Speak Out: Obama Hails "Three Proud Words: Made In The USA"

Replies (34)

• With his inexperience he doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his butt.

  -- Posted by Mowrangler on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 2:27 PM

• Shap: How many friggin times did Bush mispronounce the word "nuclear"? For God's sake some of you people are repulsive.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 2:32 PM

• "Shap: How many friggin times did Bush mispronounce the word "nuclear"? For God's sake some of you people are repulsive."

  And how many times did the Democrats remind us of how many times President Bush mispronounced it, as you just did?

  Is what is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? Is it okay to publish a book of 'Bushism' but not point out Mr. Obama's trips of the tongue? Is it not hypocritical to reference Mr. Bush's while insisting that we give Mr. Obama a pass?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 2:50 PM

• For what it's worth, Merriam Webster has this to say about the pronunciation of the word 'nuclear':

  "Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-kyə-lər\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers, including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president. While most common in the United States, these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers."

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 3:20 PM

• I think it was summed up in an article I read a whle back, though I wish I could find a link.

  In essence, the article claimed, they have so much hope invested in this guy, unfulfilled promise if you will, that they believe he has to be given another four years. If he is a one-term president, he goes the way of Jimmy Carter - another president in which a lot of people invested their hope only to have it dashed by the reality of performance.

  If he's re-elected, they get to hang on to the illusion for another four years. If he fails, their hopes fail with him.

  I remember once when I got scammed out of a several bucks, back when I was in the Navy. The person that bilked me promised to meet me at a specified location on Saturday morning to repay me. Of course, come Saturday morning, they weren't there. But, not wanting to admit I was bilked, I kept hanging around the area, hoping they'd show up, even though I knew they never would. It was just that, once I left the area, my hope would be as lost as my money. That, I think, sums up the Obama delusion. Once he's out of office, their hope will be as lost as our money...

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 3:32 PM

• It seems to me a lot of you right wing posters on here just started paying attention as to what has been going on in this country on Jan 20th 2009. Now you want to place all the responsibility and results on the back of Obama. I don't approve of everything he has done but some of you bash everything he has done. With remarks of socialism, facist, marxist and communist you just show your ignorance.

  If you guys had any kind of candidate at all this race would be over. But Rmoney aint got it folks. So prepare yourself for the inevitable. More Obama in the next 4 years. If Rmoney would quit telling lies about Obama, maybe Obama would quit telling the truth abot Rmoney.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 4:46 PM

• "With remarks of socialism, facist, marxist and communist you just show your ignorance."

  I just skimmed through this thread and didn't see any of those terms used here.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 4:49 PM

• Well skim through some others then or stay in denial. Makes no difference to me.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 4:54 PM

• All over the news the talking heads are claiming many of the different pools show Obama ahead. Perhaps wishful thinking on their part. But surely they should have enough judgment to know only one poll counts...the one taken at the ballot box on election day.

  Should Romney win, there are going to be plenty of embarrassed newscasters with red faces.

  On the other hand, rethinking the issue, it may be impossible to embarass some of them.

  Chris Matthews of MSNBC comes to mind. One might add the smug Rachael Maddow. And several others that nobody watches anyway.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 4:55 PM

• "It seems to me a lot of you right wing posters on here just started paying attention as to what has been going on in this country on Jan 20th 2009."

  And that would be a very ignorant observance. I've been on here much longer than that, and I've been paying attention for even longer.

  I started posting on here largely to defend President Bush against the lies being told about him. Curiously, those of you 'on the left' seem to now think that questioning the actions of presidents began on January 20, 2009, and that before all was civility and pleasantries.

  From Hurrican Katrina to the number of vacations he took to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, through accusations of lying about 9/11, to blaming him solely for the effects of the Pelosi Recession, and on and on and on, President Bush was vilified at every opportunity by 'the left' which now claims they've never seen the likes of someone challenging the abilities of a sitting president.

  The last four years have been a disaster, as were the two years before that, when the current president sat as part of a Democrat majority in the legislature.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 4:58 PM

• "Well skim through some others then or stay in denial. Makes no difference to me."

  I'm aware that people say it, but if you have a problem with it, address it where people are actually saying it. It hasn't happened on this thread, so why bring it up?

