Anaphylaxis. That is why I stayed away this week.
OK, I took a little Benadryl and read this part of Romney’s speech (actually watching it might have sent me to the ER).
This President can ask us to be patient. This President can tell us it was someone else’s fault. This President can tell us that the next four years he’ll get it right. But this President cannot tell us that you are better off today than when he took office. America has been patient. Americans have supported this President in good faith. But today, the time has come to turn the page.
Let’s see. In 2008, I was laid off. Thank God I found a job two weeks later. It took a coworker, who was laid off a year after I was, TWO YEARS to find a new job. But he did. That’s two people who are doing better today than when Obama took office.
Yes, I know. Tell that to the millions unemployed. And the economy is still sucks But it’s getting better. Maybe at a snail’s pace, but it is. Here in the Silicon Valley, things are getting much better. I think it will continue to improve. I know that sounds like a roses and cupcakes prediction, but I believe it. And I don’t think we have to slice and dice Medicare and Social Security to get there.
Psst Obama. I can help you find some money. All that money going to Iraq and Afghanistan, aid to countries, and our “frienemies” like Pakistan to “help” us? Great place to start looking.
Anyway, for you Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Partiers, I get it. It’s your Superbowl. Yay Romney/Ryan! Boo Obama/Biden!
The same thing will happen at the DNC only in reverse. Yay Obama/Biden! Boo Romney/Ryan! Thing is, because I’m Liberal, I’d rather watch our Superbowl. Instead of watching both (which I would usually do), I decided to just watch my team. I didn’t want to add to my irritation, considering all the annoying crap that is going on with the fender bender I was in a couple weeks ago.
The insurance company is trying to find their insured (who caused the accident) while simultaneously denying my claim. Because they supposedly fell off the face of the planet, they can’t prove their insured was involved in the accident. Um, really? The $5500 in damage to my car, their crunchy wheel, and pearl white paint on their brown pickup proves nothing?
Message to the “Gecko” blowhards: I sent you the pictures. You might want to call the number on the truck that hit me. It’s the phone number to their business. This may be a huge leap of faith, but you will probably find them there.
Bright spot: I got Shelley, my Solara, back from the shop. Even though it took two weeks, she’s looking great! YAY!!
Spinny Liberal 
August 30th, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Matters of circumstance for two people is not exactly a good representative sample.
Anyways…
Liberal-Progressives are so discredited now days, I feel exceptionally good about this election. Your guy’s tactics have been, simply, despicable. The GOP does not hate women, and the majority of Americans know that. The Sandra Fluke debacle didn’t harm Republicans – or Romney in particular – and Rep. Aiken’s remarks hasn’t seemed to either.
Why? Because this is America. This isn’t Eastern Europe. The only lofty notions Joe-Voter cares about touches lightly on American exceptionalism/patriotism, while the rest focuses on the self. People are selfish. They want to know what John-Politician will do for them and their situation. The election of Barack Obama turned out to be a big flop; most people are absolutely not better today than they were four-years ago. That will probably cost Obama his job.
Like it or not, that’s the reality of America. So you lefties keep talking about equality, etc, etc, etc… – ad nauseam. That’s fine with me, because if you do, you’ll lose 9 out of 10 times.
August 30th, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Of course “two” isn’t a representative sample. Just sharing a couple ounces of optimism.
As far as the rest of your reply…it’s typical Terrance. That’s definitely not a bad thing because I do admire your passion. 🙂
August 31st, 2012 at 12:13 AM
Spinny,
I don’t understand the point of your example[s]. For two people, yes, things are going better – in at least one arena (job market). I’ve been getting laid much more since Obama has been elected, so I guess that means I should vote for him — right?
The economy is worse today than when Obama took office; there are more people out of work; gas prices are higher; food prices are higher; utility prices are higher; and America has an apologist for a president.
So while you say typical Terrance, I ask why you plan to vote for Obama again…
August 31st, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Nope. You vote for whoever you want.
Two-party system. These are the choices I’ve been given. First, I can not stand the thought of the alternative. And, second, I like the guy – at a basic level. It has nothing to do with his record, and the fact that he should have borrowed Nancy Pelosi’s balls from the get go. I just like him.
So for me, it’s as simple as that.
