…and some hope:
Rather than Obama destroying the economy, there is a sense emerging that he is merely restraining it. Should Obama lose in November, there will be the greatest collective sigh of relief since 1980 and a yell that all hell will break lose, in the good sense of business activity, commerce, investment, hiring, and resource utilization being unleashed.
Look at it this way: for four years Obama has poked and jabbed at the corralled stallion, and when the gate goes up he will roar out as never before. Or if you are a Greek, try this: for 30 years we have been lectured to death about global warming, the brilliant Ivy League technocrats, the genius of Keynesian borrowing, the need for multiculturalism in the White House, if only we had open borders, why lawyers and academics need to be in charge—all on the “what if” presumption that no one in his right mind would let any of the above become gospel. And so we had the constant liberal whine, “if only.…” Now we have it in the flesh, and in cathartic fashion Obama is going to purge us of that unhinged temptation for another generation.
Plus a bonus discussion of the current state of the no-longer-so-golden state.
So…IF we have an election, and IF Obumble loses, and IF he allows the votes to be counted, and IF he steps aside in January, we’ll be better off, and in a big way?
As usual with this President, a lot more IF then WHEN.
What I’m wondering is whether Obma’s 2008 offer to bribe Reverend Wright with $150,000 to stop preaching until the election was over counted (currently the top of The Drudge Report) counted as an economic investment. It does sum up his entire economic strategy, though. “Pay people not to work. Party!”
Dammit! Don’t tell everyone. My investment strategy is tied up in this.
I may not agree with Rev Wright but I can respect him for sticking to his beliefs.
Ya, no respect for.those who go meekly under the bus.
We have to reelect him now. He’s not only the first black president, but the first gay president as well (something I’m sure Moochelle was interested to discover). So not voting for him would make us both racist and homophobe. I think you can only be one without going to prison…
You only go to prison if you violate sharia or donate to the wrong party.
Like losing your job if you believe less than half of all Muslims are moderates.
Sadly, the Democrats think the Obama is still a short step away from diafacation and the world view that shaped Obama has been inculcated in the leftist youth. We can expect more in the mold of Obama and they will get a lot of support from their base.
Go vote for Obama-Romney and enjoy the status quo.
Idiots.
We are presented with a limited number of choices and then you have to deal with the reality that voting for a preferred candidate will insure that the person you don’t want to be in office will stay there. (true for either party)
Maybe someday in the future we will have better candidates but until then we have to deal with what we got.
We won’t have ‘good’ candidates so long as the MSM is tied SO firmly to the Left.
They do these ’18 y/o Romney went out Gay Bashing’ and ‘GWB dodged his TxANG Duty’ stories to show how bad the Right is. And whether the stories are true or not, you can’t unring a bell.
The flip side of course, on the Left they openly lie for people like Obama and Slick Willy. And if they get caught, the retraction for a week long headline of support for the Dem POTUS, is a page 99, below the fold, between tire sale ads, weasel worded retraction.
IMHO, that chases ‘good’ candidates out of considering a run for the WH. I think Alan West would be a superior POTUS. He’s smart, street smart AND he’s educated, with a strong military background. He’s the Left’s NIGHTMARE Right side candidate.
A successful, educated, African-American who despises what the Left has done to minorities. He’s not afraid to use military force and he knows world history. But he’s just too smart to put himself or his family through the anal probing of MSM political reporting. And I use the term “reporting” loosely here. Hatcheting is a better word.
Under our current system of reporting, Jesus would be re-crucified for turning over the tables in the synagogue and for chasing the demon(s) Legion into the herd of pigs.
He’d be anti-family farm, anti-animal, anti-business, anti-jobs and anti-social.
And I don’t think you’ve got to be a believer to understand those analogies
An idiot would be someone who believes there is no daylight between Obama policies and Romney policies. Just because the latter isn’t perfect does not make the former any good at all.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is how cowards become governed.
All well and good for you to talk tough down in Australia, Trent.
Here are my voting choices:
1) Vote for the left-wing nutbags who tax like crazy and spend even faster.
2) Vote for the slightly more to the right left-wing nutbags who tax like crazy and refuse to spend any of it, while manipulating interest rates more than Keynes would be comfortable with.
3) Vote for the green wackos who, even if they only get a minority, will cripple our one successful industry – mining.
4) Vote for an independent, all of which are either racist nationalists that would make Hitler blush or parochial leeches that make your representatives look like angels.
5) “Donkey” vote.
or
6) Refuse to vote and face fines for the first offense and the risk of prison time for subsequent offenses.
So please, go to the polls, vote for the candidate you want to vote for, even if “you don’t think he can win” and remember that your choices could be a lot worse.
Trent,
I’m not being flippant, but if it’s that bad, why stay there?
Fines and prison time for not voting? Seriously? Yikes!
Life is a choice between the lesser of two evils. There is very rarely a “good” choice.
Except you have a good choice.. and you’re choosing not to choose him.
Who would be that “good choice”?
I think by process of elimination that Trent wants you all to vote for Ron Paul. He’d probably be the best for the nation of the three, but the least likely to win due to the strength of the two traditional parties.
I suspect you are right, Eric. Except, Paul just dropped out as choice.
I’ll be happy when this administration is gone, but the big-spending, hyper-regulatory government wasn’t invented by him, and the Republicans carry a good share of the blame for letting things get out of control.
The fundamental problem is losing the concept of limited government. Unless Romney and a likely GOP Congress are willing to be tough and make major spending cuts, any bump that comes with Obama’s departure will be followed by much the same economic conditions. This isn’t just about investor confidence (though that’s part of the problem), it’s about fundamentals.
Unfortunately, both our major parties are big-government statists, despite any public claims to the contrary. There’s no practical difference between the two, just different methods of achieving the same goal: Government control. Pro Libertate has it right.