Which presidential candidate are you voting for in the 2012 election and why?

[Falvlun]

And what horrible bad things have we done that need apologizing for? (Let him who is without sin cast the first stone).

For accidentally killing children with our bombs? For secretly and sometimes not so secretly supporting dictators for our own gain? For interning Japanese Americans during WWII? For intentionally infecting Guatemalans with STDs? Those are just a few that come to mind.

As for your "first stone" reference, not sure what you mean. If I hurt someone, should I not apologize for my actions? Why should countries be exempt from this simple, human gesture? We are taught as children to say "I'm sorry". It has nothing to do with pointing fingers. It has to do with responsibility, and an effort to reduce the negative effects of a negative action.

I don't know about you, but I am a strong enough person, a confident enough person, a moral enough person, and a responsible enough person to admit when I am wrong, and to tell those hurt by my actions that I am sorry. I am proud that my president, and therefore my country, is able to do the same.

 

[Falvlun]

Look at the history of the world over the last 100 years or so. Any place where socialism, Marxism or any of its variations have been tried and the result is wealth destruction, economic ruin, poverty and misery.

You might want to look at countries like Sweden and Denmark. They consistently rank among the happiest, prosperous, and well-run of all the nations, and *gasp* their political systems are largely socialist.

You do realize that our nation has a lot of socialism too, don't you? Public education, public roads, medicare, food stamps, etc, are all socialism.

On tbe other hand where free market capitalism has been the rule, prosperity has been the result. The Republican party is supposed to favor free market capitalism.

Liberal economic politics are not purely socialist, and neither are Conservative economic policies purely free market capitalism. A mix of both must be, and currently is, in place. The only difference is the ratio of both.

The numbers, from GDP to spending to unemployment, etc have nearly unanimously been better under Democrat presidents than Republican ones. I understand having bad years here and there; nor do I believe that the president has as much control over the economy as the political hacks would have us believe. But it is pretty strange when the numbers are so far in favor of one party over the other.

True, they strayed from the course during the Bush, Jr. years. Hopefully they've learned from that mistake. Obama, on the other hand, is an inflexible leftist who believes that the answer to every problem is to raise taxes on the rich. I do agree that if Obama has his way, the disparity between rich and poor will be eliminated; just as it's been eliminated in Cuba and North Korea where everyone is dirt poor. Oh yes, they get free medical care...........but they have nothing to eat!!!

Obama an inflexible leftist? Please excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing.

It's not about eliminating the disparity between the rich and poor. It's about reducing it. America's gap is rather large in comparison to other developed countries, and more importantly, it has greatly widened in the past couple of decades: income for the rich has skyrocketed largely due to returns on investment (to win big, you have to be able to invest big to begin with) rather than any truly innovative or hard work on their part, and the wages for the average worker have stagnated.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm just wasting my time talking with someone who sees taxing the rich as akin to a crazy dictatorship that will ultimately result in us all having nothing to eat.

 

[JohnLeo]

For accidentally killing children with our bombs? For secretly and sometimes not so secretly supporting dictators for our own gain? For interning Japanese Americans during WWII? For intentionally infecting Guatemalans with STDs? Those are just a few that come to mind.

As for your "first stone" reference, not sure what you mean. If I hurt someone, should I not apologize for my actions? Why should countries be exempt from this simple, human gesture? We are taught as children to say "I'm sorry". It has nothing to do with pointing fingers. It has to do with responsibility, and an effort to reduce the negative effects of a negative action.

I don't know about you, but I am a strong enough person, a confident enough person, a moral enough person, and a responsible enough person to admit when I am wrong, and to tell those hurt by my actions that I am sorry. I am proud that my president, and therefore my country, is able to do the same.

These things pale in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on the world by other nations in the twentieth century and before. Beside, the good that the US has done has more than atoned for it. Don't forget it was the US which rebuilt Europe after it had destroyed itself in World War II. It was our efforts through the Marshll Plan that prevented mass starvation in Europe. We could have told them to clean up their own mess. but that's not who we are. In any case, the president of the United States should not be bowing before other heads of state doing mea culpas.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We could have told them to clean up their own mess.

