It would be nice if they had a guide that wasn't tainted with bias.
I wish comparisons like this were required viewing before everyone voted.
It's amazing where people really stand when they learn what their candidate
really stands for.And can someone get a copy of this list to Mitt
ASAP? I know by the time it's in his hands, he'll have changed his
position on half the items again, but this might be a good way for him to
understand what he stands for, or did stand for, or perhaps still stands for, or
doesn't stand for anymore.
Of course williary likes it. It's designed to make Obama's
accomplishments seem significant and his failures out of his control
(Bush's fault), while it mocks Romney's stances on many issues.
That's what I mean by having a voter guide untainted with bias. This
doesn't truly reflect the issues. It's almost a "Why you should
vote for Obama" guide, courtesy of the media (go figure).
I love Obama's new campaign slogan: "Forward!" To where? More
deficit spending? More 8% unemployment. More tax policy based on Obama's
definition of fairness, rather than based on paying for the government? I'd just like someone to explain how the next four years are going
to be better than the past four. Will it still be Bush's fault if the
economy isn't on track in 2016? What, specifically, is Obama going to do
to get things moving? Or is this the new normal?
@Riverton CougarOf course it sounds like mocking when anyone
actually sits down and lays out the monumental swings on important positions
that Mitt has had the last decade. Which of these accomplishments
is more significant:Pulling the country out of a Depression orRunning on your business smarts and economic ability while
you led Massachusettes to the 47th strongest job growth state during your time
as GovernorPS, it was Bush's fault for the Depression. Stone
When it is set out like this, my vote has to go to Obama.
@williary"it was Bush's fault for the Depression. Stone
cold fact."No, it was the collapse of the housing market. Both
parties share blame in that.
Williary-Stone cold fact; We were never in a depression. Stone cold fact; 4 years of trillion dollar defeceits. Stone cold
fact; Obama care will be found unconstitutional. Stone cold fact;
Fast and furious.Stone cold fact; SOLYNDRA.
Stone cold fact: Cold Stone is delicious. (couldn't resist)@MickSolyndra is so minor in the scheme of things. Goodness, do you go
after Bain because a company Romney took over failed? By the way Romney wants to
cut taxes by 20% and raise defense spending, how do you think he's going to
balance the budget or get anywhere close? (There's a reason he doesn't
show his math on it and even this guide shows his cuts are vaguely defined). @williaryThat 47th ranking is kinda relative. Consider this,
Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of population growth in the nation. So
the need for jobs is slower than a state like Utah with the highest birth rate
(and as Huntsman noted #1 in job creation). So it'd be useful to have these
numbers in context. For instance, if Romney inherited a low unemployment rate it
probably wasn't going to drop much (I don't know what it was when he
got in or left and how that compares to national average during that span).
Mick, you are being silly here. If Solyndra is so shocking to you, you had
better review the fact that over 30 percent of the companies Romney backed,
failed. If Obama's one investment disqualifies him, well then please
apply the same standard to Mit.I do agree that placing the blame
solelly on Bush is wrong. It was decades of bad policy that resulted in the
collapse. And to be really clear, the housing market didn't come to its
knees because demand for housing went away, rather, it was the collapse in
lending that killed the housing market. A deeply unregulated financial industry
created a home loan pyramid scheme that ultimately failed, knocking all consumer
lending out of control. It was the lack of enforced regulation that was the
catalyst. Bush was just the unfortunate chap to have the first domino fall
during his Presidency.Also blaming Obama for spending the money to
save the economy is a bit far fetched as well. Even a tea party republican
would not have been able to sit idly by and fiddle as the financial markets
burned. What was done was because of need, not desire.
I do want to say I am not just an "Obama Puppet". Yes, I am leaning
toward him in re-election, but there is a long time between now and November,
and I am willing to be open minded.What I don't like is either
side casting their "opponent" in absurd terms. Obama is no more all
evil than Romney is all Saint. Both have issues that I struggle with. When
Romney ran in 2008, I was excited about the possibility of a fellow LDS person
hold the highest office in the land. I also appreciated his moderated views - I
thought it showed he actually had his own mind and was not just a shell for a
party. But then he twisted and turned, flipped and flopped, and it started to
look like he was just bending to appease what was popular.Obama, I
think does strike a balance. He is hardly anti-military or guns, like many want
to believe. He hasn't been week on Terrorism as promised by our former VP.
