I also like Rom-Con: When he promises that he’ll make everything better but he won’t tell you how until he’s elected.
You really do have a serious problem posting things relevant to the thread you are in, don’t you? I hope there is a pill you can take for that. In fact, maybe it would be covered under Obamacare.
It’s an ineffective tactic because, like the dog on the car, it can be turned back on him very easily, showing that he’s a hypocrite. Obamnesia: conveniently forgetting to mention:
[ul][li]the lousy economy that Obama made worse[/li][li]the weak and amateurish foreign policy making the international situation worse [/li][li]that Obama is now campaigning in exactly the way he accused the Republicans of doing in 2008: “…if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”[/li]etc.[/ul]Only you Obama fans think it’s effective. Continue in your fantasies, by all means.
Nah, “Obamnesia” comes across as a pathetic reply by a schoolboy. You can’t just flip it like that and be taken seriously as a coiner of pithy phrases. You have to be originalish, and “Romnesia” came first.
[quote=“rowrrbazzle, post:43, topic:638285”]
It’s an ineffective tactic because, like the dog on the car, it can be turned back on him very easily, showing that he’s a hypocrite. Obamnesia: conveniently forgetting to mention:
[ul][li]the lousy economy that Obama made worse[/li][li]the weak and amateurish foreign policy making the international situation worse [/li][li]that Obama is now campaigning in exactly the way he accused the Republicans of doing in 2008: “…if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”[/li][li]etc.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Your first two statements are just easily disproved talking points (see, e.g., here for what actually happened to the economy after Obama took office) which don’t relate to the actual topic at hand of completely forgetting your previous positions and adopting new ones conveniently more moderate than what you said before and those of most of the people you are now way-indebted to.
As for making the election about small things: Is it a small thing that…
(1) Romney has a tax plan that costs $5 trillion and gives the rich a huge windfall but that he claims he’ll implement along with other changes that leave it revenue-neutral and with the rich paying at least as much as they do now but he won’t tell people any details of the plan? And, when one of the most respected organizations on tax analysis and policy points out that it is mathematically impossible to do all those things, Romney responds by citing “6 studies” that turn out to be little more than op-eds by people associated with his campaign or analysis which is based on fantasy supply-side assumptions? And yet, he wants us to trust him that he’ll do it in the way he claims he will?
(2) Romney has made very clear his anti-choice position and his position on Roe v Wade and has made himself highly-indebted to people who are expecting him to act on this position, e.g., when Supreme Court vacancies occur but that he is now denying these positions to pander for women’s votes?
(3) Romney has made the fact that he was a successful businessman the centerpiece of his campaign (since he can’t run on his mediocre record as a governor where his signature achievement was to pass a health care law that was the model for the ObamaCare law that he now vows to repeal)? And yet, he has refused more than any other recent Presidential candidate to release to the public enough financial records so that we can actually judge how he handled his finances in light of the huge responsibility he is asking us to bestow on him?
(4) Romney basically lies to the public by telling them that he would not repeal the part of ObamaCare that precludes insurance companies from not covering pre-existing conditions but that every time after this lie is repeated, his campaign has to walk-back his promise to being that he will just keep provisions regarding pre-existing conditions that have been the law of the land since the 1990s?!?
It is you who are living in a fantasyworld. We are reality-based.
It’s been awfully effective in making you Romney fans hilariously sulky.
There are no Romney fans. Just Obama haters.
I’m a lukewarm Romney fan. Not a fan of his fakeness, but respectful of his management and leadership skills. He just may be exactly the guy this country needs at this point in time.
The only problem Romney can fix is our nation’s wilting flowerbeds.
[quote=“rowrrbazzle, post:43, topic:638285”]
It’s an ineffective tactic because, like the dog on the car, it can be turned back on him very easily, showing that he’s a hypocrite. Obamnesia: conveniently forgetting to mention:
[ul][li]the lousy economy that Obama made worse[/li][li]the weak and amateurish foreign policy making the international situation worse [/li][li]that Obama is now campaigning in exactly the way he accused the Republicans of doing in 2008: “…if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”[/li][li]etc.[/ul]Only you Obama fans think it’s effective. Continue in your fantasies, by all means.[/li][/QUOTE]
I’m curious to see how you might attempt to support that argument with details. Obama inherited an economy brought to the brink of ruin by deregulation, and introduced stimulus measures which turned things around in a relatively short period of time. How is the U.S. economy worse than it was at the beginning of his term? Hello - the last time this happened on a similar scale, it took* fifteen years* to recover.