Oh, you mean like the rubble left after ...

In the Pacific, carpet bombing was used extensively against Japanese civilian population centers, such as Tokyo. On March 9 and 10 1945, B-29 Superfortresses were directed to bomb the most heavily populated civilian sectors of Tokyo. In just 2 days of bombing, over 100,000 of the population had burned to death from a heavy bombardment of incendiary bombs. Another 100,000 were left homeless. These attacks were followed by similar ones against Kobe, Osaka, and Nagoya, as well as other sectors of Tokyo, where over 9,373 tons of incendiary bombs were dropped on civilian and military targets. By the time of the dropping of the atomic bombs, light and medium bombers were being directed to bomb targets of convenience, as most urban areas had been already destroyed. In the 9-month long civilian bombing campaign, over 580,000 Japanese civilians died. [wiki(carpet bombing)]

Got it ...

 

[Cassiopia]

I am not voting for either candidate because I am not American. If I could I would vote for Obama; not particularly because he is a Democrat but because he is far more intelligent and diplomatic than Romney. These qualities are very important for a senior world leader and will give the USA a credibility and authority that would otherwise be lacking.

 

[YmirGF]

If I hurt someone, should I not apologize for my actions?

Actually, Falvlun, if the truth be told, if you hurt me; your apology would mean very, very little. In fact, I would think less of you than I already did as a result of your hurting me. In effect, you are telling me that on top of hurting me that you didn't really mean it. I'd be very wary around you.

Why should countries be exempt from this simple, human gesture? We are taught as children to say "I'm sorry".

And that works for kids because they really don't know any better, so they can be forgiven for messing up. Those who ought to know better just make themselves looking incredibly shallow. It's OK to live with shame - no one is exempt.

It has nothing to do with pointing fingers. It has to do with responsibility, and an effort to reduce the negative effects of a negative action.

Realistically, this only makes sense if the perpetrators themselves made the vain apology - and even then it should be taken with several boxes of salt. It makes no sense coming from someone far removed from the situation.

I don't know about you, but I am a strong enough person, a confident enough person, a moral enough person, and a responsible enough person to admit when I am wrong, and to tell those hurt by my actions that I am sorry. I am proud that my president, and therefore my country, is able to do the same.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, however you will next to never get an apology from me, as that implies I didn't intend my actions. I am normally very careful and every action is quite deliberate. Above all else, actions speak louder than mere words, so to me, apologies are relatively meaningless.

Exit question: I wonder if the current Financial Illiterate-in-Chief will apologize to Mitt Romney for the deliberately misleading Ads being run in his name? (I'm not holding my breath on that one.)

If I could vote in the US elections, it would be, unreservedly, for Mitt Romney.
(To be honest I have difficulty understanding why anyone would vote for Obama. I - just - don't - get - it.)

I am not voting for either candidate because I am not American. If I could I would vote for Obama; not particularly because he is a Democrat but because he is far more intelligent and diplomatic than Romney. These qualities are very important for a senior world leader and will give the USA a credibility and authority that would otherwise be lacking.

I'm sensing a disconnect from reality here. Um... what world leaders are taking Obama even remotely seriously?

 

[JohnLeo]

You might want to look at countries like Sweden and Denmark. They consistently rank among the happiest, prosperous, and well-run of all the nations, and *gasp* their political systems are largely socialist.

You do realize that our nation has a lot of socialism too, don't you? Public education, public roads, medicare, food stamps, etc, are all socialism.


Liberal economic politics are not purely socialist, and neither are Conservative economic policies purely free market capitalism. A mix of both must be, and currently is, in place. The only difference is the ratio of both.

The numbers, from GDP to spending to unemployment, etc have nearly unanimously been better under Democrat presidents than Republican ones. I understand having bad years here and there; nor do I believe that the president has as much control over the economy as the political hacks would have us believe. But it is pretty strange when the numbers are so far in favor of one party over the other.



Obama an inflexible leftist? Please excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing.