He hasn't driven the dollar to being worthless, nor has gold gone to 4,000
as promised by Beck. Obama perfect though - hardly.
If someone thinks this article is biased in favor of Obama, I would suggest that
it is only because reality has a liberal bias. The article seems to do a good
job of holding both candidates accountable for not just present but past
positions on issues. It also holds the President accountable for his actiions
even if that includes 8% unemployment within the confines of an economy that
ceased to be in a recession six months after his inaguration, and has posititve
growth since. I've said it many times before and will continue
to say it reality is not Mitts friend. Just yesterday his campaign tried to
take credit for the saving of general motors (Mitts plan managed bankruptcy
without government money..impossible). Then Mitt later in the day said
flipptanly that of course he would have given the order to get Bin
Laden..forgetting he specifically said Obama was wrong in considering action
inside Pakhistan without notifying Pakhistan first.
tweedle dee and tweedle dum! Is there any person out here in la la land that
believes that either political party represents the values of constitutional
government and a God fearing citizenry?
I read about 3 of the issues and could not force myself to read any more. I
don't know why anyone publishes such slanted liberal propaganda like this.
Conservatives see right through it and harden their resolve to fight it.
Liberals just blissfuly feed off it. It changes no one'sind.
That is an interesting, and very accurate, assessment of the positions of both
candidates. It sets forth both strengths and lackings, successes and failures,
and is neither biased nor propaganda for either side. I know that
proponents on both sides of the election would like to see their candidate shown
as being on the side of the angels and the opponent shown as being akin to
Beelzebub, but that is neither real nor realistic.Whoever prepared
this assessment did an excellent job.
Romney supporters who receive most of their news from spin-meisters have a hard
time dealing with facts when laid out in plain english before them, and seem to,
when cornered by the truth, resort to attacking the messenger as being liberally
bias. One thing this newspaper isn't is "Liberally Bias." When I used to listen to one of the spinmeisters, they would alway hang up or
shout down someone with the facts as having it backward or liberal liars, but
never address the facts, this is one of the reasons I couldn't listen, I
was interested in the truth, and it was avoided more than confronted.
To "pragmatistferlife" the article has a liberal bias because the writer
has a liberal bias. Life does not have a liberal bias, if anything, liberalism
is a learned ideology.Just ask any kid if they will do some hard
work so that another able bodied kid can just sit around and play.Also FYI, after receiving government money GM did go through a managed
bankruptcy.To "A1994" Obama's new theme is more
interesting when you look at the history of using the word "Forward" as
part of a political movement. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin created a
commuist magazine titled "Forward". In NAZI Germany they had a march
for the Hitler Youth titled "Forward, Forward". Vladimir Lenin had a
publication titled "Forward". The socialists in Germany have a
newspaper titled "Forward" which has had such notable writers as
Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky contributing to it.
Red Shirt..once again..I said Mitts plan was for a managed bankruptcy without
government money..meaning a managed bankruptcy with private money..that was
impossible. A managed bankruptcy takes someones money.Also I said
reality not life has a liberal bias. That's why America has become more
liberal (SS, medicare, civil rights, welfare saftey net work)over time. It has
to there is no other choice if it wants to exsist and flourish.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut…, if anything, liberalism is a
learned ideology.To "A1994" Obama's new theme is more
interesting when you look at the history of using the word "Forward" as
part of a political movement. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin created a
commuist magazine titled "Forward".================= Yes – I suppose Liberalism is a learned ideology. Jesus
taught it.As opposed to the Dog-eat-dot, Law of the Jungle world
Conservatives cling to.And you associate Karl Marx, Communism and
the Nazis to the word “Forward” as being evil?Where did you
hear that? Don’t tell me – Glenn Beck.Therefore; Eternal
Progression, this great cause moving forward, ...do and overcome all things as
we press forward on our journey of mortality…. As you move forward in
patience and in faith, ...and the fortitude that enable us to press forward with
cheerfulness through physical limitations and spiritual...Forward Pressing
Forward….etc.Forward is not evil RedShirt…..how absurd.
To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately liberalism was not taught by Jesus.
