Surely you aren't serious. You act like it might make some meaningful difference to a guy on a university campus. I will just tell you to do a little research on the amount of capital sitting on the sidelines, when returns on basic investments are brutally low relative to inflation.
I am aware of how much capital is sitting on the sidelines. Connect the dots for me. Is this because of uncertainty? If so, doesn't Congress get a healthy shake of the stick on that too?
I don't think the sitting President should get all of the credit for it. The housing markets were going to come back eventually, so long as the apocalypse hadn't set in.
How on earth is the housing and real estate market going to rebound? What's driving this for Fareed? Who is going to give the sitting president credit? I don't think there is any reasonable argument that Obama gives a flying turd about the small and mid sized businesses that make the economy work. In fact, it's an easy argument that he made is significantly more expensive to hire anyone at all for anything. You can ignore the issue, but I assure you that business investors in our economy are not.
For a Foreign policy debate I think Libya as a topic is whats on everyones radar right now. Its what people are seeing on the news. (even the MSM) I don't think the topic swings the election, but its another negative against Obama when there is already a long list.
Rebound and thrive? I can see this argument going similar to a Dooley discussion. We lost by 27 instead of 37.
from 50 to a thousand employees. Those are backbone businesses to our economy. The rest probably have the capital to come up with solutions, but unfortunately, outsourcing and avoiding HC are the two main options. I can assure you that this is a whole lot of what I do on a daily basis. Also get a bunch of new pitches from companies creating a business out of Obama's policies. I don't argue that it's openly apparent in the market, because it isn't. People don't run around broadcasting that they're finding loopholes, but they are.
Are we talking about the Libyan engagement or the terror attack on our embassy there, beecher? If the former, I don't think it has much traction. If the Latter, it is a political minefield because it can be perceived as politicizing a tragedy. Also, I think you have to be fairly anti-Obama to blame him for not immediately knowing all of the details of the attack, or blame him for security issues while ignoring the ambassador's wishes and congress cutting funding for security there.
it is hard for me to form a substantive argument with you, since these are things I can't learn about without being in the thick of it.
I'm not here to argue about it. I tend not to argue here because most are reasoned in their approach and have legit reasoning for their opinion, rather than regurgitating some party line horsecrap at everyone, save a couple of glaring exceptions. As to the debates, one mattered and it was the one on the economy. There was a sound beating administered in that debate and it's the lone one that will resonate. The rest is just noise and the Intrade data clearly suggests that it doesn't matter. In fact, those numbers suggest that the lack of a decisive debate last night fairly dramatically reduced Obama's odds of winning. I think many are now pointing to a Romney popular vote W and Electoral L. If that's the case, so be it, but that's ugly for an incumbent in an election runup and certainly doesn't support that he hammered anyone in these debates.
I've been seeing a popular vote L, electoral W for Obama as a real possibility even before the 1st debate. And ya, it won't be a fun political atmosphere.
The attack specifically. I agree you have to handle it properly for perception reasons. But I think the point is still there to make and has been made to a small degree. 1. The security request is not offset by cutting funding. Thats a totally absurd comment that holds no water with anyone that has half sense. First off we have never been afraid of spending money we don't have allocated for "X", so if they needed extra security it was there to have. Second, if they want to use that as an excuse those in harms way should have been pulled out of the country and sent home, imediately without pause. 2. After Bin Laden was killed (which is Obama's finest hour) its was implied that AQ was falling apart because we took the king off the table. In the same sense that Romney is trying to make political gain in a campaign the same can be said for Obama and the 3 ring circus that this has turned into. If we are still gathering "facts" why are we placing blame on anything? Political he knows that its better for his campaign if this can be passed off as a youtube video stirring the pot. They tried to spin a terrorist attack into anything but that. That has nothing to do with being anti Obama.
I never said I was a centrist, just countering your ridiculous bullshit about Romney exposing anything about Obama's lack of intelligence. If the intelligence disparity was in effect, why has Obama won the last two debates by consensus and Romney ineffectively articulate any foreign policy argument in the third debate?
In regards to 1: I am not arguing that the cut directly removed the security, or that it makes it okay to have our citizens in a situation as precarious as it apparently was. As you said, we don't blink when spending money we don't have. I am saying it does show some join culpability though, if we are passing it out. Apparently Congress wasn't overly concerned, either. 2. I feel like anyone who has been paying attention to the War on Terror realizes there will never be a "check mate." They are independent cells. Dealing blows is not the same as a "check mate." You or I could decide to start our own AQ cell tomorrow, if we wanted to. There is nothing stopping people of that mindset from springing up anew, slapping on the affiliation, and raising hell. At the time, the entire ME was in an uproar over those videos. It was an assumption that there was a connection. And it wasn't a wild one. I just disagree with the notion that they were trying to pass it off as something other than a terror attack. What difference does it make? To me, it sounds way worse if just a a gaggle of pissed of civilians can penetrate our embassy and kill our representative. WAY worse. I'd rather it be a crafty organized plot. Just me.
Oh, I don't either. It's simply the nature of the beast for people to believe a president can pull puppet strings in whichever direction they choose. The housing market and economy are bound to improve and the guy in the chair will reap the benefits, regardless if they deserve it or not. I also agree that we are looking at a likely split between the EC and popular vote. Most of the regions are fairly close in votes, except the South, which will put Romney over Obama, most likely, in the final tallies.
Early voting patterns are also looking very interesting. Obama is doing quite well in Nevada and, surprisingly, North Carolina. Ohio is tougher to discern because of the nature of identifying party through primary voting. I know that Democrats, especially the Obama campaign, are very good at the GOTV efforts, so I'm still not certain if the Democrats are simply delivering their votes early or they have been able to motivate their base to be more competitive than the "likely voter" polls are demonstrating. I will say that Florida doesn't look as solid and Republicans are outpacing Democrats there.
seriously? your supporting your view with press responses to debates when all of the commentary has been about demeanor and fact checking (which Obama came up short on at almost every turn)? Has Obama ever done or said anything that suggests intelligence on par with Romney? Did you forget to mention the points that he made with his brilliance? Which points were of any merit? Which one about foreign policy was a schooling?
A spontaneous demonstration gone wild is easier to glaze over than a terror attack where your people on the ground were requesting aid and never got it. It turned in to a perfect storm IMO. I think thats why the video was easy to jump on early and hope the rest was never brought up. At least until Dec.
But with an ambassador dead? To me, that is by far the worst and most embarrassing part. The details don't change that.
