cause only Democrats can answer.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I suppose a better question is why are those listed thing happening? 1 - Median household income continues to drop. workers/labor are continuing to be devalued 2 - The value of the dollar continues to deflate against inflation. printing moneies to pay for unfunded wars 3 - Unemployment stays relatively the same, or perhaps even gets worse. same as #1 4 - GDP continues to stagnate. GDP is being shipped to asia, by people like Rmoney 5 - Recipients of welfare continue to grow. back to #1 & #3 6 - Taxes go up for lower and middle class (like they're projected to) and, as they should, to pay for them unfunded wars. dropping taxes and going to war is the stupidest thing a leader has ever done, next to invading russia in the winter all these issues distill down to them 2 things. the wars & foreign labor. and, I agree Obama has not done enough. but, I really believe Rmoney will just aggravate it more with expanding the wars & foreign labor, while raising taxes even more on the lower & middle class, while lowering taxes for his bud's. luckily - we dont have to elect either one of these - tho - I'd easily take known OK, but not enough, Obama over known etch-a-sketch outsourcing draft dodging Rmoney who has sourounded himself with the same chuckleheads which brought us Iraq.

Huge surprise... you didn't answer the question either, and yet managed to blame both wars for the debt while completely ignoring the fact that welfare and entitlement spending has dwarfed Defense spending over the past 6-7 years.


Todd

i dont blame any one person i think the whole government is F*ed up and needs to be..... "overhauled" *coughs* revolution *coughs* so ya its every one of those politicians faults IMHO

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Huge surprise... you didn't answer the question either, and yet managed to blame both wars for the debt while completely ignoring the fact that welfare and entitlement spending has dwarfed Defense spending over the past 6-7 years. Todd

no they have not. Social Security is NOT a entitlement. Unless you consider anything you pay for an entitlement, which I suppose is valid point - but doesnt fit the arguement you are suggesting.

tho - I agree big time welfare needs a fixin.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: no they have not. Social Security is NOT a entitlement. Unless you consider anything you pay for an entitlement, which I suppose is valid point - but doesnt fit the arguement you are suggesting. tho - I agree big time welfare needs a fixin.

It WAS fixed... Clinton fixed it, Obama has destroyed any positive gains that Clinton had made. It's a free-for-all now. I pretty much would have qualified for lots of government assistance through my entire young adult years.

Oh, and I will NEVER see a dime of the money that I put into Social Security. As far as I'm concerned, it's a socialist welfare scam at this point.


YOUR generation screwed us, and MY generation is too damned stupid to realize that they're getting screwed.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Neutral? Did Ban-Ki-Moon just dub me the head of the United Nations? I wasn't aware that I was neutral. I do suppose that because I've voted for almost as many Democrats as Republicans, that I COULD be considered somewhat neutral, but I'm not. I'm a fiscal conservative, and Obama is the absolute farthest from that. So my question was... if Obama wins again and the economy stays in the **** or gets worse... will the Democrats continue to blame everyone but their own administration? Seems to me this is a very simple question... one that a few of you here are having a real difficult time answering. Todd

Yeah, I guess I don't get it.

You ask:
1. will you (as a Democrat voter) still place the blame on everyone but the administration?
2. Will you still say that somehow, the Republicans are at fault?

1. Are you stating that Democratic voters "place the blame on everyone but the administration"?

All Democratic voters?
And If even some do, that's a statement, not a question.
At the very least, it's leading.

2. Are you stating that Democratic voters "STILL say that the Republicans are at fault"?

All Democratic voters?
Either way, how is "STILL say that the Republicans are at fault" a question?
It's a statement.

At any point, it was more of a statement of what you think Democrats have done then it was a question about what thay will do.

No?
Here is your thread title: "If Obama wins re-election, will people who voted for him still ignore reality?"

Now, is that the people that voted for him saying they ignored reality, or is that YOUR opinion of what the people who voted for him did?
You are accussing someone of ignoring reality, not asking if they did.

I just see the whole thing as less of a question and more of a statement about what you think of Democrats.

Be honest, did you really just want to know who people thought the Democrats are going to blame between Obama & Republicans, if Obama is relected and continuing on the same way he has been going? Was that really the question?

Or was this just kinda' a swipe at how dumb you see Democrats as?

Just sayin'.....

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: Obama's income redistribution or Romney's pay down debt and encourage industies growth.

Interesting choice of words. Romney's tenure at Bain has lead to many bankruptcies and high debt for those companies... Of course, it worked for the fictitious Gordon Gecko

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It WAS fixed... Clinton fixed it, Obama has destroyed any positive gains that Clinton had made. It's a free-for-all now. I pretty much would have qualified for lots of government assistance through my entire young adult years. Oh, and I will NEVER see a dime of the money that I put into Social Security. As far as I'm concerned, it's a socialist welfare scam at this point. YOUR generation screwed us, and MY generation is too damned stupid to realize that they're getting screwed.

sure about that? never seemed "fixed" to me. and, not sure what Obama did except let states have more power to control. I suppose if them states, which were they?, decide to allow it to be free for all - well that does blow.

and why wont you see any SS? because the money was hijacked to pay for Iraq? and will never be paid back...?

and, my generation? which one is that??

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: YOUR generation screwed us....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: and, my generation? which one is that??

I wanna' know, too.
I'm a workin' man.
How did I screw anyone?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-02-2012).]