It's not about eliminating the disparity between the rich and poor. It's about reducing it. America's gap is rather large in comparison to other developed countries, and more importantly, it has greatly widened in the past couple of decades: income for the rich has skyrocketed largely due to returns on investment (to win big, you have to be able to invest big to begin with) rather than any truly innovative or hard work on their part, and the wages for the average worker have stagnated.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm just wasting my time talking with someone who sees taxing the rich as akin to a crazy dictatorship that will ultimately result in us all having nothing to eat.

Sweden and Denmark are somewhat less socialist than they used to be. They had to back off to avoid economic ruin. Also Sweden and Denmark can afford their socialist programs better than we can since they don't have our huge defence budget. It falls to us not them to be the world's policeman. And speaking of Sweden and Denmark, when is the last time you heard of a major scientific discovery or technological advancement coming from those countries or any other country in Europe? The fact is socialism discourages innovation and advancement. Since Europe embraced socialism, the centers of science and technology moved to Asia and the U.S. As for public education and roads. these were just fine so long as they were the responsibility of local governments. Since the federal government became involved, these things have been a mess.Medicare and food stamps are rife with corruption and fraud and headed for bankruptcy.
Yes, the economy does tend to do better during Democrat administrations. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that major wars tend to be going on during Democrat administrations and war, as we all know, is good for the economy. Except for the current Democrat administration which has dismal economic numbers which just go on and on and on...........oh but of course that's the fault of those "wascally Wepublicans" in the Congress who block and obstruct all of Mr. Obama's wonderful plans!! Why, if only we just raised taxes enough on rich folks, the deficit would disappear, unemployment would go down, prosperity would return and happy days are here again!!! At least that's what Obama thinks. What Obama fails to realize is that there aren't that many rich folks around. If the tax rate on everyone earning more than $250,000 a year was raised to 90%, the deficit would go down about one-third. That's assuming there would be no negative impact which there surely would be. Sadly, Mr. Obama clings to the mistaken notion that the State creates jobs, wealth and prosperity. In fact the State can create none of these things; only the private sector can. Punishing and penalizing success leads not to prosperity but to ruin. But hey, don't take my word for it!! The idea of confiscating the wealth of rich folks became popular during the Civil War but Abraham Lincoln would have none of it. He said this in 1864:
"That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence
is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is house-
less pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently and build
one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from
violence when built."
But I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm just wasting my time talking with someone who sees big governemnt as the answer to all our problems and fails to raelize that a government powerful enough to give us everything we want, is powerful enough to take away everything we have.

 

[JohnLeo]

Oh, you mean like the rubble left after ...Got it ...

Well, now, they sort of brought it on themselves, didn't they? It was they who attacked us on Decemver 7, 1941. And on December 8th FDR said, "We didn't start this war, but we will certainly finish it." Sadly, this is the nature of war in the twentieth century. It's not like the Nineteenth century when great armies met on battlefields and the civilians weren't involved. With the great technological advancements of the twentieth century everyone, including women and children became involved. And make no mistake, the Japanese had plans in place to bomb San Francisco, Los Angeles and half a dozen other targets on the west coast. They would have done it too if we hadn't driven them out of the Aleutians. So we got to them before they got ot us. And let's hope and pray nothing like it ever happens again!!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, now, they sort of brought it on themselves, didn't they? It was they who attacked us on Decemver 7, 1941. ...

Apparently reading comprehension seems to be an issue here, so let's try this again ......

In the Pacific, carpet bombing was used extensively against Japanese civilian population centers, such as Tokyo. On March 9 and 10 1945, B-29 Superfortresses were directed to bomb the most heavily populated civilian sectors of Tokyo. In just 2 days of bombing, over 100,000 of the population had burned to death from a heavy bombardment of incendiary bombs. Another 100,000 were left homeless. These attacks were followed by similar ones against Kobe, Osaka, and Nagoya, as well as other sectors of Tokyo, where over 9,373 tons of incendiary bombs were dropped on civilian and military targets. By the time of the dropping of the atomic bombs, light and medium bombers were being directed to bomb targets of convenience, as most urban areas had been already destroyed. In the 9-month long civilian bombing campaign, over 580,000 Japanese civilians died.

[wiki(carpet bombing)]

Jingoistic drivel aside, how's your day going?