You think the your foreign policy situation is worse than it was from 2000 - 2008? By what measure? You are just getting your shit together after screwing the pooch in a monumentally embarrassing way - and it is all cleanup work. What mess has the Obama administration made, while they have been busy putting everything back in order?
You want to talk economics, and seem to be in a hurry to get a serving of what Massachusetts got under Romney’s leadership: More taxes, less jobs, cuts to services, below-par employment stats, and the rest. (That’s leaving alone social issues such as reduction of sensible sex education, weakening of access to abortion, a stance on gun control that would offend most Republicans.)
Not to mention the inescapable fact that electing Romney will encourage the rest of the world (apart from maybe Sam Stone) to believe that Americans really are incomprehensibly thick people. It’s been almost* four years* since your voting habits have singled you out a bunch of masochists; we’re getting used to thinking of you as just as bright as anyone else.
(* Apologies for wine, if appropriate.)
Well, we’d like to get the kind of fiscal management Canada got during the 90s and 00s, but unfortunately no one here is bold enough to cut spending that much.
Canada does a perfectly adequate job of being Canada, I see no good reason for America to muscle in on their action. And I’m sure that one is quite enough.
Actually no one has that power in the US. Of course Obama would love to implement major measures but the House continues to filabuster especially on crucial tax reform. So until Williard’s buddies start paying their fair share, the country will never see real progress.
The austerity measures taken in the 90’s and early 2000’s in Canada was that of the majority Liberal Party, similar to the Dems in the Us with a centralist right leaning fiscal policy, but a party that is left of centre on social issues and immigration. The previous conservative tory government spent like drunken sailors. In particular the then finance minister and socially liberal Catholic Paul Martin re-structured the Canada Pension Plan (social security) and there were major cuts to health care. He went on national television to explain the measures with graphs and charts and consultations, but unlike government today, he implemented the plans.
Moreover, the Canadian people bit the bullet. Nobody likes not having services once enjoyed, but the future of social security and future livelyhood for the youth of the nation was at stake.
I can’t tell if that’s meant to be ironic or not. During the '90s and '00s, our national debt steadily fell about 35% under “Liberal” government, and has begun rising again since the “Conservatives” regained power.
This, without surprise, perfectly mirrors the way that national debt has generally increased in the U.S. under Republican leadership and fallen under Democratic leadership.
Equally shocking is that the WSJ, the Washington Times, et al, are endorsing Romney. You’ve once again made no point in this thread other than to cry like the little girl you are.
Or, at least, no point that is actually relevant to the topic of this thread.
But, as already mentioned, that seems to be the typical MO for our friend adaher.
[quote=“rowrrbazzle, post:43, topic:638285”]
It’s an ineffective tactic because, like the dog on the car, it can be turned back on him very easily, showing that he’s a hypocrite. Obamnesia: conveniently forgetting to mention:
[ul][li]the lousy economy that Obama made worse[/li][li]the weak and amateurish foreign policy making the international situation worse [/li][li]that Obama is now campaigning in exactly the way he accused the Republicans of doing in 2008: “…if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”[/li][li]etc.[/ul]Only you Obama fans think it’s effective. Continue in your fantasies, by all means.[/li][/QUOTE]
Even if all these points were true (they aren’t), they’re still an entirely different animal than the behavior being characterized as “Romnesia.” The behavior in question is the way Romney regularly reverses and reverts himself on his stated policy positions. None of the criticisms you list refers to a reversal of a policy position taken by Obama. You might be able to make some headway in this direction by pulling up some of the campaign promises Obama failed to carry through on from his first campaign, but even then, you’re comparing consistent stances taken during a campaign, with consistent stances taken during his presidency - which is a definite weakness for Obama. But Romney can’t seem to hold to one position on almost any given topic for more than a week. Trying to turn this line of criticism on Obama isn’t going to be an effective tactic - with Obama, you can at least look at how he’s governed in office, and, for better or for worse, expect more of the same of that, because whatever the disparities between his campaign promises and his actions as President, he’s been largely consistent in his action since he’s taken the office.
Don’t insult other posters in this forum. That said, adaher, you’re not contributing anything to the thread right now. Stick to the topic of this thread or go post in another discussion.
How would we know?
Doesn’t seem to be the language of a winning campaign.