Maybe the Gray Panthers?

quote As of 2005, the organization supported a single-payer healthcare system, as well as an increase in welfare payments, pacifism, "lifelong public education", the rights of workers, reproductive rights, abolition of the death penalty, legalization of same-sex marriage, the legalization of medical marijuana, and environmentalism through advocacy, education and action.

Yup, I think they are the ones. Down with gray hair!

If he gets re elected, I dont want to hear any of you pro Obama people making any complaints about anything. You will deserve exactly what your going to get. I just hope enough people have woke up from fantasyland to get rid of him. We already have had a full day of early voting here in Ohio. There not even waiting for a debate. I will probably watch the debate and Ill be taking notes. Be the first debate Ive ever seen or gave a crap about.

82-T/A [At Work], you got your answer. You'll get deflection, argument and accusations of dishonesty on your part, but you'll get NO admission of any responsibility for anything by Obama or the Democrats - unless it's something they like.

If you live on Obamabucks, you probably could care less...until the country goes bankrupt and the gravy train stops.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: 82-T/A [At Work], you got your answer. You'll get deflection, argument and accusations of dishonesty on your part, but you'll get NO admission of any responsibility for anything by Obama or the Democrats - unless it's something they like.

As for myself, I could not answer the question, as I am not a Democrat.
Once again, reading comprehension would serve many here well.

The title says it all.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: As for myself, I could not answer the question, as I am not a Democrat. Again, reading comprehension. The title says it all.

Reading comprehension is a two way street in a conversation.
Dishonesty comes in many forms, some cloaked in feigned ignorance or innocence.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: This sentence reveals the true nature of the questions dishonesty.

If a tree falls in the forest, and a Democrat isn't around to hear it, is it still Bush's fault?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Reading comprehension is a two way street in a conversation. Dishonesty comes in many forms, some cloaked in feigned ignorance or innocence.

Exactly.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Romney's tenure at Bain has lead to many bankruptcies and high debt for those companies.

Bain Capital is an investment company. They have MANY success stories, like Staples (they aren't bankrupt, are they?). It is pretty rare to be successful all the time in business.

The only way you can profit from buying a company and bankrupting it would be if they had a lot of hard assets (equipment, land) and you could figure out how to get it for pennies on the dollar. But that is not a very high-odds way to try to make a living.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Corporations had no problem with Clinton. I think people are gun-shy about spending money as the middle class was hit hard. The wealthy, well, they made all the money back that they lost. The rest of us who don't have the flexibility within our retirement, well... we are stuck and afraid that we will be bailing out wall street and banks, again. I believe people/corporation are worried if Romney gets in there. He is not a cut/dry republican. He has changed his spots many times to become the nomination. The middle class don't see Romney as the job creator either.... so.... those with low pay or no job.... well, they won't spend either. We need good paying jobs here in the US and I don't see it happening in either case (Obama/Romney).....sigh. BTW, how many corporations really pay taxes. GE... didn't they pay zero?

I couldn't have said it better!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The thing about Boondawg, nice guy that he seems to be, is that he's "radically neutral". He doesn't seem to really stand for anything in particular. He's so busy trying not to step on anyone's toes, that he's stepping on his own.

And once again, that theroy is hogwash.
How would YOU know what I "stand" for.
Have I told you?
Is it any of your's or anyone else's busness?
Just because YOU don't know what I stand for, don't mean I don't stand.

The idea itself is absurd.
No grown man can get to 50 without standing for things.
I stood at 14 and declared my independence from my Fathers protection & support, and have supported myself ever sense.
I stood for me & my familys future enough to find a new life in a new state, on my own.
I have stood for taking in several other peoples children.
Just recently I stood for another man at work, against overwhelming opposistion.
Right here at Pennocks I have stood against false accusations against others, unwarrented attacks on others, and the underdog in general.

And I am not neutral, I am impartial.
There's a difference.

I could go on forever on all the things I have stood and stand for, but it would be of no real use to you.
Simply because I won't stand for the things YOU (or anyone else) want me to, on demand.

But to say I don't stand for anything is just plain silly.
And dishonest, as you have seen me stand up to you MANY times.

If you actually think about it, you will admitt that you were dead wrong.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The thing about Boondawg, nice guy that he seems to be, is that he's "radically neutral". He doesn't seem to really stand for anything in particular. He's so busy trying not to step on anyone's toes, that he's stepping on his own.

It's not that he's trying to avoid stepping on toes. He's trying to tapdance all around the point he's trying to make without having to come out and make a point.
It's the internet equivalent of the child poking his finger within a fraction of an inch of your face while yelling "I'm not touching you!"

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: ... You will deserve exactly what your we are going to get.

Fixed it for ya. We will pay for what they think they want.

[This message has been edited by Xyster (edited 10-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It's not that he's trying to avoid stepping on toes. He's trying to tapdance all around the point he's trying to make without having to come out and make a point. It's the internet equivalent of the child poking his finger within a fraction of an inch of your face while yelling "I'm not touching you!"

Is that opinion, or fact?
What makes you think it's a point that i'm not making, and not just an observation?
And why is that distinction so importent to you?

I say exactly what I feel like saying, in exactly the way I feel like saying it.
I don't even consider weather or not it is what you or anyone else want's to hear.
It's what I want to say.
With or without your "approval" of what constitutes "A Stand".

Once again, you fail at telling others what i'm about.