 

[JohnLeo]

Apparently reading comprehension seems to be an issue here, so let's try this again ......Jingoistic drivel aside, how's your day going?

You may attach pejorative labels to the truth if you want, but it still remains; the truth.

 

[Falvlun]

These things pale in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on the world by other nations in the twentieth century and before. Beside, the good that the US has done has more than atoned for it. Don't forget it was the US which rebuilt Europe after it had destroyed itself in World War II. It was our efforts through the Marshll Plan that prevented mass starvation in Europe. We could have told them to clean up their own mess. but that's not who we are. In any case, the president of the United States should not be bowing before other heads of state doing mea culpas.

My bolding.

When taking responsibility for your own mistakes, it doesn't matter that Dennis down the road has made even worse mistakes. Should Sally not apologize for tripping Johnny, simply because Suzie punched Edgar the week before?

When taking responsibility for something you have done wrong, it also doesn't matter that you have also done good things. Should James refrain from apologizing to Allie for stealing her ball because yesterday he got her kite out of the tree?

Past actions, and the actions of others, are completely irrelevant when apologizing for a particular action that you have done. You aren't apologizing for your good actions, you aren't apologizing for other people's bad actions, you are apologizing for your bad action, and that's it.

I do not understand why so many Americans are so insecure about saying "I'm sorry."

 

[Falvlun]

Actually, Falvlun, if the truth be told, if you hurt me; your apology would mean very, very little. In fact, I would think less of you than I already did as a result of your hurting me. In effect, you are telling me that on top of hurting me that you didn't really mean it. I'd be very wary around you.

Accidents happen. I may not have intended to hurt you, but through neglect, oversight, or simple bad luck, I did so. Do you never make mistakes that you later regret making? This is akin to apologizing for those wayward bombs: We did not intend to kill civilians, and we are sorry that we did.

As for nations, sometimes these apologies are for actions that occurred in the past, or under old administrations. The actions may have certainly been intentional at the time, and only now do we feel bad about out, or realize that it was morally reprehensible. I fail to see how that makes someone less trustworthy to, at some later date, become aware that his actions were not good. I don't believe our sense of morality, either as individuals or societies, do or should remain stagnate. Nor do I believe that we are perfect, always following our sense of morality.

And that works for kids because they really don't know any better, so they can be forgiven for messing up. Those who ought to know better just make themselves looking incredibly shallow. It's OK to live with shame - no one is exempt.

I fail to see how apologizing for a mistake is shallow. And no, kids aren't the only ones who should be expected to make mistakes. No one's perfect, no one has perfect control over himself, no one makes the right choice every single time.

You act as if an apology is a get-out-free card for guilt or for the results of a bad action. Perhaps it is your view of what an apology is that is shallow, because that is certainly not how I view it.

Realistically, this only makes sense if the perpetrators themselves made the vain apology - and even then it should be taken with several boxes of salt. It makes no sense coming from someone far removed from the situation.

When the president apologizes on behalf of his country, it's not about individuals, or individual perpetrators. It's about the tendencies and moral track record of a nation as a whole. People are still bitter at America- the nation- for things our countries has done. They aren't (generally) ****** at a particular president or the CIA director or the individual fighter pilot that dropped that bomb. They are ****** at America, the nation. The country has become synonymous with the perpetrator.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, however you will next to never get an apology from me, as that implies I didn't intend my actions. I am normally very careful and every action is quite deliberate. Above all else, actions speak louder than mere words, so to me, apologies are relatively meaningless.

I didn't realize I was taking with Jesus H. Christ. Forgive me. The rest of us mere mortals do make mistakes, and I'll remember my manners and apologize when I do.

 

[Falvlun]

Clinton's "Sorry" to Pakistan Ends Barrier to NATO

WASHINGTON — Pakistan told the United States that it would reopen NATO’s supply routes into neighboring Afghanistan after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was sorry for the deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers in American airstrikes in November, officials from the two countries said Tuesday.

The agreement ended a bitter seven-month stalemate that threatened to jeopardize counterterrorism cooperation, complicated the American troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and cost the United States more than $1 billion in extra shipping fees as a result of having to use an alternative route through Central Asia.