August 31st, 2012 at 8:27 AM
Terrance, these are just unfounded right wing talking points you’re throwing out there. Besides lowering taxes even further, especially for the richest 2% and eliminating more regulations on businesses, what exactly is it, as you see, that Romney will do different to create jobs.
Taxes are lower now than they have been in over 30 years, thanks in part to some of the actions Obama has taken.
And though it can be argued that Obama has approved more regulations than his predecessor, it was perhaps necessary to restore many regulations eliminated by GOP majorities that were designed to protect consumers – like the Glass-Steagall act. On top of that, there have been financial benefits to millions of Americans that have resulted from the regulations “like savings on gas due to new fuel efficiency standards or health care savings due to decreased incidents of illness from pollution regulations. OIRA puts a value on those benefits as well.
According to OIRA estimates (Figure 2-1), the benefits of Obama’s regulations far outweigh the costs, and the net benefits far surpass the net benefits from Bush’s regulations. From the start of Obama’s presidency to Sept. 30, 2011, the net benefit of Obama’s regulations was estimated at $91 billion. As Cass Sunstein, OIRA administrator, noted in a speech on May 12, that’s over 25 times more than the net benefit ($3.4 billion) during a similar time period at the start of Bush’s presidency.” SOURCE
August 31st, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Larry,
No, they are not “unfounded,” no matter how much you want them to be.
Romney will bring a measure of certainty to the business world. It’s simple common sense that businesses do not trust President Obama. In fact, the CEO of 3M accused Obama of being anti-business, and threatened to move his company out of the country in order to “do business where it’s good and friendly.
Now I know the typical liberal tactic of bashing business for this or that, but the reality is that businesses create jobs – not central planners like Obama. America should be friendly to business, and Romney will be.
Much of that has to do with the Bush tax cuts – and you damn well know it. But are you forgetting that Obama and the Democrats threatened to allow those cuts to expire for all earners if Republicans did not agree to raise taxes on rich folks?
Lastly, are you taking into consideration all the costs of ObamaCare? No, you’re not.
Yes, Larry. Please argue how much money Obama has saved the American people on….gasoline. Get real. Those regulations end up costing more money in the longrun because businesses shift the cost – and you damn well know it.
Food prices are higher; energy prices are higher; gas prices are higher; healthcare is higher. Everything is higher today than when Obama took office – and that’s a fact.
Benefit for who, Larry? Big Government? Yes.
Next…
August 31st, 2012 at 5:43 PM
So, Spinny, you just fawn over Obama and that’s why you’re voting for him?
If being a Cool Cat is all it takes to be president, I know some pimps in the ghetto ready to take office…..
August 31st, 2012 at 8:32 PM
Actually, Huggy Bear was pretty smooth. 🙂
Fawning over him is a bit much. I like him, and I don’t like the alternative. Not a tough choice for me, T.
August 31st, 2012 at 12:29 AM
See, people always do that – blame the current leadership for the current economy when the current economy is generally the result of previous leadership. These things don’t change over night. Fixing anything is a long game and four years will never be enough to do it, especially when a significant part of that four years is spent trying to please enough people to get elected again rather than doing the fixing.
August 31st, 2012 at 8:29 PM
That’s an awesome point. I think he did try to please too much, though.
September 1st, 2012 at 7:42 AM
Agreed. His was a weird ascendancy though. He was never going to live up to people’s hopes of being some kind of demigod who’d bring in some kind of golden age, but I think he might have bought into his own hype and tried. And he tried by trying to please everyone. Which, when you have as polar a system as the US does, is a losing cause, and which I think has also just proven to be a waste of time that could have been better spent. I do still prefer him to the other guy though. I really hope he gets in again.
On the upside if he doesn’t, at least your two parties are balanced enough that it’s always going to swing back and forth between them. Our situation up here is significantly more dire. We have a majority conservative government willing to sell our souls for “the good of the economy” and who got into power by uniting all of the right side parties. The left side still splits the vote between four. I fear we might be stuck with this leadership for the rest of my life.
September 8th, 2012 at 1:50 AM
In 2008, he definitely was on the demigod list. Thank God my “Party Like a Barack Star” tattoo was henna. 😉
I’m not at all educated about the Canadian government – so there are four parties that are Left? How many are Right? That would get confusing, but at least you have more choices. I wish you luck with that Conservative government. I hope they don’t take away that healthcare system a lot of us here covet.
