Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Gawd, the Conklodyte candidates. Stepping all over themselves to be the sacrificial lamb in 2012.

Have you ever seen such comedy???






Four More Years!!!!

Don't really see the problem in that picture. You idiot democrats look just as stupid arguing when you're going against an incumbent. Go complain about something to another hippie.

You need to read more, 2 of the candidates in your photo are out.


Sent from my iPhone.

Catch phrase for this election season OBAMAGONE

4 More YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-
Country can't survive 4 more years of Ear leader

mrklean wrote:4 More YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd love to see an objective narrative of exactly why this is a good idea.

Its going to take a long time to clean up the mess Bush created.

ASUG8 wrote:

mrklean wrote:4 More YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd love to see an objective narrative of exactly why this is a good idea.

Romney would closely follow many of the same policies as Obama without the ability to jump or dance.

ASUG8 wrote:

mrklean wrote:4 More YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd love to see an objective narrative of exactly why this is a good idea.

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I'd love to see an objective narrative of exactly why this is a good idea.

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

Kind of like Dubya was better than anything the Democrats were offering in 2004. Look where that got us.

UNI88 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

Kind of like Dubya was better than anything the Democrats were offering in 2004. Look where that got us.

So why stop now?

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I'd love to see an objective narrative of exactly why this is a good idea.

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

So, Obama is the lesser of two evils, that's the whole case for 4 more years? Romney isn't my guy either, but I don't see him as necessarily a worse choice than what we have - he'll get the nomination and a lot of Independents will fall in behind him, but I'm not sure the far right and traditional republicans will embrace him. Since I'm more moderate I'll probably fall in with him because Obama has done very little to make me feel that the US is likely to get in better shape due to his policies. The economy will improve as it always does and he'll claim credit for the turnaround although nearly all of it will be the normal business cycle, but that's politics.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I'd love to see an objective narrative of exactly why this is a good idea.

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

Says the lifelong Dem.

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

So, Obama is the lesser of two evils, that's the whole case for 4 more years? Romney isn't my guy either, but I don't see him as necessarily a worse choice than what we have - he'll get the nomination and a lot of Independents will fall in behind him, but I'm not sure the far right and traditional republicans will embrace him. Since I'm more moderate I'll probably fall in with him because Obama has done very little to make me feel that the US is likely to get in better shape due to his policies. The economy will improve as it always does and he'll claim credit for the turnaround although nearly all of it will be the normal business cycle, but that's politics.

There's not much really normal about this business cycle.

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
So, Obama is the lesser of two evils, that's the whole case for 4 more years? Romney isn't my guy either, but I don't see him as necessarily a worse choice than what we have - he'll get the nomination and a lot of Independents will fall in behind him, but I'm not sure the far right and traditional republicans will embrace him. Since I'm more moderate I'll probably fall in with him because Obama has done very little to make me feel that the US is likely to get in better shape due to his policies. The economy will improve as it always does and he'll claim credit for the turnaround although nearly all of it will be the normal business cycle, but that's politics.

There's not much really normal about this business cycle.

The economy has cycles. The downturn we are experiencing is much more severe than other recent downturns but it is still part of the cycle. Presidential policies from 20 years ago will have more to do with when and how we come out of this downturn than anything Obama has done but if we come out of it early and strong enough he will still get credit for it with the voters.

IMO, Obama's stimulus efforts were failures in at least 3 ways:
1) They provided a temporary boost in jobs but failed to actually stimulate the economy.
2) They increased the deficit which raised stability concerns even higher & likely had a negative impact on the economy.
3) The focus on "shovel-ready" projects meant that millions were spent on operational expenses (repaving roads for example) that will need to be redone in a few years and will have little lasting impact. If we were going to spend the money, we should have spent it on infrastructure that would have increased America's competitiveness in the long-term.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
There's not much really normal about this business cycle.

The economy has cycles. The downturn we are experiencing is much more severe than other recent downturns but it is still part of the cycle. Presidential policies from 20 years ago will have more to do with when and how we come out of this downturn than anything Obama has done but if we come out of it early and strong enough he will still get credit for it with the voters.

IMO, Obama's stimulus efforts were failures in at least 3 ways:
1) They provided a temporary boost in jobs but failed to actually stimulate the economy.
2) They increased the deficit which raised stability concerns even higher & likely had a negative impact on the economy.
3) The focus on "shovel-ready" projects meant that millions were spent on operational expenses (repaving roads for example) that will need to be redone in a few years and will have little lasting impact. If we were going to spend the money, we should have spent it on infrastructure that would have increased America's competitiveness in the long-term.

Oh I agree completely. We should be blaming George H. Bush.

Seriously, I agree 100% with this post.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

Says the lifelong Dem.

89Hen = fat ass conk fuck who started the AIDS virus.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I'd love to see an objective narrative of exactly why this is a good idea.

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

Can't get much more clear, detailed, and objective than that, ASUG8. Got to give credit where it's due.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Better than anything the Republicans are offering.

/thread

Can't get much more clear, detailed, and objective than that, ASUG8. Got to give credit where it's due.

Yeah, that shut us all up.

To dback's credit, it is a little difficult to get excited about the players in the GOP this election cycle. Romney seems the most presidential, but I'm not really sold on him. Santorum is too far right for me, Gingrich seems the brightest of the bunch but has a lot of past baggage, Paul has some good ideas offset by some concerns on foreign policy.