So much for apologies being "relatively meaningless".

 

[Poisonshady313]

And mandating that individuals must contract with private businesses or face financial penalties sounds rather un-lefty to me. The real left approach would be government control of the whole healthcare system. The centrist approach would be something like government-provided health insurance with private entities delivering the care. This approach is something else: it's not really "left", since it throws a major bone to business when the government doing it directly would probably be better in all sorts of ways, and it's not really "right", since it imposes a costly duty on individuals.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because it's not "right" doesn't make it "left", because it's not really "left" either.


I suppose. As for comparisons with Bush, though... while I agree that Obama doesn't come out smelling like a rose on many issues, but is it more anti-freedom to merely extend thing like the GITMO prison and the Patriot Act than it was to implement these things in the first place?

If we're going to compare Obama's trajectory with Bush's, then I think it's worth pointing out that Obama didn't continue Bush's trend of creating new, horrible impositions on freedom. As much as you may dislike the healthcare bill, it's no Patriot Act. Trampling habeas corpus is a much bigger threat to freedom than trying to push you into a purchase that's a mind-numbingly good idea anyhow.

Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012? There were demonstrations in the streets and an outpouring of outrage online about how it demolished the bill of rights, abolished habeas corpus, took away our due process, etc.

The original draft of the bill included language to prohibit the indefinite detention of US citizens as enemy combatants, and Obama threatened to veto the bill unless they changed it so that the power to detain US citizens indefinitely wouldn't be taken away from him.

One could argue whether or not the military's power to detain US citizens is new, and whether or not this bill actually does have any impact on due process and habeas corpus... but all the big noise coming from wired magazine, huffington post, glenn greenwald, alex jones, Ron Paul (and a small handful of other congressmen and senators) points towards this being worse than the Patriot Act. And thousands of people marching in the streets, most of whom probably voted for Obama, spent a whole day screaming at the top of their lungs that Obama signing this thing was treasonous.

 

[Poisonshady313]

- He worked to get America out of two major wars.

Let's not give credit where it isn't due. The fact that the troops came back from Iraq under Obama's watch is actually Bush's doing.

Iraq and U.S. agree that all U.S. forces will withdraw "no later than December 31, 2011."

On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009." [U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, 11/17/08]

Memo to media: Bush set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq | Research | Media Matters for America

Meanwhile, if Obama had his way, we'd still have troops in Iraq.

President Obama’s speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren’t being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They’re leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay. Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it.

U.S. Troop Withdrawal Motivated by Iraqi Insistence, Not U.S. Choice - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com

 

[Falvlun]

Sweden and Denmark are somewhat less socialist than they used to be. They had to back off to avoid economic ruin. Also Sweden and Denmark can afford their socialist programs better than we can since they don't have our huge defence budget. It falls to us not them to be the world's policeman.

So, why don't we just slash our defense budget?

And speaking of Sweden and Denmark, when is the last time you heard of a major scientific discovery or technological advancement coming from those countries or any other country in Europe? The fact is socialism discourages innovation and advancement. Since Europe embraced socialism, the centers of science and technology moved to Asia and the U.S.

I suppose that means you have completely missed the existence of CERN, and the large hadron collider that just proved the existence of the Higgs Boson?

Perhaps you also missed that America is completely reliant upon Russia to get our astronauts into space.

Sure, America remains at the forefront of a lot of tech and science innovation, but I highly doubt that has anything to do with the fact that our ratio of capitalism to socialism leans slightly more in favor of capitalism than that of European countries. Any actual evidence for that conservative propaganda?

As for public education and roads. these were just fine so long as they were the responsibility of local governments. Since the federal government became involved, these things have been a mess.Medicare and food stamps are rife with corruption and fraud and headed for bankruptcy.

The federal government has been involved in public education since 1785. As for roads, how do you know this? Also, is it okay for local governments to be socialistic but not our federal government? Why? What's the difference?

Medicare and welfare do need to be reformed, but that's a whole nother can of worms. The point is that they exist, and we as Americans do feel them to be necessary & useful institutions.