September 8th, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Aah! I just wrote a gigantic response to this and it disappeared!
We have one Right party, the Conservatives (centre-right, lefter than your Republicans), who have united the vote. On the left, from right to left we have Liberals (centre-left, but lefter than your Democrats), Bloc Quebecois (fairly left, but separatist. only popular in Quebec, but powerful because of large Quebec population), NDP (quite left, the official opposition – I don’t think the US has an equivalent), and Greens (not powerful, but emotionally popular. A lot of people like them but don’t vote for them because it feels a bit like a throw-away vote.)
Our health care is managed provincially, not federally. People like it too much to lose it altogether, but what some try to do is introduce private options for a cost. These keep going to courts as unconstitutional for the obvious reason that they create a two-tiered system where people with money can get faster or better care.
September 11th, 2012 at 8:44 PM
Oh man. I can see why they would lose – fractured vs. whole. If they could stand together, they’d have a better shot.
I’m glad it isn’t in jeopardy. That two-tiered system would suck, but there are plenty here who would be happy with any kind of care.
August 31st, 2012 at 6:35 AM
Thanx for the update… I regret that Isaac kept me from watching….I am looking a speeches and such on youtube and will offer my take tomorrow….
August 31st, 2012 at 8:29 PM
Interesting that the Hurricane might have been good for something.
August 31st, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Sheryl,
I seem to be unable to get my response posted to Terrance’s last comments aimed at me. Is there something broke at your end? Do I need to try again?
Thanks
August 31st, 2012 at 9:57 PM
I’m not sure. The hierarchy gets confusing. Maybe you can try again? I don’t know if I can move it around.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:04 PM
It’s quite lengthy with multiple links so I will try to post it in two parts.
September 1st, 2012 at 5:37 AM
For Terrance – Part I
”In fact, the CEO of 3M accused Obama of being anti-business”
Really! Based on what?
If Obama were truly anti-business, “and if the economy’s woes were really the result of heavy-handed government regulation, then we should be able to trace the cause of the financial crisis and the subsequent recession to a spike in regulatory activity. The opposite is true. Prior to the crash, regulatory supervision had been lax and it has been widely recognized that agencies like the SEC and the Federal Reserve were asleep at the wheel even as we saw unprecedented increases in speculation and outright fraud.
In other areas, the BP oil spill was an example of an accident caused by lax enforcement of oil industry mandated safeguards.
These events make it hard to argue that regulatory excess was the cause of the current economic malaise or a factor contributing to the ongoing weakness in economic growth and job creation.
The anti-business claim is even odder when viewed against the backdrop of record corporate profits. That’s right. Corporate profits have never been higher. One would assume that a strict, anti-business regime would result in weaker profit growth as opposed to the corporate bounty we are currently seeing. Moreover, Obama’s term stands in stark contrast to other presidents’ terms in the post-WWII period. That’s because corporate profit growth when measured as a percent of GDP never expanded faster than in the three years that Obama has been in office.” SOURCE
This is simply a juiced up charge by corporate conservatives who are of the belief that a totally unfettered market, with NO government intervention, would serve as a rising tide that lifts all boats. The severe income gap in this country shows that this is simply not true. I noticed that from the original article that this comes from that Mr. Buckley gave no specifics of such anti-business tactics affecting 3M other than immigration laws that were in play long before Obama came into office.
Conclusion: The 3M CEO is just blowing smoke to find ways to increase profits while shafting workers. Besides the guy is a Brit and has no loyalties to the U.S. He’s a globalists that would just as soon move any of his operations to the cheapest labor markets around the globe for reasons that have nothing to with what he claims are over-burdening regulations
”Much of that has to do with the Bush tax cuts – and you damn well know it.”
Settle down sparky. I wouldn’t disagree with this at all. But it has nothing really to do with my point and in fact illustrates that even when taxes were low under Bush, (though not as low as under Obama) there was no complaint from Morgan then how this negatively impacting business
”But are you forgetting that Obama and the Democrats threatened to allow those cuts to expire for all earners if Republicans did not agree to raise taxes on rich folks? “
I think you are misinterpreting all of this. The reality is that Republicans are refusing to allow ANYONE to keep their tax cuts under Bush if their rich buddies don’t get one. They may want to argue that this revenue would help businesses create more jobs but we know that is bunk because as I pointed out above, corporate America is already making record profits and job growth remains slow. Besides, why not allow the Bush tax cuts to end for now only with the 98% and deal with the other 2% when the economy has improved. I believe this is all Obama was asking for, yet the Republicans refuse to compromise on this.
