Comments about ‘Romney says he still expects to be GOP nominee’

Solyndra, stimulus, keystone, assault on religion, auto plants built in other countries, billions to Brazil, calling us a non Christian nation, lavish vacations, additional five trillion dollar debt, etc.

Why would the next election even be close?

'Romney says he still expects to be GOP nominee' - title

Just like in 2008.

Pagan,

People don't have common sense when voting in leaders. Why do we have a sixteen trillion dollar debt and high unemployment? There is no reason for that, other than corruption. BO will likely win the next election and history will repeat itself.

'Why do we have a sixteen trillion dollar debt and high unemployment? There is no reason for that, other than corruption. BO will likely win the next election and history will repeat itself.' - worf | 11:43 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012

**'Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill' - AP - Published by Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08

Worf, I cannot see how you can claim history will 'repeat itself' when...

1) A side by side comparison of Democrat vs. Republican inflation of the debt, while constant...

DOUBLED under George W. Bush's two terms.

Has Obama added to the debt? Sure.

Has he DOUBLED it?

No.

Regan, TRIPLED the natioanl debt.

Has Obama done that?

No.

Is Osama Bin Laden still alive to threaten American?

No.

Are we still at war, with Iraq?

**'Obama marks Iraq wars end with salute to troops' - by Erica Werner - AP - Published by DSNews - 12/14/11

So what 'repeats' are you talking about?

Abstract threats are nice. I guess. If you have nothing to offer.

But false, when presented with reality.

Pagan!

It's not Republicans vs, Democrats. Why do you think that? A sixteen trillion debt came from corruption on both sides.

We the people have low expectations when voting in leaders. Character doesn't seem to matter. We excuse adultery, lying, excessive spending, lavish vacations, treasonous decisions, etc.

There are absolutely no reason for excessive debt, poor economy, or high unemployment. None. This is the result of both Democrats and Republicans.

Unless we the people demand better, history will repeat itself, and we'll lose our independence and freedoms. That's how people have lived for most of world history.

'Unless we the people demand better, history will repeat itself, and we'll lose our independence and freedoms. That's how people have lived for most of world history.' - worf | 1:16 p.m. Feb. 8, 2012

Ok. So, let's pretend your not partisan when you criticize Obama taking vacation.

So, side by side, I hope we agree, both sides have continually added to the national debt.

Right?

So, at this point, it's a question of how MUCH debt, is added.

My point, which you ignored, is that the Republican party has factauly adds MORE debt, than Democrats.

Again, to support this I point to W. Bush doubling the debt, and Regan tripling the national debt.

So, if your argument is ONLY about debt, you would still want to vote Democrat until a better option, is viable.

And last, let's not talk about 'lavish vacations'...when 1) Bush took 1020 vacation days (that's almost x3 years) and...

**'Greer, Crist & wives spent party dollars to party' - By Brent Kallestad - AP - Published by DSNews - 09/17/10

"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Gov. Charlie Crist and the disgraced former chairman of the Florida Republican Party took family vacations on party money...' - article

Obama doubled it Pagan, no use trying to say otherwise when you can easily look that up, even with projections, it is only 2 trillion away and will happen, he justifies adding debt hook, line, and sinker. I criticized Bush for it, and I would be a hypocrite to deny it is still happening. No one also inherits deficits, deficits are decisions, and it's funny how individual deficits basically were over anything during the Bush years with both Congress and the White House in Democrat hands, well, that's funny considering the "financial values" Democrats always like to claim.

As for Romney, he's better than the other GOP candidates in still keeping cool, unlike Gingrich who literally lets it all go to his head, or blames everyone but himself for everything he does or says. Romney plays liek a good sport. Don't agree with him or like him, but I have no problem with being honest with my observations.

Oh oh. Don't look now Mitt. You, like the constitution are hanging by a thread.

'Obama doubled it Pagan, no use trying to say otherwise when you can easily look that up, even with projections...' - morpheus2009 | 1:27 p.m. Feb. 8, 2012

2 things:

1) If this was SO easy to look up...

you should have been able to defend it.

2) How is a 'projection'...a fact?? How is that some quantifiable and something that should be PUNISHED??

Answer, it is not.

Obama has NOT doubled the national debt!

Bush, has.

