ahem..obamarans

by Impedimenta Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:47 pm

get ready for another four years of NOTHING.

by truthbetold Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:05 pm

Getting nothing is better than paying mitts army your hard earned money. Romney looked like snake oil saleman.

by Kris Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:55 pm

truthbetold wrote:Getting nothing is better than paying mitts army your hard earned money. Romney looked like snake oil saleman.

>>>Obama = more leftward tilt in the next 4 years - not a good thing over the long run

Romney= Not getting the warm and fuzzy with him enough to vote.

Conclusion: Won't be voting.

by truthbetold Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:27 am

Kris
not trying to convince you but obama did say he is for free enterprise and middle class upwards approach. In my opinion he was wrong in keeping tim geithner beyond first six months of his admin. Tim was too cozy with big banks and hindered most govt action against big banks and wallstreet (read sheila bear) .

by Maria S Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:34 am

Romneyaran,

I will enthusiastically vote to relect Pres. Obama!

They say be humble when things are going well and it is going to be a close election.. so will simply give second debate win to the President and continue to focus/work in the ground game as the count down to the election day is set..

I can't see why your candidate who places women in binders..and can't even say "women deserve equal pay for equal work" is appealing to women or men for that matter- but, to each her/his own!

To me a President who signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (pay equality for women) on the first day of his Presidency- deserves a lot of kudos, and if elected..am sure he will continue to do a LOT more for women than simply "giving them jobs"..to diminish discrimination and inequalities, which mean a LOT to me and ALL women, imo:D!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

by Hellsangel Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:38 am

Maria S wrote:rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb...

by southindian Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:30 am

Impedimenta wrote:get ready for another four years of NOTHING.

By NOTHING you mean

No 30 month of job growth since almost recession from Republicans?
No tough laws for Wall Street?
No killing of Top Al Queda (Osama and other chiefs)?
No spread of energy options, while maximum oil drilling continues?
No universal healthcare for everyone?
No choices for women in healthcare?
No cutting the middleman in student loans?

I guess you didn't like this in the last 4 years.

by Kris Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:55 am

truthbetold wrote:Kris
not trying to convince you but obama did say he is for free enterprise and middle class upwards approach. In my opinion he was wrong in keeping tim geithner beyond first six months of his admin. Tim was too cozy with big banks and hindered most govt action against big banks and wallstreet (read sheila bear) .

>>>>Not so much the intent, but big gov't (an industry into itself) and a conducive envionment for business investment are mutually exclusive. We are at a unique midway point here. Obama was not wrong in that he took office under extraordinary circumstances which required gov't involvement to get the stalled economy moving. It is too early for romney's broad strokes to work and unhealthy to keep the govermental gig going. yet, this is the "choice" now.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:01 am

This was the first debate I have watched this season. Obama did a good job. He projected quiet confidence and control throughout the debate. Romney overreached and thought he was going in for the kill on Libya, but became the hunted instead. I loved how Obama said, "go on, governor" when Romney was deer-in-headlights-ing about the "act of terror" comment. He allowed Romney to cross the line before hitting him. Same thing with the pension comment -- he didn't hit back right away at the "have you looked at your pension" question. He waited for Romney to repeat it 2 or 3 times, before landing his zinger. Romney sounds his worst when he is prosecutorial or accusatory, with a more high-pitched tone with a greater sense of insincerity to it. Obama benefited by getting him there often in the debate.

Obama showed that he is capable of winning a debate. Which makes the first round debacle that much harder to swallow for his supporters. Team Obama lost that round simply because they were too scared to play and thereby risk losing.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:03 am

Kris wrote:>>>>Not so much the intent, but big gov't (an industry into itself) and a conducive envionment for business investment are mutually exclusive. We are at a unique midway point here. Obama was not wrong in that he took office under extraordinary circumstances which required gov't involvement to get the stalled economy moving. It is too early for romney's broad strokes to work and unhealthy to keep the govermental gig going. yet, this is the "choice" now.

Obama has no choice but to shrink government in his second term. The deficit is creeping, and the debt is already too high. More to the point, the House will be in GOP hands no matter who is president. And the House controls the purse strings, not the president. Without appropriations to support it, government cannot grow.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:43 am

Impedimenta wrote:get ready for another four years of NOTHING.