Yes, the economy does tend to do better during Democrat administrations. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that major wars tend to be going on during Democrat administrations and war, as we all know, is good for the economy.

More frequent than republican presidencies? It seems to be split rather evenly to me. Both Bushes had wars/military involvements, as did Reagan.

Except for the current Democrat administration which has dismal economic numbers which just go on and on and on...........

Dismal numbers? You mean, the numbers that keep going up from the rock bottom of 2008, early 2009? What do you expect, a magician? If you start with no cookies, and decide to change bakers, is it reasonable to expect the new baker to create 500,000 cookies instantaneously even though the oven's still broke and you're low on sugar? What if the baker manages to make 3,000 cookies? Sure it's not as many cookies as you want, but it's a heck of a lot more than 0, and certainly took some ingenuity seeing as the entire world's economy is still in meltdown mode.

oh but of course that's the fault of those "wascally Wepublicans" in the Congress who block and obstruct all of Mr. Obama's wonderful plans!!

Do you deny that that is precisely what the Republicans have been doing? The numbers support that this Republican congress has been more obstructionist than any previous, and they have admitted that their goal is to make Obama a 1 term president. Sorry, I wish I were making this stuff up.

Why, if only we just raised taxes enough on rich folks, the deficit would disappear, unemployment would go down, prosperity would return and happy days are here again!!! At least that's what Obama thinks. What Obama fails to realize is that there aren't that many rich folks around. If the tax rate on everyone earning more than $250,000 a year was raised to 90%, the deficit would go down about one-third. That's assuming there would be no negative impact which there surely would be.

Nope, wrong again. Obama wants to combine tax raises (on the rich) with budget cuts and tax decreases (for the middle class). A bit more nuanced, balanced approach. Also, a bit more reasonable than the frothing-at-the-mouth knee jerk response that states that taxes can't be raised ever, but then whines that we have a deficit.

Our taxes are at the lowest rate in decades. So, according to your philosophy, shouldn't business be booming? In contrast, the economy was booming under Clinton, and yet taxes were higher. Perhaps, just maybe, raising taxes don't have as much of an impact as the Republicans would have us believe?

Sadly, Mr. Obama clings to the mistaken notion that the State creates jobs, wealth and prosperity. In fact the State can create none of these things; only the private sector can.

I would think all those workers who built the Hoover Dam would disagree. I also think every military contractor would also beg to differ.

Punishing and penalizing success leads not to prosperity but to ruin. But hey, don't take my word for it!! The idea of confiscating the wealth of rich folks became popular during the Civil War but Abraham Lincoln would have none of it. He said this in 1864:
"That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence
is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is house-
less pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently and build
one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from
violence when built."

Sorry, quotes don't do much for me: Show me numbers. Did the higher tax rates of America past destroy our industriousness? Hardly.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm just wasting my time talking with someone who sees big governemnt as the answer to all our problems and fails to raelize that a government powerful enough to give us everything we want, is powerful enough to take away everything we have.

Slippery slope fear mongering, with a dash of strawman to taste.

 

[Sunstone]

I do not understand why so many Americans are so insecure about saying "I'm sorry."

Bad parents?

 

[YmirGF]

Clinton's "Sorry" to Pakistan Ends Barrier to NATO



So much for apologies being "relatively meaningless".

I guess that partially mitigates some of the money the same administration has ****** away on ill-conceived "green" initiatives. Solyndria et all? Whew, that Barack is such a wise spend-thrift. I wonder if he will apologize for bungling the economy so badly?

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess that partially mitigates some of the money the same administration has ****** away on ill-conceived "green" initiatives. Solyndria et all? Whew, that Barack is such a wise spend-thrift. I wonder if he will apologize for bungling the economy so badly?

Admit that crony capitalism is the wrong policy? No way!
He'll always blame the other side of the aisle.
That's my prediction.

 

[Falvlun]

I guess that partially mitigates some of the money the same administration has ****** away on ill-conceived "green" initiatives. Solyndria et all? Whew, that Barack is such a wise spend-thrift. I wonder if he will apologize for bungling the economy so badly?

Oh, so you do like apologies now.