Liberalism is what Caeser practiced.Read "Luke 12:13-1513
And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he
divide the inheritance with me.14 And he said unto him, Man, who
made me a judge or a divider over you?15 And he said unto them, Take
heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the
abundance of the things which he possesseth."You can go to the
Gateway Pundant and watch the Nazi "Forward" march, complete with
subtitls.If Jesus was a modern liberal, he would have divided the
inheritance.Actually you can get teh information from the Washington
Times article "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism".
The BBC also did an article on Mao, where they explain that he called his
movement "Great Leap Forward".Don't you find it ironic
that Obama is using the same or a similar slogan that some of the greatest
murderers used in their political campaigns? By agreeing with it as a campaign
slogan, aren't you agreeing with evil tyrants?
Obama's zombie followers could care less where he stands on issues - they
don't even know what the issues are. These clueless masses vote for him
regardless - unemployment could be 50% and they don't care because they
don't work anyway ... nor do they want to. The fed gov is there to give
them their money 'owed' to them and Obama is Santa Claus.
"Forward" is also the state motto of Wisconsin. Is the entire state of
Wisconsin a socialist/communist plot?This whole "Forward is a
communist phrase" thing is beyond ridiculous. For a political
wing who claims to want to talk about "issues", the right-wing sure is
spending a lot of time whipping themselves into frenzies over the most trivial
@Redshirt1701"Don't you find it ironic that Obama is using
the same or a similar slogan that some of the greatest murderers used in their
political campaigns? By agreeing with it as a campaign slogan, aren't you
agreeing with evil tyrants?"That is a textbook example of the
Association Fallacy."An association fallacy is an inductive
informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts
that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an
irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by
association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case
of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion."I
sincerely hope your occupation does not rely on good logic skills.
To "UtahCentrist" if you bothered to look into the history of the
Wisconsin slogan, it predates the communist movement. When it was adopted,
there was not a negative history associated with the word. However, now it has
been co-opted by Socialists/Marxists/Communists into their vocabulary.It isn't Association Fallacy. You forget that Obama has admitted that he
asociated with Marxists. Many of his appointed advisors have significant
connections to socialists or are self avowed socialists/communists.There is no Association Fallacy, just a connection of the dots.
@Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "LDS Liberal" unfortunately
liberalism was not taught by Jesus. Liberalism is what Caeser practiced.--------------- Whatever…, And Conservatism is what
the Pharisee’s practiced.BTW - Jesus had no qualms with Caesar
or Rome or with Taxes, he even forgave them from crucifying him.He did however, take serious issue with the Pharisee’s (Conservatives)
[i.e.,The Church at the time, the Ultra-Religious, the Rich, and the
overzealous Law abiders] many times over and over again.Because, they
should have known better.What was that he called them again, oh ya –
Alright RedShirt, two can play this game.If you bothered to look
into the history of political use of the color Red, it predates the communist
movement. When it was adopted, there was not a negative history associated with
the color. However, now it has been co-opted by Socialists/Marxists/Communists
into their visual iconography. Therefore, anyone else who uses the color red as
their political color (Republicans) is a communist as well.See, it
isn't enough to simply "connect the dots." You have to do it in a
way that makes sense. If you don't bother to follow the basic rules of the
game, you can make any sort of "connection" you want. If I do a
"connect-the-dots" drawing, ignoring the numbers and the logical
connections in the sequence, I can draw whatever picture I want, no matter how
silly or disconnected from reality I want. It doesn't even have to resemble
anything coherent, even if all the dots are "connected"It's the same with politics. If I cherry pick facts and invent other
"facts" you can make any argument you want. But all it looks like is
re:RedShirtWashington Times-Sun Myung Moon's publication? It
is Republicans who idolize those who are wealthy and adopt policies to further
enrich them, while cutting heating subsidies for the poor during winter. After Pres. Obama, the second most powerful Democrat in the U.S. is a
Mormon who has a higher rating by pro-life organizations than pro-choice
organizations. Therein lies the difference between the Republican
Party and the Democratic Party. Republicans are focused on party
purity, purging any who are moderate or those who dare compromise. As soon as
Obama took the oath of office, the stated goal was to make sure he failed. Pathetic. Governing and problem-solving requires compromise.