Thank you, I hope you are right about who wins, although you are wrong about the last four years.

Here is a quiz for Romney supporters. In the debate yesterday, Romney was asked the question, how are your policies going to be different from those of W that sank the economy. What are those differences?

by Impedimenta Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:57 am

Maria S wrote:Romneyaran,

I will enthusiastically vote to relect Pres. Obama!

They say be humble when things are going well and it is going to be a close election.. so will simply give second debate win to the President and continue to focus/work in the ground game as the count down to the election day is set..

I can't see why your candidate who places women in binders..and can't even say "women deserve equal pay for equal work" is appealing to women or men for that matter- but, to each her/his own!

To me a President who signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (pay equality for women) on the first day of his Presidency- deserves a lot of kudos, and if elected..am sure he will continue to do a LOT more for women than simply "giving them jobs"..to diminish discrimination and inequalities, which mean a LOT to me and ALL women, imo:D!

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html[/quote[/url]]

M akka,

come on now. romney was awkward, if not anything. The binder comment was in reference to a q about equal pay for men and women. How can you go off assuming that he is not for equality of pay when the record states that MA has more women in senior management than any other state. I've heard of selective hearing but this is selective processing:-) how sad is the fact that the key take away from the debate yesterday was "binders full of women" comment? it has gone viral.

Agreed that romney sounded rude and confrontational and even stupid when it came to the president's reaction to the libya fiasco. I don't know if i am even going to vote this time.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:04 pm

Impedimenta wrote:romney was awkward, if not anything. The binder comment was in reference to a q about equal pay for men and women.

A question that he did not answer. "Equal pay for equal work" is a different question from "how many women should you have in binders or in the MA governor's cabinet. For the same jobs -- senior management or hourly work -- women on average get paid 72% of what a man who does the same work gets paid. Romney simply did not answer that question.

Impedimenta wrote:How can you go off assuming that he is not for equality of pay when the record states that MA has more women in senior management than any other state.

It is not an assumption. Romney refused to take a position in favor of equal pay for women. He talked about women needing to get home early to cook dinner for their kids, women in binders, and how he realized all this when he was 50 and governor of MA. Not one of his partners at Bain Capital was a woman, I suspect!

If you still have doubts about Romney's position regarding equal pay for women, here is his campaign:

Had Mitt Romney been president in 2009, he would not have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, a top adviser to the Republican nominee told The Huffington Post Tuesday night.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-lilly-ledbetter_n_1973446.html

by Impedimenta Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:10 pm

Quickly, pannini, a) you are quoting hufington post and b) about bain capital, unless you give me statiscal analysis of the no of women vs men in power in other organizations such a bain, i am not even interested in going there.

by ashaNirasha Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:14 pm

[quote="Impedimenta"]

Maria S wrote:Romneyaran,

M akka,
how sad is the fact that the key take away from the debate yesterday was "binders full of women" comment? it has gone viral.

e.

Because it really was bizarre. He had trouble answering such a simple question, and he didn't, after speaking a good few minutes about it. What really is his position on that? I don't know.

by Idéfix Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:17 pm

Impedimenta wrote:Quickly, pannini, a) you are quoting hufington post and b) about bain capital, unless you give me statiscal analysis of the no of women vs men in power in other organizations such a bain, i am not even interested in going there.

HuffPo quotes Ed Gillespie, Romney's senior adviser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gillespie. Gillespie has routinely spoken for the campaign before.

Here is the Boston Globe regarding women partners at Bain Capital. There were none when Romney was there. Even today, less than 10% of partners there are women.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/16/fact-check-romney-record-hiring-women/r3gqpykaQudNNqigmLZfuJ/story.html

Romney, however, did not have a history of appointing women to high-level positions in the private sector. Romney did not have any women partners as CEO of Bain Capital during the 1980s and 1990s.

The venture capital and private equity fields were male-dominated, to be sure, especially during Romney’s time. Women started to break into the upper echelons of the firm after it started a hedge fund, called Brookside in 1996.

Today, 4 of out of 49 of the firm’s managing directors in the buyout area are women.

by ashaNirasha Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:29 pm

panini press wrote: Team Obama lost that round simply because they were too scared to play and thereby risk losing.

