President Obama Re-Elected - Page 560

On September 21 2012 12:49 DetriusXii wrote:


So if you were in favour of a single tax income tax structure on corporations, then what do you suppose should happen to the limited liabilities of a corporation? A small business owner that takes on debt or gets sued for misconduct is still held responsible for the debt after the business shuts down. Why would anyone choose a small business structure rather than a corporate structure if a corporate structure would offer all the advantages of a small business structure without the responsibilities the owners of a small business have to a small business?

On September 21 2012 13:52 Sanctimonius wrote:
Not sure his foreign policy is going up in flames. By all accounts abroad, Obama is far more popular, as is the US, than it ever was under Bush. Seems like a plus.

On September 21 2012 11:49 Darknat wrote:
Which state does everyone live in and who are you going to vote for?

I live in Oregon and am voting for Romney.

On September 21 2012 11:51 Defacer wrote:


He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.

People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?

He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.

On September 21 2012 12:00 xDaunt wrote:

It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.

On September 21 2012 14:39 Sanctimonius wrote:
I agree that he hasn't been able to bridge the divide and get people together to work towards his aims. But I do wonder how much is his failure and how much is him having to deal with a very hostile Congress?

On September 21 2012 13:52 Sanctimonius wrote:
Not sure his foreign policy is going up in flames. By all accounts abroad, Obama is far more popular, as is the US, than it ever was under Bush. Seems like a plus.

On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote:
The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention.

Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood?

I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections

On September 21 2012 11:51 Defacer wrote:


He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.

People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?

He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.

On September 20 2012 07:32 Danglars wrote:

Essential services are businesses. Hospitals are out there to make a profit, and they aren't managed by government, not yet. They pay their doctors, their staff, their administrators, and the engineers, maintenance staff, and everybody else out of them. Owning a car for me in my business is very important, and the ability to drive easily to a place dedicated to filling up my fuel tank is an essential service, the gasoline an essential product.

I have in the past, and may again in the future, go without insurance for a time. I paid for my hospital visits. I balk at the notion that a young, healthy person may be compelled to buy insurance and levied fines or taxes for his non purchase. I'd do the same if I paid fees or taxes for non purchase of adequate vegetables every week conforming to healthy eating habits. So these "shoulds" formed by Englightened Ones are nothing but an attack on personal freedom in the guise of helping the masses. You should buy health insurance for youself, therefore you will do so under penalty of our fees.

Not only that, but we also know how to better manage health care companies than the companies themselves, so we're going to heap regulation upon regulation about what you can and cannot do in business. This service must be included whether your customer wants it or not, you're gonna charge him for it and not let him opt out. I'm not against provisions to prevent fraud in insurance plans, for example, saying what catastrophic health insurance means beyond just terms. The minimum of regulations and let the market do the rest. I'm against these community ratings, preventing realistic costs to be assigned to how much the insurer will likely pay for for the insured across the life of the plan term.

On September 21 2012 13:52 Sanctimonius wrote:
Not sure his foreign policy is going up in flames. By all accounts abroad, Obama is far more popular, as is the US, than it ever was under Bush. Seems like a plus.

Of course things aren't exactly going well for anyone in the Middle East, what with the fallout from the Arab Spring - who's fault is that, exactly? The dictators in the area who are, frankly, finally getting their comeuppance or the president of the US? Reading Krauthammer there, I can't help but feel that he is lamenting the fall of US unilateral influence in the area, that for some reason America demanding, or propping up regimes with grotesque human rights violations is something to be glorified. Let's face it, the US was happy with a number of countries in the Middle East because they were stable - fuck human rights, democracy, anything along those lines that the US has trumpeted championing. The strongest US ally in the region was Egypt - sorry, I mean Mubarak. A dictator in all but name who quashed political discourse, religious groups and really any opposition. The reason why the ME now seems so scary to the US is because they don't control it anymore - these countries have risen up against the status quo, largely on their own. The problem with that is we can't control who rises when there is a vacuum - I agree with Krauthammer on that score, politics, like nature, cannot leave a vacuum. As the world found with free elections in Palestine, you can't control free elections and you can't guarantee you'll like who wins.

On September 21 2012 14:01 xDaunt wrote:


I really don't understand this preoccupation with "popularity" abroad. Who gives a rat's ass about whether foreigners love the US unless the US is actually getting something out of it? The Middle East and Russia are two perfect examples of Obama trying to curry favor and love. It hasn't exactly gone well. Like I mentioned previously, respect and, in some cases, fear are what we need.



Right, that is exactly what Krauthammer is touching on: the lack of American influence in the Middle East. However, Krauthammer isn't lamenting the fall of dictators so much as he is lamenting the failure of the US to fill the void created by those fallen dictators. He's criticizing Obama for withdrawing from the Middle East and mismanaging the arenas where he has stayed engaed (Syria and Afghanistan immediately come to mind).

On September 21 2012 12:00 xDaunt wrote:

It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.

On September 21 2012 14:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:

California. Not voting. The notion my vote will change my state either way is laughable.

On September 21 2012 14:47 Souma wrote:


Congress is probably 75% of the problem. The other 25% comes from Obama pissing off his own party at times too.

On September 21 2012 15:32 Zooper31 wrote:


Doesn't even matter if Obama had 100% control of every democrat in washington, he wouldn't get anything done. Simply because the Republicans own enough votes and their goal is to vote the opposite on w/e Obama does so he doesn't get anything done. Then blame him for getting nothing done and use that as their motto and evidence that hes a bad president.