Obama's second term agenda

Don't forget the $700 billion for Medicare that Mitt is also promising..........

 

That $700 billion will come from repealing obamacare and restoring the funds to the medicare from which they were stolen.

 

I honestly do not know how/why anyone would vote for BO. I'm missing it. It must be just people who will vote Dem. no matter what. But it mystified me in the nomination as well when he ran in 2008. It was so obvious to me and many others, that he was all speeches and rhetoric but there was nothing there except a HUGE ego and chip on his shoulder. I was a Dem then but I saw he was not Presidential material. I wasn't fooled then. But for people who were fooled then, they had a lot of company. They certainly can't be fooled now.

When BO was shown in split screen with Romney in that first debate, there was no contest. Romney knows what he's talking about. He is experienced. He has good morals. He is smart. He is presidential. And he has a love of this country that frankly I don't believe BO has ever had. There is just no comparison between the two men. Clint Eastwood had it dead right. An empty chair. I said years ago, he was an empty suit. Still is. Nothing has been done but to dig us into deeper debt and mess up our health care. We also look weak in the world now, for the first time in history.

I feel I've gotten to know Romney better now and I TRUST him wholeheartedly. We will all be safe and secure with him in the White house and I believe he will turn the economy around within his first year! With BO, I shudder to think of what his socialist policies will do to us when he has no second term to worry about.

 

And then taken out and given to the ubber rich.
How convenient is that!?

Watch out for low flying pink unicorns!

 

You trust romney?
after all the flip flopping, the lout right lies, the two faced say anything to get elected speeches, you trust romney?
WOW!

 

I, for one, am counting on it.
Presidents set goals and energize through leadership.

Although is some cases they play golf and fund raise instead.

 

Based on everything from your avatar to your post you are a taker. Takers gonna vote for Marxism. Then the system collapses and you starve.

 

There is much wrong here. The second, the one term Marxist, takes from the productive to give to the takers who will vote for him. The first, Romney, will get government out of the way and encourage through policy, wealth creation. I do not yet know you well enough to understand why you do not see the difference.

One is seldom impeached for the action. One might be impeached for the lies and the cover-up.

You talk like a leftist.
Torture? LOL. Yeah, making someone uncomfortable is torture. Awesome.
Who is being held as criminal suspects without due process?

In your opinion what should we think of a president who has an Ambassador killed on his watch and then lies about the cause for the next two or three weeks? What should we think of a man who is so cold and callous that he heads off to fund raisers the day after?

 

"Does Mitt know how he is going to pay for the 5 trillion in tax cuts or the 2 trillion in defense spending... yet?"

Taxcutter says:
Start with "Repeal ObamaTax," "Repeal Dodd-Frank," "Eliminate Department of Education," "Eliminate Department of Energy," "Eliminate Amtrak," "Liquidate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," and go on form there.

 

Obama's agenda is very clear to me Socialism and Deficits over 1 trillion dollars dbl that of Bush that was chastised for 500 Bill deficits. My guess is many liberals don’t understand that 500 Billion is a smaller # than 1 Trillion. The Binder stuff is awesome and one of the most telling signs of desperation when Libs want to focus on BS rather than the issues, and I find it infinitely funny that they can’t understand a simple concept of binders full of women’s resumes. “Resume” Libs we often put them in binders, it’s this document you create to show an employer your worthy of employment but alas now I am merely talking over your heads.

 

Interesting. That leads me to wonder if Republicans know that $32 trillion is twice as much as $16 trillion because the Romney/Ryan budget reflects never-ending deficit spending that will double the national debt. At best, according to CBO long range projections, if every possible positive assumption of the Romney/Ryan budget proposals were to come true the US budget would approach being balanced in 30 years. It wouldn't actually balance but would come close and that's only if the stars all align and the Congress doesn't pass any new spending measures (which has never happened in the history of the United States).

 

You're darned right I trust Romney. He is a good moral man. His character is nearly flawless. As far as flip flops, I don't have the time to list all of BO's. And all politicians tweak their positions between right and left and move center. That's politics. Romney - the man, is good, honest, hard working, brilliant with a love of country. He is presidential material. This country could be proud of our country again with him in office. And thank God, he will steer our country straight again. This socialism experiment BO snuck into office has nearly destroyed our economy. A lot of people who voted for him did not know he was a Marxist. Like he Czar Dan Jones or what ever the freak's name is - he values communism. Look how that worked out for Russia and now is working out in China. You BO supporters are clueless.

And look at what BO did with the Libya attack. He tried to cover it up for political reasons. 4 dead and a month later he is still saying it was a mob outrage over a video! They now have documents going back months that our Ambassador repeatedly asked for help, more security, told them he feared for their safety. They gave them twistie cuffs and tazers.

This is the guy you want to give 4 more years?

I guess like someone once said, ".... 'there's one born ever day'...."

 

I find this interesting because of the logical as well as some factual inaccuracies. The GOP has released some "sensitive" information related to the communications between the Lybian Embassy staff and the State Department (after condemning the White House for possibly leaking sensitive information in the past). In that the real concern about security was in an email from August and even the initiation of measures to improve security would not have occurred in time to prevent the attack on the consulate. It can also be noted that the consulate was using independent contractors which is something that Republicans endorse.

That not-withstanding I understood from the first day when Obama addressed this in the Rose Garden the morning after the attack that it was an act of terrorism. Apparently many Republicans want to argue semantics about the exact wording of Obama's statement for political reasons but for the average person his statement left no doubt that it was a terrorist attack.

