@Miller,
Miller wrote:
Barrons has picked Romney as the winner in today's paper.
Do you have a link? I can't find any endorsement or prediction by Barron's. Are you refering to Barron's financial magazine or someone else?
@engineer,
They didn't really pick him so far as I can tell. They had an article that the race was trending towards Romeny. Miller posted that article in a separate thread. I didn't see an endorsement.
I stopped watching media coverage of the race about a month ago when some of the MSM folks started discussing their own role in keeping the populace interested enough to keep watching their show and reading their stories. I don't believe for a minute that the race is as close as they want us to believe it is. It's their JOB to keep us engaged. It's what they're paid to do. They produce the anxiety that keeps us glued to the screen and put whatever spin on it that's necessary. Their companies sell advertising dollars to companies who want to make sure there's an audience for their ads. It's all smoke and mirrors, imo.
@JPB,
I agree; most polls have shown for awhile that on electoral votes, there is no doubt Obama is going to win!
Media people know how to keep their audience engaged; that's what they're paid to do. It's called "conflict of interest." They're about as bad as Romney with their lies and innuendos.
@DrewDad,
I wasn't saying he would, or even should.
Personally, I agree that's it the job of a governor to do that, not the federal government.
I was simply correcting a statement about Obama not having the authority do activate the NG, nothing more.
@mysteryman,
I don't think I ever said the President couldn't activate the NG. I merely pointed out that it is governors that do so in the case of natural disasters. If someone wants to complain about the guard not being called up then they should first and foremost look to the governors.
The President can activate the military in the US to help in case of disasters and yes he can call up the national guard to active duty in that case but that has never really been the case at any time.
And, I might add, the National Guard (an arm of the federal government, trained and equipped by the federal government, and paid for by the federal government) was in fact out in force in NYC during the Sandy aftermath. My sister lives in Manhattan, a couple blocks from one of the armories there (the armory played a bit part in "Men in Black I" as the morgue). The armory was a marshalling point for the Guard during the disaster, and she says the whole area was swarming with military trucks. Among other things they helped evacuate patients from Bellevue to other hospitals when its emergency generators flooded out, thus helping save many lives. Romney meanwhile was collecting cans of soup and toilet paper. A wiped bum is certainly to be preferred, but in the scheme of things, Romney, his cans of soup, and his stance against federal disaster relief, was NOT part of the solution.
@MontereyJack,
Doesn't it make you wonder why people - in general - would vote for Mitt Romney when he plans to destroy our federal government by giving bigger tax breaks to the wealthy?
The conservatives complain that Obama did not react soon enough in Benghazi without understanding that the generals and intelligence people in charge did everything they could. All while the conservatives cut funding for their security.
@cicerone imposter,
Rep Cantor is talking about how Romney is going to be better for business without providing any details; speaking only in generalities. Does he know that there's a world recession going on? That simply means demand for goods and services do not exist to "create" 12 million more jobs out of thin air. The only exception is if Romney creates 12 million government jobs.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Rep Cantor is talking about how Romney is going to be better for business without providing any details; speaking only in generalities. Does he know that there's a world recession going on? That simply means demand for goods and services do not exist to "create" 12 million more jobs out of thin air. The only exception is if Romney creates 12 million government jobs.
ere are booming.
Nonsense. The economies in oil producing states in the country
are booming . We could easily have more if only the Obama Interior Department and EPA bureaucrats would get out of the way. Moreover if potential investors weren't so spooked by the threat of more regulation and higher taxes, our business climate generally would a lot better.
If you are looking at an increasingly intrusive gove3rnment bent on picking the winners and loosers in our economy based on their own prejudices and raising taxes on businessowners, you aren't very likely to take the financial risks associated with job (and demand) creating investment in new business starts.
@georgeob1,
How do you get 12 million jobs by Obama, the Interior Department and EPA "getting out of the way?"
NOTE: this is dated January 2012.
Quote:Obama will open federal public lands to natural gas exploration
In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Barak Obama called for the end of federal oil subsidies and a doubling of clean energy grants.
Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Wednesday , 25 Jan 2012
RENO -
U.S. President Barak Obama has directed his administration to open more than 75% of potential U.S. offshore oil and gas resources, stressing the country needs an all-out strategy that "develops every available source of American energy."
@snood,
How ta go and prick all those folks' balloons, Snood. I hope you feel good about yourself making Finn and H2oguy weep.
It's not a done deal, 85% ain't 100%, but it's pretty hard to argue with how Nate's numbers line up.
@JPB,
JPB wrote:I don't believe for a minute that the race is as close as they want us to believe it is.
That's because your day job involves statistics, so you know the difference between the statements "candidate A leads in the polls 51%:49% over candidate B" and "candidate A has a 51 chance of winning". That puts you head and shoulders above most journalist. And polls in battleground states consistently show Obama with a narrow lead in enough states to make his victory much more likely than not. Not that the odds are unbeatable for Romney --- they're just a good deal worse for him than 49:51.
Quote:Although the immediate questions involve the budget and economy, the ultimate consequences are social and geopolitical. Prosperity — more or less of it — affects Americans’ pride, confidence, ability to support a strong military and willingness to be a global leader. The questions the candidates avoided remain. They will quickly reassert themselves as Washington confronts the “fiscal cliff” — the roughly $500 billion of spending cuts and tax increases scheduled for early 2013 — and the need to raise the federal debt ceiling.
Whoever wins won’t get much help with these problems from public opinion. The campaign has not prepared Americans for the debates and choices that lie ahead. Many may feel bewildered or betrayed. The silence of Obama and Romney followed standard political logic. Because the nation’s problems lack painless solutions, the safest course was to avoid them. To practice candor was to court unpopularity. But the price of political expediency may now be paid in diminished public trust and increased odds of stalemate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-disconnect-of-2012/2012/11/04/a5bf778c-251f-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html?hpid=z2
these two jokers have BOTH been feeding the coming revolution, with relish. there is a good chance that Obama will win, but there is almost no way his second term will come out better than the failure of his first term. there is no reason to be optimistic that America's free fall is about over.....leadership is no where to be found.
@hawkeye10,
Quote: but there is almost no way his second term will come out better than the failure of his first term. there is no reason to be optimistic that America's free fall is about over.....leadership is no where to be found.
Such a foolish notion, Hawk. These things, economic issues, aren't fixed by one man nor are they fixed overnight. It took a war, as it often does, [so sad, isn't it?] to pull the US out of the big one.
@JTT,
Which, unfortunately, is partly why the saber rattling towards Iran has such a following. There are those who are voting against R/R because of that saber rattling (at least in part) and there are those who are voting for them because of it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that someone is going to vote for R/R because they'll protect our military-industrial complex.
@cicerone imposter,
I can't think of a single person in Congress whose opinion matters less to me in determining my vote. Maybe Michele Bachman.
Facebook status update from a friend -- I'm about to go look for it:
Quote:In case anyone is unclear whether a) Ohio is a pressure cooker right now; and b) Mittens has more money than sense; there is a giant Romney blimp in the air over Columbus right now. In case that one voter who is still undecided happens to look up.