**'Eight years in office, a $10.6 trillion debt' - By David M. Dickson - December 15, 2008 - Washington Times

'President Bush has nearly doubled the national debt during his eight years in the White House.' - article


But there is no use to argue with people...

who MAKE UP, their own facts.

I have real second thought's now seeing Nov. 2012 is a long way off. Mitt Romney says it's been a good night for Rick Santorum, but that he still expects to become the Republican nominee for president, like our Republican Florida Senate wants schooner as official state ship to.

Pagan,

"And last, let's not talk about 'lavish vacations'...when 1) Bush took 1020 vacation days (that's almost x3 years)."

How many vacation days for Bush, Reagan, Ford, Clinton, Lincoln, Washington, has nothing to do with Obama. Obama says sacrifice and tighten your belts, than spends millions of our dollars for vacations. This is an indication of his character. Also, his contributors from Solyndra, also received millions of our dollars.

Pagan,

"2) How is a 'projection'...a fact?? How is that some quantifiable and something that should be PUNISHED??

Answer, it is not"

Wrong, a projection is based on facts, the question is knowing what the facts and assumptions that base it on are. It is true that it is conditional, however, a few words on what the projection of 22 trillion by 2016 is based on: Department of the Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office base their projections on. The assumptions are that we are withdrawn our troops from Afghanistan by 2013, as well as the aging and low-wage demographic accounted for in their respective benefits, including medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits, as well as a reduction in discretionary spending of about 20%. How do you expect the trend to be reversed? It's not likely. I hope for it, and I will appeal for it, but it is not likely considering the factors.

As for making up facts, you are perfectly omitting facts and expecting me to take a blind eye to them. Ronald Reagan had a Democrat Majority in House and Senate complicit with his deficit spending, and of whom were constitutionally responsible in either voting for or against a great deal of his budget.

"But there is no use to argue with people...

who MAKE UP, their own facts."

Again, you clearly omitted constitutional facts about what happened during the Reagan Years in Congress (Democratic Senate and House were complicit to Reagan's deficit spending), and what Worf was addressing to a degree. People figuring projections are never fact also have a hard time making their case regarding issues such as economics and climate change, why? Because they usually fail to consider debating the projection and it's built-in facts and assumptions upon which it is constructed. A great deal of what goes on isn't fact, but most of what isn't solid usually is constructed or based on composite facts and assumptions.

Again, it's not the most impressive tactic to generalize your opponent, or try assuming what they think.

As for me, I will oppose and try to do my part in also trying to get my Congressmen/COngresswomen vetted and adjusted if needs be, I do care about the national debt to an extent, and I do hope that we find ways to reduce the parts of the budget that could bring to pass the 22 trillion national debt.

Pagan,

I can't believe you are pulling out the "doubling" AGAIN! How many times do we have to tell you that 6 trillion in 3 years is MUCH MORE than 5 trillion in 8 years? How many?

Let's do this again (until next month when you bring it up again). With Obama having added 6 trillion dollars of debt in 3 years, that averages out to be 2 trillion per year. Bush added 5 trillion in 8 years, which averages to .625 trillion per year.

Tell me, Pagan, which is greater: 5 trillion or 6 trillion? Under your logic, 5 trillion is greater because it doubled from 5 to 10. If that's true, then I made more money than Romney last week because the $75 I made increased my cash value from $300 to $375 (a 25% increase), while Romney didn't increase his wealth by 25% last week (these aren't my actual wealth; they're just made up with realistic values to prove a point).

6 trillion is more than 5 trillion, in case you didn't know. In addition, since it was done in little over a third the same time frame, it is even more. Obama is adding debt at a rate of 2 trillion per year, so when compared to Bush's .625 trillion per year, we see that Obama is adding debt at a rate MORE THAN TRIPLE that of Bush's (I know you like your percentages, so there's one for you).

See you again next month to give you the exact same math lesson, Pagan. I can see why you copy and paste headlines-- the alternative is much worse for you.

Worf, you first comments are factually sort of all over the place. Stimulas for example was not an Obama program. Neither have Billions been sent to Brazil. Obamas haven't taken any more lavish vacations than any previous administration, etc.

That said, your second comments are spot on, depending on how you define corruption.

Your later comments on Solyndea are just really off base. One company. A single company. Romney had over 30. And about where the money ended up, do we really need to revisit Reagan and Iran-Contra? Are you saying investing in an American company is more evil then funneling money through drug runners to Iran? Really?