I also wonder why they argue that Obama was tying this to the video for political reasons. The other choice would have been to address it as a terrorist attack that was motivated by years of US military interventionims and support for tyrannical regimes in the region going back decades. We know that's the real reason that there's a terrorist threat against the United States and our US interests but that argues against the Republican international polices of military interventionism (which the Democrats also tend to support to a lesser degree). Are Republicans now willing to come out and tell the turth that the terrorist threat against the United States is because of misguided foreign policies of military interventionism and support for tyrannical regimes? I don't see them doing that but instead they're advocating more interventionism and support for tyrannical regimes.

Sorry, but as one not aligned with either the Republicans and Democrats I don't see either side as being honest or forthright in addressing the terrorist threat, it's origins, and how to end that threat against America. Romney has stated he believes that America should lead the world but that is accomplished by example from the front and not from behind by (symbolicially) sticking a bayonet in the back of other countries. Leading is accomplished by example and not by force and Romeny believes in force. I remember a statement from Osama bin Ladin, the arch terrorist enemy of the United States, where he uncategorically stated that if the United States actually lived by the ideals upon which American was founded there would never have been an al Qaeda threat against the United States. Sometimes it pays to actually listen to one's enemies.

 

I find this interesting because of the logical as well as some factual inaccuracies. The GOP has released some "sensitive" information related to the communications between the Lybian Embassy staff and the State Department (after condemning the White House for possibly leaking sensitive information in the past). In that the real concern about security was in an email from August and even the initiation of measures to improve security would not have occurred in time to prevent the attack on the consulate. It can also be noted that the consulate was using independent contractors which is something that Republicans endorse.

That not-withstanding I understood from the first day when Obama addressed this in the Rose Garden the morning after the attack that it was an act of terrorism. Apparently many Republicans want to argue semantics about the exact wording of Obama's statement for political reasons but for the average person his statement left no doubt that it was a terrorist attack.

I also wonder why they argue that Obama was tying this to the video for political reasons. The other choice would have been to address it as a terrorist attack that was motivated by years of US military interventionims and support for tyrannical regimes in the region going back decades. We know that's the real reason that there's a terrorist threat against the United States and our US interests but that argues against the Republican international polices of military interventionism (which the Democrats also tend to support to a lesser degree). Are Republicans now willing to come out and tell the turth that the terrorist threat against the United States is because of misguided foreign policies of military interventionism and support for tyrannical regimes? I don't see them doing that but instead they're advocating more interventionism and support for tyrannical regimes.

Sorry, but as one not aligned with either the Republicans and Democrats I don't see either side as being honest or forthright in addressing the terrorist threat, it's origins, and how to end that threat against America. Romney has stated he believes that America should lead the world but that is accomplished by example from the front and not from behind by (symbolicially) sticking a bayonet in the back of other countries. Leading is accomplished by example and not by force and Romeny believes in force. I remember a statement from Osama bin Ladin, the arch terrorist enemy of the United States, where he uncategorically stated that if the United States actually lived by the ideals upon which American was founded there would never have been an al Qaeda threat against the United States. Sometimes it pays to actually listen to one's enemies.

 

Obama did mention another ill conceived Assault Weapons Ban and even mentioned handguns during the second debate. I wish he would start advertising that.

 

Wow, I have heard lots of love letters to romney but NO ONE has ever said the 'trust' him.
How could anyone trust him after all the lies? I guess if you keep your eyes closed tight enough.....
But I would guess by the dripping sugar coating of your post you must be LDS.

And yes, there is one born every day.

 

The right has spread enough lies and fear mongering.
Its a desperation move.

 

I always enjoy the comparisons between the enormous damage already done by the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, apologist to Islamist radicals, president Barack Hussein Obama, and some projections based on assumptions.

Nice. It highlights just why the one term Marxist absolutely must go.

 

Even the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, apologist to Islamist radicals, president Barack Hussein Obama knows his phrase had nothing to do with Libya. I am impressed how easily you can believe his lies and then claim his as your own.

[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/1907306516001/did-obama-address-handling-of-libya-attack-in-debate/[/video]

 

I always love the term 'Marxist' as if any of you know what one is!
If anyone in American politics is a Marxist it sure as hell isn't the President!

 

Connecting the dots really isn't that hard. But first one must want to seek the truth.

 

LOL no , I am NOT LDS - not that there's anything wrong with that... LOL

 

Wow. Romney lied, so you are gonna vote for obama...who told us the truth about Benghazi? Still trying to figure out what Romney lied about. Oh, yeah, the 5 trillion dollar tax cut over 10 years that Romney can be seen promising in this video during a campaign stop:

[video]Romney promises $5 trillion tax cut to the rich[/video]

 

Speculation..

I always wondered what is the point of talking about future plans of politicians and what they are going to do after being elected.

Politicians, especially Obama, do NOT do whatever they say they are going to. The words they use while running for office are crafted NOT to point out their agenda or based on what they plan on, rather they are crafted as lip service, telling the potential voters what they want to hear irrespective of it's truthfulness or accuracy. Especially when it's the last time they'll ever run for office so re-elections, their only incentive to even try to make people happy, no longer apply.

"And if I have the privilege of being your president for another four years, I promise you I will always listen to your voices, I will fight for your families and I will work every single day to make sure that America continues to be the greatest nation on earth."

You mean like you did the first time when you said this very same (*)(*)(*)(*)?!?!

You're having a laugh! It's even funnier when people believe it!

Bush 43 hit the nail on the head when he said like:

There's an old saying down in Texas.. I think it's in Tennessee probably in Texas... Fool me once....You can't get fooled again! LMAO

 

The truth?
As I stated, the President isn't a Marxist. I know this because I know what a Marxist is.