  You're engaging in exactly the behaviour you claim to condemn. I can only take it you can no longer defend Mr. Obama, so you've resorted to simply attacking those who point out the truth about him. And, of course, you have to tar Mr. Bush in your efforts, taking the cue from Mr. Obama.

  Mr. Bush has been out of office for nearly four years. It's time you realize we have a different president in office, and he's the one who gets the blame or praise for what happens now. Mr. Bush doesn't get on here to disparage you, you should return the courtesy.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 5:08 PM

• Here you go doody,

  If you're for Obama, you're for socialism. It's what you call a "no brainer".

  If you like socialism so much, try living in China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, China, Vietnam, Syria, Belarus or Laos and see how well it works for you. I don't want America going down that path...you do. If you don't know that the policies that Obama pushes are leading us into socialism then you are the uneducated one.

  -- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 7:05 PM

• dc: At least try to come up with something original. That cr** of go live somewhere else is getting pretty old.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 7:25 PM

• That's the c**p you like...go wallow in it.

  -- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 7:40 PM

• So is the crap of blaming Bush which you love to do.

  -- Posted by Mowrangler on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 8:25 PM

• "Obama often speaks about his plan to create jobs by rewarding companies that produce goods that are 'stamped with three proud words: Made in America'."

  So, what is the big issue or problem?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 9:12 PM

• Common,

  Would that be companies like Solo Power, another solar energy company who's President donated $30,000 to Obama's 2008 campaign? The same company who was subsequently rewarded with a $200,000,000.00 stipend to promote green energy. How much more of Obama's style of rewarding can this country stand?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 9:24 PM

• "...'stamped with three proud words: Made in America'."

  "So, what is the big issue or problem?"

  The first issue is: that ain't what he said.

  The second issue: Made in America can mean made in Mexico, made in Canada, made in Brazil, or even made in Cuba. Our country is called the 'United States of America', not simply 'America'.

  While it would be nice to see more of that manufacturing in our hemisphere, even if not in our country, if you want to help U.S. Citizens find jobs in the U.S., you need to be pushing for jobs in the USA, not simply in 'America'.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 10:36 PM

• Howdy, for you!

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 11:27 PM

• Shap, In my limited understanding of economics, ending taxes on corporations would do more to keep jobs here than handing out special considerations to selected companies.

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 11:39 PM

• Old John,

  That's most likely correct, but it would end their ability to hand favours to preferred corporations (those that support them, or those to which they have financial ties).

  The government uses the tax structure more often to alter behaviour than simply as a tool for the raising of revenue. The Capital Gains Tax is an example: many years back, when the rates were higher and the Republicans wanted to cut it, citing the increased revenue such cuts have historically produced, the Democrats agreed that they would probably increase revenue. But, they said, it was about 'fairness'.

  I'll be curious to see what effect Frances punitive tax rates have on their deficit, and their population demographics. The word is, Prime Minister Ayrault has admitted privately that it's a bad idea, but believes he backed himself into a corner by promising it and has to deliver, regardless of the consequences. Representative Democracy gives people the freedom to cut their own throats, it seems.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Sep 29, 2012, at 7:21 AM

• "...it would end their ability to hand favours to preferred corporations (those that support them, or those to which they have financial ties)."

  Were you perhaps referring to Haliburton?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 1:07 PM

• "Were you perhaps referring to Haliburton?"

  I was referring to Solyndra, but you can cling to decades-old news if you want.

  The Haliburton Issue, for what it's worth, was not about tax breaks and tax credits, but about the granting of government contracts, which is a different issue. We're talking taxes here, and I would note that it is Republicans and Libertarians that generally favour flatter taxes and elimintating the corporate tax structure. Democrats favour them because of the power it gives them.

  While we're on the subject of granting corporate favours, let's look at the Affordable Care Act, The Student Loan Programme, and Housing Assistance. Democrats rail against 'greedy insurance companies' and 'greedy lenders', and yet they craft legislation that require us to do business with 'greedy insurance companies' and encourage to become indebted to 'greedy lenders'. How do you square the legislation with the rhetoric?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 3:04 PM

• Who's in denial???