I think they lost simply because they were complacent. At that point in time, they were leading in polls, and figured Romney was somewhat gaffe prone, and that he would say or do something to hurt himself. Obama's team must have thought he could just hang in there, try to look presidential without haggling too much and get into the mud. But it ended up looking like Obama took some sleeping pill and dozed off, while Romney had a field day.

Regardless, Obama is not a good debater. It doesn't come naturally to him, even though he did a decent job yesterday. His arguments, reasoning still sound canned, his demeanor and approach look like he has to put in a lot of effort into them. Neither one of them said something that hasn't been said before in their campaigns. The wording, phrases, statements..everything.

Biden, on the other hand, is a class act, if he could just temper his smiling and laughing just a teeny tiny bit.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:35 pm

Maria S wrote:Romneyaran,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

Whats so big about Romney's "binders full of women?"

Bill Clinton had binders full of women as well and bound them too.

by Hellsangel Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:36 pm

ashaNirasha wrote:

Biden, on the other hand, is a class act, if he could just temper his smiling and laughing just a teeny tiny bit.

So much love. Just coz he is from a neighboring state?

by ashaNirasha Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:48 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
ashaNirasha wrote:

Biden, on the other hand, is a class act, if he could just temper his smiling and laughing just a teeny tiny bit.

So much love. Just coz he is from a neighboring state?

Neighboring state? Rolling Eyes

Have we narrowed it down to the zip code or to the local library?

Should I be worried?

by truthbetold Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:14 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Maria S wrote:Romneyaran,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

Whats so big about Romney's "binders full of women?"

Bill Clinton had binders full of women as well and bound them too.

Any Bill's reference to women would be considered romantic by liberal feminists. Romney's binders of women are a symbol of powerful men's condescending reference to career seeking women.

by garam_kuta Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:39 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Maria S wrote:Romneyaran,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

Whats so big about Romney's "binders full of women?"

Bill Clinton had binders full of women as well and bound them too.

pughaiyudhey saamiyarey..pallu irukkaravan thaan pakoda saapiduvaan

by Propagandhi711 Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:18 am

truthbetold wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Maria S wrote:Romneyaran,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

Whats so big about Romney's "binders full of women?"

Bill Clinton had binders full of women as well and bound them too.

Any Bill's reference to women would be considered romantic by liberal feminists. Romney's binders of women are a symbol of powerful men's condescending reference to career seeking women.

Bill Clinton was advancing women's rights and also feeding hungry lewinskys meat...have you seen that girl??? she was all bones and skin..we all know interns can be poor...Hilary is a strong woman that sacrificed herself for the common good of the ppl and said advancement of women in work place.

by Hellsangel Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:24 am

garam_kuta wrote:

pughaiyudhey saamiyarey..pallu irukkaravan thaan pakoda saapiduvaan

Da salami a frittura... you have come a long way, hotdog!

by garam_kuta Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:06 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Maria S wrote:Romneyaran,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

Whats so big about Romney's "binders full of women?"

Bill Clinton had binders full of women as well and bound them too.

Any Bill's reference to women would be considered romantic by liberal feminists. Romney's binders of women are a symbol of powerful men's condescending reference to career seeking women.

Bill Clinton was advancing women's rights and also feeding hungry lewinskys meat...have you seen that girl??? she was all bones and skin..we all know interns can be poor...Hilary is a strong woman that sacrificed herself for the common good of the ppl and said advancement of women in work place.

by Hellsangel Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 am

garam_kuta wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Maria S wrote:Romneyaran,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney_n_1972337.html

Whats so big about Romney's "binders full of women?"

Bill Clinton had binders full of women as well and bound them too.

Any Bill's reference to women would be considered romantic by liberal feminists. Romney's binders of women are a symbol of powerful men's condescending reference to career seeking women.

Bill Clinton was advancing women's rights and also feeding hungry lewinskys meat...have you seen that girl??? she was all bones and skin..we all know interns can be poor...Hilary is a strong woman that sacrificed herself for the common good of the ppl and said advancement of women in work place.

Hotdog, who always rises up for women's right!

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com

ahem..obamarans

ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans

Re: ahem..obamarans