"If Jesus was a modern liberal, he would have divided the
inheritance."Oh you mean like in the parable of the workers,
where some worked all day long, and others worked only part of the day. At the
end of the work day, all were paid the same, and those who worked all day
murmured that it was fair. And the master responded that he would be the judge
who gets what, and that it was his right to bless all equally, no matter how
long they worked..... Matthew 20:1–16Is that what you were
talking about?Comparing Obama with Nazsm - not really the way to get
reasonable people to listen to you. It actually is a bit scary some would go to
such depths to try to justify their own beliefs. This is what it makes it hard
for me to even consider supporting a conservative, such rhetoric.
atl134"Solyndra is so minor in the scheme of things. Goodness,
do you go after Bain because a company Romney took over failed?"BIG difference. Romney and his colleagues were using COMPANY money. It was
the risk of their own money that was on the line. If it failed, it hurt
them.Solyndra was used with taxpayer money. When my money is used,
and it fails, it hurts me. I don't appreciate the federal government
gambling with my money. My taxes should pay for roads, the military, and other
national defense programs. They should not be used to encourage PRIVATE
companies because "it sounds like a good idea". If you and
your little buddies want to spend your own money then go ahead. But don't
force me into paying for it as well. And when it fails, don't say that you
need more money to throw away. The government has no right to
decide who should succeed and who should fail. That's the private sector
UtahBlueDevilYou completely misinterpret that
parable...obviously.In the parable it also states that the workers
AGREED to get paid their wage at the beginning of the day, so that's what
the master gave them. He didn't cheat anyone. But I do agree
that comparing Obama to a Nazi is not a good way to have a discussion. Anyone
who uses such rhetoric needs to argue their point more intelligently.
re;TOOBain was primarily risking OTHER people's money, not their own.
Bain charged and collected fees even as some of the companies they took over
were going bankrupt. Solyndra--small potatoes compared to the major
miscalculation called the war in Iraq, the lives lost the trillion spent and the
billions never accounted for.
TruthseekerI have gone on record dozens of times saying I did not
agree with the war. I was never old enough to vote for Bush and had I been of
age, I would not have voted for him.Just so you know, I did not vote
for McCain either.
To "LDS Liberal" as I have pointed out before, the Pharasees are more
akin to todays modern liberals. Here are some reasons why liberals are more
like Pharasees:The pharasees saw the scriptures as something up for
translation and based their beliefs on writings about the law, and not the law
itself.The pharasees were mainly the wealthy, recent studies show
that those who claim to be liberals have more money than those that claim to be
conservatives.The pharasees were socially liberal.The
pharasees attacked any non conformist, just like liberals do today.The Pharasees were trying to reform society to their idea of a communal
utopian society.The pharasees were revolutionaries, just like todays
liberal OWS group.Just like today's liberals, they believed in
a strict observance of God's laws, but failed to understand the deeper
meaning (this is why they didn't figure out that Jesus was the Son of
God).If you wish, we can discuss how modern liberalism is in direct
contradiction to LDS teachings.
@TOO I totally agree with you. Bain did not used taxpayers money while Solyndra
used taxpayers' money just like BO going to Afghanistan with political
agenda using more taxpayers' money. BO is going to use more taxpayers'
money to advance his personal agenda.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtYou are sooooo twisted, warped and
flat-out wrong on so many levels --- I only have 200 words....Not nearly enough to properly respond to such falsehoods.I have,
however, cut-and pasted this mindless ramble -- and will periodically reply
to....amazing you can be soooo 180 twisted wrong....amazing.
To "LDS Liberal" I have a simple response:Prove it. Give me
some shred of evidence first that you understand the teachings of the church you
claim memebership in that could even disprove the fact that Modern Liberals are
@ Truthseeker:Unfortunately, for your argument, the companies you speak of
hired Bain, willingly I might add, to try to turn things around. Taxpayers,
like me, were not given a choice with solyndra. HUGE difference. and, I will
take a 70% success rate compared to 0% that Obama has on our investments
(Obamacare, chevy Volt, Solyndra, etc)
I don't see a dimes worth of difference between the two. One waves with
his right hand and the other with his left. Both like to say whatever their
audience wants to hear. Don't look at what they say. Look at what they
do. I would love to see a debate between Romney, Obama, and Ron Paul.
Let's have a serious discussion on the course of this country.
Republicans/Democrats - two wings of the same party.