  Well skim through some others then or stay in denial. Makes no difference to me. -- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 4:54 PM

  Where do you get the delisional idea that I have sons? -- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 6:08 PM

  My sons are smart and will never be stupid enough to become disabled veterans. -- Posted by howdydoody on Wed, Sep 26, 2012, at 3:28 PM

  Did you portend to post one under one ID and another as howdy?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 8:14 PM

• Now you want to place all the responsibility and results on the back of Obama. -- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 4:46 PM

  I will cut the deficit in half my first term.

  If I don't turn this around in 3 years I'll be a one-term president.

  I will close Gitmo my first year.

  If you pass this stimulus unemployment will not go above 8%.

  I will not hire lobbyist in my administration.

  ===================

  We've been paying attention to his lies even before 2009. Liberals like yourself continue to take the responsibility - for those promises and 100's of others - off of Obama and deflect them back to conservatives. A simpleton approach - you're losing your deception.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 8:25 PM

• "How do you square the legislation with the rhetoric?"

  One of the simpler means is that now the companies are required to limit their admin costs to 20%.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 8:46 PM

• "One of the simpler means is that now the companies are required to limit their admin costs to 20%."

  Which, of course, is not the government's business to tell a business how effective it has to be.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 6:31 AM

• "Now you want to place all the responsibility and results on the back of Obama."

  Mr. Obama and his defenders (and sometimes his detractors) fail to mention that Mr. Obama cut the payroll tax in February of 2009 as part of the Stimulus Bill.

  This tax cut had two significant impacts. First, it cut revenue to the government. Second, it shifted nature of the debt towards publicly-held debt, because the taxes he cut were specifically marked towards Medicare and Social Security. The reduction of those programmes 'trust fund' revenue means that less of the borrowed funds come from intergovernmental sources, requiring that those funds to be made up through public borrowing.

  While revenue cuts do not cause deficits, only spending does, this tax cut was enacted as part of a spending bill which markedly increased spending, even as it cut the revenue that paid for it.

  This happened, of course, in FY2009, so Mr. Obama and his defenders put the blame for that on Mr. Bush, since it was his credit card Mr. Obama claims to have been using. But you can hardly blame Mr. Bush, or the Republicans, for that piece of legislation.

  Unlike the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003, which saw an increase in revenue after their passage, this tax cut has not resulted in more revenue. That is because, unlike tax cuts enacted on high-income taxpayers, this cut requires the money to 'trickle up' from low wage earners, many of whom pay no income taxes. Current federal tax recipts this year remain below the levels seen in 2007 and 2008, at which times the Bush Tax Cuts were in place, but the payroll tax cut was not.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 6:42 AM

• Solo Power is too risky. The thin film technologies are usually dead by the time manufacturing starts. They cannot compete because there isn't enough efficiency. The Germans are way ahead of the ball on this one. It's just another thank you card.

  But what would I know.......

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 8:59 AM

• "...how effective it has to be."

  Sorry, that should have been 'how efficient it has to be."

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 9:41 AM

• Spaniard,

  I intend to do so.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 11:18 AM

• I also intend to continue to point out to others why they, too, should vote for Mr. Obama's opponent, Mitt Romney.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 11:43 AM

• I wonder why you choose this venue then Shapley Hunter. It appears most on here intend to vote for Romney already. Why don't you spread your "intentions" to a crowd who doesn't support him?

  Could it be you feel more comfortable amongst your allies?

  -- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 12:13 PM

• "It appears most on here intend to vote for Romney already."

  I don't see that. Observations and Thoughts, Me'Lange, Theorist, Spaniard, Commonsmatters, Howdydoody, BCStoned, & Username1, to name a few, are hardly in the Romney Camp. I don't claim to know how they'll vote, but they do not seem to have been won over as of yet.

  Also, there are many 'lurkers' here who read these comments but do not post.

  What leads you to believe that the supporters outnumber the opponents on this forum?

  "Could it be you feel more comfortable amongst your allies?"

  Aren't most people more comfortable amonst their allies? That seems a strange question. But, if you are saying I am 'preaching to the choir' here, I gather you haven't been paying attention.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 12:33 PM