September 1st, 2012 at 6:54 AM
Still having problems getting part II in for Terrance but I’ll keep trying. At least this will allow him to gather his thoughts and not be overwhelmed by it all.
September 1st, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Larry,
I wouldn’t worry about overwhelming me. Obama has a record of failure – and nothing more. For crying out loud, look around!
September 1st, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Terrance,
when are you going to come to terms with 1) not everyone sees the world through your eyes and 2) you’re ideological slant on the world is not always right?
If you want to make a charge about Obama that you feel deserves discussion, put it out there and support it with the available facts. Making such hair-on-fire comments like “For crying out loud, look around” isn’t going to cut it with me and makes me think you are guilty yourself of not looking around.
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:24 AM
And I’m still waiting on that link-ridden post that is supposed to, magically, support your liberal view of the world.
And you need to chill out, Larry. I don’t put politics over people. Yes, I’m rude at times. Yes, I get heated at times. Yes, I’m a real dick at times. But I don’t hold any of your views against you as a person, and I hope you don’t hold mine against me.
As far as our political discussion goes, yes, I think you’re wrong – and ridiculously so.
September 3rd, 2012 at 6:32 AM
Terrance,
” Yes, I’m rude at times. Yes, I get heated at times. Yes, I’m a real dick at times.”
Yes you are Terrance. This behavior is immature and diminishes your credibility and the respect of others. You need to work on this my friend, and I mean that sincerely.
” But I don’t hold any of your views against you as a person, and I hope you don’t hold mine against me.”
Of course not. Just your offensive abrasive retorts
”And I’m still waiting on that link-ridden post that is supposed to, magically, support your liberal view of the world.”
I think if you go back and calmly reread what I have written you will see it is NOT a “post that is supposed to, magically, support [my] liberal view of the world”. It is a response that challenges your over-the-top views about what you think Romney can achieve and what you think Obama has failed to do.
If you were sincerely intent on having an open, honest conversation about any of this Terrance you would respond to the specifics of my posts in a manner that reflect a consideration of other “world views”. Sadly, all I see from you anymore is a died-n-the-wool ideological bent that cherry-picks certain information and tries to pass them off as if they were the sum total of knowledge on this planet. Real dialogue is supposed proceed in a civil manner that doesn’t disparage and ridicule other people but exchanges views and ruminates over them to see if they have merit or not, giving rationale explanations if they feel they don’t.
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Larry,
Whenever you want to have a civil debate regarding Romney, let me know.
I can admit that I’m rude and “abrasive,” but can you? I specifically remember some rather rude remarks from you regarding my opinion of the Trayvon Martin tragedy, And you were removing comments from John Barron…Civil comments, mind you.
I do not have a monopoly in this area, Larry.
September 5th, 2012 at 10:42 PM
I’m sorry. The delay in publishing those posts was my fault. For some reason, I was prompted to approve them. Usually, they just go through instantly. I didn’t do so until a couple days after (didn’t check back). 😦
September 1st, 2012 at 4:00 PM
For Terrance Part II
”Lastly, are you taking into consideration all the costs of ObamaCare?”
Health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans jumped a startling 9 percent from 2010 to 2011, and Republicans have blamed the federal health care law. But they exaggerate. The law — the bulk of which has yet to be implemented — has caused only about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in premiums, according to several independent experts. The rest of the 9 percent rise is due to rising health care costs, as usual.
Furthermore, the increase caused by the law is a result of the increased benefits it requires, a factor Republicans generally ignore. SOURCE
I’d be willing to bet you know a lot less about “Obamacare” than you think you do Terrance. Here’s a 10 question quiz from the people at the Kaiser Family Foundation who studied this law in great detail. See if you can ace this the first time. I did.
Besides, even if there was no “Obamacare”, your health care costs would continue to climb in the so-called free markets. “Health care costs have been growing faster than inflation since the government began to track them in the 1960s. Between 2000 and 2009, the paper says, the average annual increase in insurance premiums was 8%, while household income rose an average of 2.1%.”SOURCE